patrick.net

zzyzzx says

So, finally, to those who claim that none of this sometimes too passionately debated discussion would have happened but for the financial crisis, sorry, but no.

If only you had the common sense and financial skills to do a realistic analysis. I question some of your assumptions. But regardless...

Here's my question to you. For a typical teacher in the middle of Massachussetts, say with 10 years in, making 55K per year. How much more does the govt (i.e. the employer) pay in to the funds (annually), than an employer paying in to social security ?

Because this is the simple and not misleading way to understand for comparative purposes, what the cost of those pensions is (not that you want to know).

If only you had the skills, and the honesty to answer that question.

zzyzzx says

http://www.educationminnesota.org/en/community/mnschools/schoolstats.aspx

Average high school class size and national ranking: 25.5 (45th)

Okay. Then use average pay, in your understanding of how teachers are compensated.

humanity says

For a typical teacher in the middle of Massachussetts, say with 10 years in, making 55K per year.

I would expect in MA that it would be higher than the 55K national average.

humanity says

How much more does the govt (i.e. the employer) pay in to the funds (annually), than an employer paying in to social security ?

Not sure, but given the usual pension underfunding it's hard to make a comparison. I.E. - the amount the taxpayers are paying into the pension fund is irrelevant when it's being underfunded (meaning the payment to the pension fund has been deferred to either future tax hikes or bankruptcy instead). I would need to know how much they should be transferring to the pension fund to make a valid comparison.

Still not a valid comparison since Social Security payouts are way less then teacher's pension benefits.

CaptainShuddup says

What do you call a rouge assassin, with remote fire power to take out a whole village with the press of a button.

I prefer blush over rouge, myself, but assassinating rouge altogether seems a little extreme. I say we focus more on those who walk around with lipstick on their teeth. Sorry Captain, I couldn't help myself :)

zzyzzx says

I would expect in MA that it would be higher than the 55K national
average.

So, you don't know if it is, or it isn't. Brilliant

zzyzzx says

Not sure, but given the usual pension underfunding it's hard to make a
comparison.

Ya doubling down on your mania? Not sure? Again, you don't know and it seems as though you have no clue whatsoever and you're OK with that position.

zzyzzx says

the amount the taxpayers are paying into the pension fund is irrelevant when
it's being underfunded (meaning the payment to the pension fund has been
deferred to either future tax hikes or bankruptcy instead).

Is (hypothetical)municipal bankruptcy even possible for Boston? LOL

Nope, but that didn't stop you from insinuating that it can.

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy
Source: Bankruptcy Bloodbath May Hit Muni Owners: Joe Mysak Bloomberg, February 10, 2010
"...States can’t enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy, and 26 of them prohibit their municipalities from filing, according to Knox and Levinson. “A municipality in those states must seek enactment of a specific statute particular to it authorizing the filing. It goes without saying that a floundering municipality faces an uphill battle in such states.”

Below is the list of 27 states.

Alaska
California (added 10/11/11 source)
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
http://www.freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Municipal_bankruptcy

upisdown says

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy

The it will be interesting to see what happens in these states when various municipalities have to do something other than declare bankruptcy. If you go back to my post where I mention this I say bankruptcy OR future tax hikes. Presumably many of these municipalities will tax themselves out of the market (and most taxpayers leave them), or find a way to change state laws to allow bankruptcy

zzyzzx says

upisdown
says

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy

The it will be interesting to see what happens in these states when various
municipalities have to do something other than declare bankruptcy. If you go
back to my post where I mention this I say bankruptcy OR future tax hikes.
Presumably many of these municipalities will tax themselves out of the market
(and most taxpayers leave them), or find a way to change state laws to allow
bankruptcy

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

The WHOLE USA gets it, right wingers hate pensions and don't pay the state's share time after time. The right wing ccronies that did get the money instead should get screwed for a change. Somebody(actually MANY people/entities) got a handout that was already obligated. It's time that shit ended.

upisdown says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

True. But you probably won't like it when they cut welfare benefits.

zzyzzx says

upisdown
says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution
funds to begin with.

True. But you probably won't like it when they cut welfare
benefits.

LOL, How'd I know you would say that or claim that's where all the money went?

I'll give you this, you right wingers are predictable if you're anything, always blaming the poor and if that's not applicable, create a boogeyman or demonize some group that you didn't like anyway.

Same ole, same ole.

zzyzzx says

Still not a valid comparison since Social Security payouts are way less then teacher's pension benefits.

I wasn't comparing the payouts. I was suggesting what is involved in understanding the actual cost (per state employee, annually) of those pensions.

If you think they are a giant rip off of the tax payers, because jeepers, they seem like so much money, and because you make your typical hand waving argument, then okay.

But if you are intellectually honest, you would do some deeper analysis. How much more are they spending per year, than if it was an employer of a typical job with social security. I think you would find out it's at MOST 5 to 8% more.

So when a teacher is making 55K, to compare it COST wise, to other jobs, it costs the employer a few thousand more. Hey, maybe even 5K more. So ?
The pay is low enough that this is not that big of a deal.

You just don't like it when some poor teacher or cop or mail man who works hard gets a decent pension. I so don't understand that mentality. You don't even understand that what you argue for is in the direction of less of a middle class, and the detraction of what makes America great.

Why shouldn't government jobs,...service jobs that is, pay decently ? Is it because then the private sector has to keep up, and everyones real pay can't drop as fast as you want it to ?

Why are you such a shill for the plutocracy ?

upisdown says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

You got it backwards. Our tax dollars have been diverted to pay the pension shortfalls instead of maintaining infrastructure and hiring teachers etc for several years now.

At least here in California, these municipal pension funds run by Calpers expect a totally unrealistic discount rate of 7.5% YOY - down from the even more unrealistic growth rate of 8.25%
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/press/pr-2012/mar/discount-rate.xml

When the Calpers pension fund can't generate that return in the stock market, the individual Cities have to make up the shortfall using our tax dollars..........or foolishly getting bonds like bankrupt cities like Detroit and Stockton.

Why should government unionized employees be GUARANTEED a risk free return on their pension funds that are invested in the stock market - when the rest of us peasants don't?

socal2 says

You got it backwards. Our tax dollars have been diverted to pay the pension
shortfalls instead of maintaining infrastructure and hiring teachers etc for
several years now.

At least here in California, these municipal pension funds run by Calpers
expect a totally unrealistic discount rate of 7.5% YOY - down from the even more
unrealistic growth rate of 8.25%
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/press/pr-2012/mar/discount-rate.xml

When the Calpers pension fund can't generate that return in the stock market,
the individual Cities have to make up the shortfall using our tax
dollars..........or foolishly getting bonds like bankrupt cities like Detroit
and Stockton.

Except that it CAN generate those kind of returns and DOES, as I've showed in the post about that to that lyin sack of shit that goes by spyda_hh.

Fail, but please try again.

upisdown says

Except that it CAN generate those kind of returns and DOES, as I've showed in the post

Please, provide a link to that post. If government officials have found a way to guarantee 7.5% YOY returns, and really deliver them going forward, they deserve election to whatever office they want. The people should be allowed to invest alongside at that rate, since after all it's the people who are on the hook for the guaranteed liabilities predicated on that rate.

curious2 says

Please, provide a link to that post. If government officials have found a way
to guarantee 7.5% YOY returns, and really deliver them going forward, they
deserve election to whatever office they want. The people should be allowed to
invest alongside at that rate, since after all it's the people who are on the
hook for the guaranteed liabilities predicated on that rate.

It's under an OP about California pensions, and there's a post of mine that has a link to CALPERS, but you could just go direct to the CALPERS site and find as easily as what I did, it may take a couple of minutes, but it's rather easy to find.

BTW, they(CALPERS)never guaranteed anything, they have projections for returns and they have beat their OWN projections, and there's no specific or set in stone return % because the parameters change constantly in regards to paying members, non-paying members, and annuitants(those receiving payments).

upisdown says

they(CALPERS)never guaranteed anything, they have projections for returns and they have beat their OWN projections, and there's no specific or set in stone return %

Exactly. The state has guaranteed the payments, but the vehicle that the state uses to finance those payments cannot guarantee sufficient returns to meet those obligations. We hope for 7.5% returns because that's what we need, but nobody can guarantee that kind of return. As for recent results, those returns reflect the temporary effects of boomers being in their peak earnings years and saving for retirement, plus Fed QE and ZIRP, combining to produce an asset bubble disconnected from the real economy. Past performance is never a guarantee of future results, especially after a year when S&P500 returned over 30% gains. This little exchange is off topic anyway, but I was hoping you had stumbled upon something worthwhile since you claimed to have posted it; that hope was obviously in vain.

curious2 says

The state has guaranteed the payments, but the vehicle that the state uses to
finance those payments cannot guarantee sufficient returns to meet those
obligations. We hope for 7.5% returns because that's what we need, but nobody
can guarantee that kind of return.

True, the state must guarantee the payment, but the fund(CALPERS) never once guaranteed any % return, nor could they. They must provide the annuity payments and that could be considered a guarantee, but you making the presumption that they must get X% return is ludicrous, because the the metrics change constantly.

The rest of your post is useless and irrelevant nonsense that's been thrown around so much, it's value(which was and is, nil)along with it's value of fear, is also nil.

curious2 says

This little exchange is off topic anyway, but I was hoping you had stumbled
upon something worthwhile since you claimed to have posted it; that hope was
obviously in vain.

I told you where the info is, and your attempt at guilt won't change where that info is located, so stop being so lazy and go look for yourself, maybe you'll learn something in the process, although it's doubtful(which......you looking, or learning?).

Dan8267 says

And once again, if you're bitching and moaning about Teacher's unions, the
answer is the same. Overturn Citizen's United. End all PACs and SuperPACs.
Publicly finance all elections with equal media time for all candidates. Outlaw
selling political ads.

More blathering about CU... I gave you the link to the actual decision. Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

BTW, do you think that an atheist organization that publishes clearly identifying information or ads against a named religious candidate within 60 days of an election should be guilty of a crime for doing so? Or would this be the carve-out/exception in your world of tight government control of political speech?

humanity says

Why are you such a shill for the plutocracy ?

Why are you such a shill for the teacher's union?

The Teacher's union is doing the exact same thing that the steelworker's unions did in the past - like padding the payrolls with excessive numbers of teachers since it means more union members and more dues. The result will be the same too,.

Paralithodes says

Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Or (d) I thought of something else that you didn't because I think more clearly.

These are the reforms I would implement.
1. Outlaw campaign contributions.
2. Publically finance campaigns giving equal ad time, side by side, for all candidates.
3. No organization gets to spend any money on campaign ads.
4. Individuals can post whatever the fuck they want on the Internet and can campaign for candidates with their own time and bodies, but they cannot get paid directly or indirectly for doing so.
5. But no organization with a tax ID can do this, including non-profits. Freedom of speech is for the individual, not made up entities like corporations and PACs, and freedom of speech is about speech, not money. The law restricts the flow of money in campaigns, not the flow of speech.

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

You need to be specific and clear about what claim you are asking me to verify or contradict. Your writings are often not clear. In this case, I have no idea what claim you are making. The statement "Citizen's Unit was correct." is a meaningless statement to me as it is a statement about the correctness of a court opinion. Opinions, by definition, are neither correct nor incorrect.

Please be specific and succinct like this:
Claim: Oysters are never purple.

Do that and then I'll address any claim you make. I don't try to "read between the lines" to decipher what people mean.

Paralithodes says

BTW, do you think that an atheist organization that publishes clearly identifying information or ads against a named religious candidate within 60 days of an election should be guilty of a crime for doing so? Or would this be the carve-out/exception in your world of tight government control of political speech?

I'm a liberal. Liberals, by definition, believe in equality under law for all. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of liberalism; and it's the reason conservatives hate liberals.

So no, I would not make an exception for any organizations, atheist or otherwise. I would apply the same campaign rules I listed above. Individuals can say whatever they want. Organizations don't get to because

1. Rights are held by persons, not organizations. (Yes, that's my philosophy and a whole different philosophical debate we can have. Spawn a thread if you want to do so.)
2. Organizations by their very nature must use money to act on anything. And it is money, not speech, that we are restricting. In fact, the money is restricted because that is the only way to protect speech.

As to what punishments for violating campaign law should be, that's something I haven't specified, and I'm quite open on the subject.

Michelle Obama insults young people:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-young-people-are-knuckleheads-which-why-they-need-obamacare_782766.html

zzyzzx says

Michelle Obama insults young people:

The GOP insults the intelligence of the country.

edvard2 says

The GOP insults the intelligence of the country.

Obama insults the intelligence of all taxpayers.

zzyzzx says

Obama insults the intelligence of all taxpayers.

No, its more that Obama challenges the intelligence of the far right.

upisdown says

True, the state must guarantee the payment, but the fund(CALPERS) never once guaranteed any % return, nor could they. They must provide the annuity payments and that could be considered a guarantee, but you making the presumption that they must get X% return is ludicrous, because the the metrics change constantly.

You are totally dodging the main point.

- Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees retirement investments? Why do government employees get to live in a risk free world in terms of their retirement accounts on the backs of tax payers?

Cities like Stockton, San Bernardino, Vallejo, Detroit......are going bankrupt precisely due to the fact that they are having to spend more and more of their operating funds which should be used to maintain infrastructure and schools to pay CALPERS shortfall.

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as well as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the country, is artificially high. Some economists suggest that pension funds, including Calpers, should be using a lower rate to reflect risk-free investments such as the yields paid by U.S. Treasury bonds.

When a pension fund's returns do not meet its projected rate, a shortfall is created. The costs are generally passed onto member cities. This month Calpers' board approved accounting changes requiring state agencies, cities and counties to pay rate hikes of up to 50 percent to cover the fund's shortfall over 30 years."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/us-usa-municipalities-jose-idUSBRE93O15O20130425

socal2 says

You are totally dodging the main point.

And you don't have one.

socal2 says

Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees
retirement investments?

Prove it, if you could, but of course you cannot.

socal2 says

Why do government employees get to live in a risk free world in terms of their
retirement accounts on the backs of tax payers?

Why do you and your echo chamber of idiots, constantly make baseless claims?

socal2 says

Cities like Stockton, San Bernardino, Vallejo, Detroit......are going
bankrupt precisely due to the fact that they are having to spend more and more
of their operating funds which should be used to maintain infrastructure and
schools to pay CALPERS shortfall.

LOL, says you.........some 'expert' on a blog.

socal2 says

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as well
as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the country, is
artificially high.

So, why is it when I repeatedly ask for ANY confirmation of, or PROOF of that supposed 7.5% return from any of the ACTUAL pension fund/s sites, documents, audits, whatever........you and others like you that have made the same BS claims, NEVER, EVER provide ANY proof?????
Why is that?

socal2 says

When a pension fund's returns do not meet its projected rate, a shortfall is
created. The costs are generally passed onto member cities.

LOL, you do realize that almost all funds can and do survive temporary drops in their returns because there's far more people paying than collecting, right? Apparently not.

Will you please start a new thread for this off topic discussion about pension funds? Here is a link to get you started:

"California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension, should consider changing its assumed rate of investment return, its actuary said. Trimming the forecast may add to taxpayer costs.

The rate, now 7.75 percent, is used to calculate how much money the $234 billion fund expects to have and how much it needs to cover benefits promised to workers, as well as the size of annual contributions by state and local government."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

zzyzzx says

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed
war spending?

LOL, the pussy highjacked his own thread, so why are your panties in a bunch over it?

Fisrt I post this:
upisdown says

socal2
says

"Critics say that Calpers' 7.5 percent long-term projected return rate, as
well
as similar rate of returns adopted by public pensions across the
country, is
artificially high.

So, why is it when I repeatedly ask for ANY confirmation of, or PROOF of that
supposed 7.5% return from any of the ACTUAL pension fund/s sites, documents,
audits, whatever........you and others like you that have made the same BS
claims, NEVER, EVER provide ANY proof?????
Why is that?

And, of course the echo chamber responds with this:

curious2 says

The rate, now 7.75 percent, is used to calculate how much money the $234
billion fund expects to have and how much it needs to cover benefits promised to
workers, as well as the size of annual contributions by state and local
government."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS website.

upisdown says

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS website.

OK, here it is from CalPERS. As of July 2013, the rate was 7.5%, down slightly from the 7.75% rate in effect at the time of the 2012 Bloomberg article:

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/2013/fiscal-year.xml

Now, will you please stop pushing the misleading OP headline to the top of the home page with your sarcastic and uncivil nonsense? I've never been called an echo chamber before, but I'm starting to feel like one as I repeat that you should start a new thread if you want to debate pensions.

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-15/calpers-actuary-proposes-changing-7-75-investment-return.html

LOL, in the bizarro world the businessweek website is somehow now the CALPERS
website.

Hmmm, I believe the Businessweek article comes from Bloomberg:

But I guess YOU know more economic information then they do, right???

LOL. Yet it's STILL NOT from the CALPERS website, is it?

curious2 says

OK, here it is from Calpers. As of July 2013, the rate was 7.5%, down
slightly from the 7.75% rate in effect at the time of the 2012 Bloomberg
article:

http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/2013/fiscal-year.xml

Thank you, but why didn't you just go there(the CALPERS site) originally instead of posting an old, out of date article that more than likely wasn't accurate, unless you wanted to distort or deceive everybody?

upisdown says

why

are you pushing the OP headline, unless you are a total moron in addition to being obviously a sarcastic jerk? You don't need to answer that - we can all see it's both. The Bloomberg article was accurate, presented the debate squarely, and was easier to find than hunting through the CalPERS website.

curious2 says

are you pushing the OP headline, unless you are a total moron in addition to
being obviously a sarcastic jerk? You don't need to answer that - we can all see
it's both. The Bloomberg article was accurate, presented the debate squarely,
and was easier to find than hunting through the CalPERS website.

It's a legitimate question, you chose the site you posted over another site, namely the CALPERS one.

Yes, the bloomberg article WAS accurate.....in 2012. FYI, it's no longer 2012.

Go switch back to your other obnoxious ID, or are you using them at the same time?

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

The "support" of his voters is based only on his campaign promises,

Tell us again, just how did Obama get elected???

My god are you ever fucking stupid. Obama got elected on his campaign promises, and now his approval is waning because he didn't keep the promises. Romney never BECAME president, so he had no opportunity to break any promises. THAT is why the two situations are dissimilar, and should not be compared. Sorry you're having trouble with the concept.

Call it Crazy says

which leads us to:

zzyzzx says

The poll asked those who voted for Obama's reelection a simple question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

The poll DIDN'T ask those who voted for Obama's reelection. That question was only asked of people who voted for Obama AND said they wouldn't vote for him again, which was only 10% of Obama voters.

Is this getting through your thick skull yet? Reading is fundamental.

Call it Crazy says

Homeboy says

Most people who voted for Obama, myself included, are of the opinion that he's a bit of a disappointment.

But you question the results of the poll??? Really????

Actually, I don't question the results of the poll. I'm saying the results were inaccurately reported in the 3rd hand article the OP posted.

Again, your reading skills are deplorable. Work on that.

Dan8267 says

Paralithodes says

Either (a) you didn't read it or (b) You simply want very tight government oversight and control over all political speech... Or (c) both a and b.

Or (d) I thought of something else that you didn't because I think more clearly.

None of this changes that your call to overturn the CU decision would result in PACs having more power: Small organizations without enough money to afford a PAC would be silenced while those organizations wealthy enough to afford a PAC could still do what they want. Reading the actual decision instead of relying on MSNBC and Comedy Central would have made you informed of this.

Dan8267 says

Paralithodes says

Meanwhile, still awaiting your acknowledgement that my claim re. ACLU and CU was correct...

You need to be specific and clear about what claim you are asking me to verify or contradict. Your writings are often not clear. In this case, I have no idea what claim you are making. The statement "Citizen's Unit was correct." is a meaningless statement to me as it is a statement about the correctness of a court opinion. ... [insert additional blather here addressing blatant taking of partial quote out of context...]

As above, the full quote was "...ACLU and CU was correct," Not simply "CU was correct." My request was a repeat of an earlier request for you to acknowledge that the ACLU supported the CU decision .... which was in response to your request for an apology after I initially made this claim.

Therefore, either (a) your memory, comprehension, and ability to think clearly are quite deficient compared to what you think they are, or (b) you are intentionally dodging, and doing so dishonestly by using partial quotes out of context. Using a typical Dan approach: it is one reason or the other.

You claimed that only the rich (assumedly that is, those richer than the super 1% rich like yourself) and the republicans support CU. I added that the ACLU also supported CU and provided direct evidence. You were incorrect.

You claimed that the CU decision overturned disclosure rules. You were wrong - the CU decision upheld them. I provided a link to the ruling for you as evidence.

Since you are the type of person to expect an apology when you think someone else gets something wrong, then you should acknowledge without qualification that you were wrong about both of your assertions above. Not acknowledging your mistakes here would show that your superior intelligence and ability to think clearly does not trump a religious-like grasp to your own beliefs despite having the facts provided right in front of your face. Any further attempt to misquote out of context to dodge away from this would show the same.

upisdown says

socal2 says

Why does the City or State have to GUARANTEE a high return for their employees

retirement investments?

Prove it, if you could, but of course you cannot.

What are you asking me to prove?

Are you really debating (or totally unaware) that the vast majority of government employees who have pensions have a GUARANTEED payout return regardless of market performance? When the market doesn't perform, the City/State has to use our tax money to pitch in the rest.

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return.

dublin hillz says

In the long run the stock market has beaten the 7.5% mark so as long as the pension fund has enough assets and withdrawal rate is reasonable, there's no reason to be alarmed about the assumed 7.5% return

Pension funds are always nearly 100% invested in the stock market, despite all of the in and outflows of cash? No balancing of assets to account for different levels of risk?