patrick.net

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Amazing how the First Responders have gas masks handy, but not gloves

You are expecting folks in that war torn hellhole to be perfectly equipped, and therefore not being so means fraud. Crossing the tin foil hat red line?

Ironman says

The California Policy Center (CPC) has just updated it's annual study on pension contributions required from local California municipalities and, to our complete 'shock', the conclusions are brutal for Cali taxpayers. Among other things, the study found that California taxpayers will be forced to double their contributions to CalPERS over just the next 5 years alone from $5.3 billion in 2017/2018 tax year to $9.8 billion in 2022/2023.

Another reason not to live in this fucking state. The greedy politicians, unions and state employees are bleeding us to death.
They just increased the gas and car tax to fix the roads. I told you it was just for the pensions.

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

Ironman says

Strategist says

I told you it was just for the pensions.

Marcus says "Thank You"!

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

How many Republicans are,& will be, sucking up Taxpayers dollars sitting on their asses?
Getting Republicans off Govt. SOCIALIST programs could save a beau coup of money.
Republican taxpayers will sit on their asses & do nothing.

Strategist says

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

Amazing isn't it ? You get a democrat governor (Brown) in combination with a democrat state congress and they actually address the unfunded liabilities issue. Republicans would have gleefully allowed it to become so underfunded as to cause the entire pension system ruin. It's called starve the beast.

THe zerohedge piece is propaganda. Taxpayers aren't getting a tax bill increase, it's just that a hgiher percentage of the budget is going to pensions. This is part of a conserted effort to lower the under funding levels. In the case of teachers pensions, funding at all three levels, employee, municipality and state have also been increased. But again, this is not an increaed tax bill. It's dealing with a problem so that it doesn't cause problems in the future.

Note; THere were years when in the late nineties and 2000 when the stock market was so strong that funding of pensions temporarily ceased.

This is not a problem. IT's a solution being implemented. Stupid zerohedge right wingers don't like it when their diabolical starve the beast conspiracies are foiled.

The new forecasts adopted in February increased the funding shortfall. But actuaries still expect CalSTRS to stay on a long path to full funding, thanks to a long-delayed record rate increase in 2014 that will more than double school district pension costs by 2020.

At a media briefing last week, an actuary said one of the factors maintaining a projection of full funding by 2046, despite the larger shortfall from the new forecasts, is new but tightly limited rate-setting power given CalSTRS as part of the funding package three years ago.

“We still think that probability is greater than 50 percent,” said David Lamoureux, CalSTRS deputy chief actuary. A new annual risk report issued last November, before the new forecasts, put the probability of reaching full funding in three decades at 60 percent.

https://calpensions.com/category/calstrs/funding-gap/

Ironman says

Strategist says

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

OC

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

That's why you should have moved over here.

We have propane too!!

Well move over. I'm sick of this rotten state and it's communist politicians.
Can I get water/ocean front for 400K? A third of what the boring view costs in North San Diego? Which is supposed to be a bargain?
I also want a man's cave, where my wife can't get in.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/10/commentary-critique-of-browns-pension-reforms-is-off-base/

’s public pension systems, and they are doing exactly that. Their effects will be measured over the lifetimes of thousands of schoolteachers, firefighters, police officers, bus drivers, trash collectors, librarians and others whose labor provides the public services upon which all Californians rely.Related

marcus says

Strategist says

You are welcome, Marcus. Please use the money wisely, I worked hard for it.

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

Marcus, I love education. It's our future. It's the screwed up Unions that keep bad teachers from getting replaced with good ones. I don't mind paying good teachers more, it's the bad ones I have a problem with. They need to be fired.

Strategist says

I don't mind paying good teachers more, it's the bad ones I have a problem with. They need to be fired.

You're misinformed about this. I know of specific examples of bad teachers being forced out. It happens. Also, if a teacher is not good, they are going to find the job far more stressful and unrewarding, which is why a significant percentage of teachers move on to something else on their own in the first five years.

It's complicated, but I believe a certain amount of job security is ultimately a plus for students and the community and not just the teachers. It causes teachers to feel secure in their jobs, and thus it means that it's not easy to destroy their careers on the whim of a bad administrator. A teacher's highest priority should be doing what's right for their students, not fearing what some rogue administrator might do to them without due process.

IT also prevents ageism. Sadly, without union protections, teachers would indeed often be replaced by younger cheaper teachers for simple financial reasons, not becasue the younger teachers are better. This might seem like a plus, but it would be a major inhibitor of great people going in to teaching. Who wants to devote decades to a craft, only to have to worry about being put out to pasture and find a new career in their 50s ? Put differently, the long term job security is an incentive factor for great people to accept the limited financial upside in teaching.

Strategist says

Ironman says

Strategist says

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

OC

It was for the weather. But my bank balance, what's left of it, is getting hit by a tornado.

That's why you should have moved over here.

We have propane too!!

Well move over. I'm sick of this rotten state and it's communist politicians.

Can I get water/ocean front for 400K? A third of what the boring view costs in North San Diego? Which is supposed to be a bargain?

I also want a man's cave, where my wife can't get in.

In NJ? Sure, if you don't mind shelling out 1k+ per month in property taxes. Try Maine

Booger says

Why the fuck does anyone who is a taxpayer stay in California?

For me it's the weather and surf. But it is expensive.

Ironman says

So if they divert a higher percentage of the budget to the pensions, how do the rest of the bills get paid with a smaller remainder of funds?

Last time I checked every state politician has pet projects and there are infinite ways to spend money and nearly infinite places where cuts can be made. This whole problem was caused becasue politician kicked the can down the road for many years. As I mentioned, some did this gleefully in the hopes of destroying the pension system. I know it makes you sad when you hear that this will now be less likely to happen.

Ironman says

Except the data came from the California Policy Center.... oops... Are they propaganda too?

Quote me where in the California policy Center piece it refers to taxpayers (at the level of the taxpayer) being affected, as the zerohedge piece does, even in it's headline.

You don't even realize when you're being manipulated.

Yes, I'm sure some of those 20 counties where pension costs are over 10% may be affected with property tax increases or other tax increases. But that doesn't mean the generalization makes sense as anything more than red meat for right wingers.

marcus says

Most teacher pensions in California, including mine, are not part of CalPers.

You are in Calstrs, and that fund is a shit show too. San Diego is having to lay off hundreds of teachers because they can't afford the increased pension payments.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/sd-me-unified-reductions-20170222-story.html

marcus says

Amazing isn't it ? You get a democrat governor (Brown) in combination with a democrat state congress and they actually address the unfunded liabilities issue. Republicans would have gleefully allowed it to become so underfunded as to cause the entire pension system ruin. It's called starve the beast.

It's unfunded alright. Teachers and government workers haven't contributed anywhere near enough of their annual pay or time in the job to allow for the super generous pension benefits they expect to receive.

Hopefully the California State Supreme Court will do the right thing later this year and rule that government pensions can be renegotiated instead of simply raising taxes, shafting bond holders and reducing services.

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you. California already has some of the highest taxes in the country along with the highest poverty rate. Government workers should not be a protected class of workers that are immune to mathematical reality.

socal2 says

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you

The solutions that have been implemented since 2014 did include an increase in my contribution. The other increase were on the employer side, and the state kicks in too.

THankfully Brietbart os on top of this isssue.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/03/18/10-of-taxes-now-go-to-pensions-in-5-cal-counties/

marcus says

socal2 says

EVERYONE needs to have skin in the game. That includes you

The solutions that have been implemented since 2014 did include an increase in my contribution. The other increase were on the employer side, and the state kicks in too.

Dear Marcus,
We, the taxpayer are your employers. Why should we pay more than 3%, which is the norm, pay more towards your pension?
You don't pay more for my retirement, why should I have to pay more for yours?

Yours Truly,
Strategist that gets screwed by all.

So let's say there are hundred of categories in a state budget. Is CIC saying that every time the spending in a category goes up, the taxpayers are getting an increase in their tax bill, and every time a category is decreased they get a tax cut ? IF this were the case, wouldn't it mean that every year you get dozens of tax increases and dozens of tax decreases ?

This is not the way that most intelligent people look at it.

Strategist says

You don't pay more for my retirement, why should I have to pay more for yours?

I don't pay your salary either, and yet you pay towards mine. IT's called a government job, and the pension is simply part of the salary. This was part of the salary offer I was offered when I went to work in this job. Do you not think the number and quality of applicants for a job is affected by the compensation ? And do you not think that the quality of the people ultimately hired is in turn affected by the number of quality candidates that apply ?

marcus says

Strategist says

You don't pay more for my retirement, why should I have to pay more for yours?

I don't pay your salary either, and yet you pay towards mine. IT's called a government job, and the pension is simply part of the salary. This was part of the salary offer I was offered when I went to work in this job.

Thanks to the extortionist Unions that blackmailed us.

marcus says

Do you not think the number and quality of applicants for a job is affected by the compensation ?

Yes, that's obvious.

marcus says

And do you not think that the quality of the people ultimately hired is in turn affected by the number of quality candidates that apply ?

No, I don't. It's who you know, not what you know.

Do you think think the unions make it hard to fire bad teachers?

Ironman says

See the quote "borne by the taxpayers throughout the county

Yes, that's why I made the concession that some taxpayers are probably affected (meaning - with increases - but I don't know)..

marcus says

Yes, I'm sure some of those 20 counties where pension costs are over 10% may be affected with property tax increases or other tax increases. But that doesn't mean the generalization makes sense as anything more than red meat for right wingers.

Everyone knows that taxpayers fund state and local governments. But when a budget item increases as a percentage of the budget this simply does not translate to a definitive increase in taxpayers tax bills. In fact, when we're talking about a pension fund - not paying sufficiently in to it, is a certain way to guarantee tax increases later - unless as someone mentioned the strategy can be used to get courts to help the state not honor its contractual commitments to workers.

I get it that right wingers think that type of thing is really nifty. Let's not look to not make promises we can't keep. Let's instead simply break promises. It's the new thing. I guess that's why we have Trump as President, the guy that doesn't pay contractors what he agreed to pay them before they did the work.

Strategist says

Thanks to the extortionist Unions that blackmailed us.

A lie.

Strategist says

Do you think think the unions make it hard to fire bad teachers?

I think that they make it harder than it would be, but that bad teachers are forced out. At the same time they are protecting far more good and great teachers. And yes, without union contracts, they would be figuring out ways to replace 50 year old teachers making 75K with teachers with young teachers making 40K. This would be a directive from the downtown administrative levels of people that spend all day in circle jerk meetings. The 40K teachers they would be getting would not be as good as the ones coming in now, becasue of the lack of upside and job security. IT would save even more money though, becasue so few would be around long enough to collect much of a pension.

Ironman says

marcus says

when we're talking about a pension fund - not paying sufficiently in to it, is a certain way to guarantee tax increases later

So, to offset your lack of understanding that taxes will need to be raised to pay these pensions, you go off in some unknown straw man:

It's not a straw man. According to you, not paying in to a pension fund for a year is a wonderful tax decrease to the taxpayers.

Ironman says

What the fuck does Trump have to do with the fact that the taxpayers in CA are going to get screwed paying for YOUR pension???

Unbelievable.....

Just remembering that Trump is famous for not honoring commitments he made to workers.

Big government just makes more government, to a point where it grows for it's own sake.

Strategist says

marcus says

And do you not think that the quality of the people ultimately hired is in turn affected by the number of quality candidates that apply ?

No, I don't. It's who you know, not what you know.

This is simply wrong in the education world. Sure, sometimes at a good school, an alumni has a little better chance of being hired, but that' often going to be a great hire. The type of person that wants to teach back at their school after going to college and a credentialing program is likely a great candidate. Otherwise teachers being hired becasue of connections is rare. In law enforcement too, I don't see how you can make the argument that the quality of the candidate pool is not highly affected by compensation.

It is true though, that if the compensation was lowered, you would eventually have way more crooked cops and way more bad teachers. This s what would happen if you took unions away and gradually lowered the compensation and job security for those jobs.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Notice this is like the first 24-hour period where the MSM and GOPe isn't being critical of Trump.

Pretty amazing. Doesn't anyone realize trump is moving us into involvement in yet another unwinnable civil war with his intention being to fight against both sides? What could go wrong? Obama was a bonehead, but staying out of syria was one of his better moves. There simply is no winning play in syria.

Our cruise missile factories could go on strike...

bob2356 says

? What could go wrong?

Strategist says

You are OK with genocidal maniacs wiping out the Yazidis and selling their their women as slaves?

You are sick.

As long as it involves keeping secular leaders in power and on their side of tracks, it beats bringing in refugees from said countries

bob2356 ... Obama didn't stay out of Syria. He used immense political pressure as well as deployed special forces units, drones, supported rebel opposition once those actors where more known, etc. He also very much wanted to strike but congress and political will from US and U.K. wasn't forthcoming.

The difference here with Trump is he did a unilateral strike, without congressional approval. This is actually the strike Obama had planned, scaled back to one airfield. A smart call by the NSC due to how many Russians are sprinkled throughout military installations in Syria now.

Any nation who uses chemical weapons should fear intervention by the US ... and fear our absolute cluster F of an administration too. The UN really doesn't have the capability to intervene in Syria.

Ironman says

bob2356 says

Obama was a bonehead, but staying out of syria was one of his better moves.

Really?? Staying out??

ha ha ha
Obama did not stay out of Syria, and screwed up anyway. What a loser.

marcus says

get it that right wingers think that type of thing is really nifty. Let's not look to not make promises we can't keep. Let's instead simply break promises. It's the new thing. I guess that's why we have Trump as President, the guy that doesn't pay contractors what he agreed to pay them before they did the work.

Oh come off it! Right now "promises are being broken" to millions of people in California with reduced government services, higher taxes, and bond holders getting the shaft just to keep government pensions afloat. How about all the poor people in Stockton and San Bernardino who are seeing their cities crumble and increased crime because the City government can't keep up with basic services and pay into the pension fund?

Everyone is getting a shit sandwich except the protected government bureaucracy.

My retirement fund in the Private Sector is not protected or guaranteed by the tax payer. Why should a government worker's GENEROUS retirement be guaranteed when it is invested in the same stock market that my retirement fund is in?

Face it - if you want to have any kind of pension when you retire, you are probably going to have to work longer, contribute more to your retirement and accept a smaller benefit.

marcus says

No, I don't. It's who you know, not what you know.

This is simply wrong in the education world.

They hire teachers based on paper qualifications, not necessarily someone with teaching skills who love to teach.
The result.....You have teachers who don't want to teach, and students who don't want to learn. Unions make it impossible to reverse the mess. What a disaster.

Here's what Obama did. He tried to get Congress on board instead of unilaterally striking. Congress was Republican and might very well have impeached him. Congress balked, and he used the pressure to get a deal to get rid of a lot of chemical weapons. He got rid of all of the chemical weapons that we knew about, which was by definition more than we ever could have gotten rid of by bombing. He also managed to keep enough pressure on Assad and Russia so that they did not use illegal chemical weapons again while Obama was in power. If you care about chemical weapon proliferation and use of chemical weapons, then this record is pretty good. Obama also managed to not let the US get dragged into another all out war costing trillions and hundreds of thousands due to US intervention. This is very good. What he didn't do was stop Russia from helping Assad kill a shit load of people. The US also looked a bit unclear about our red lines, because our government could not agree on a military solution. On the other hand, the big chemical weapons attack that he did do led to the destruction of a lot of (probably most of) Assad's chemical weapons stockpile.

Here's what Trump has done. Not much yet. He sent $60M worth of weapons over to hit some military targets, but he telegraphed the assault, to give the enemy time to protect it's resources. Minimum damage was done, and Assad resumed bombing in a day. We'll have to wait and see.

I'm adding this story to my long list of reasons not to live in California.

zzyzzx says

I'm adding this story to my long list of reasons not to live in California.

Must be a damn long list by now.

Ironman says

But there's more.

We don't know that for a fact, because he could have gotten more from Putin or made some or bought some from elsewhere. But I would guess that he just didn't disclose some, either intentionally or not. I would bet that he intentionally hid some away.

Did Obama oversell it, by failing to state the obvious possibility that they did keep some? Yes. I'd say that was probably a lie. It it was definitely not correct. The bigger picture is that a huge quantity of chemical weapons was destroyed, it was destroyed safely without collateral damage, and the quantity of weapons was much more than we could have ever destroyed by bombing.

Ironman says

You can't have it both ways to support your WaPo narrative.

I don't need to have it both ways, because I'm not saying that Rice was 100% correct.

You are trying to have it both ways by constantly trotting out Obama's list of lies while ignoring the encyclopedia sized stack of lies that Trump has amassed during his short time as a candidate and president.

Here's Rice's quote from the weekly standard article:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished.

There is nothing wrong with this statement. It is 100% accurate. All of the chemical weapons that were known in Syria were destroyed. It also makes the very relevant point that that was a huge accomplishment if you actually care about these weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists. So, it is correct and relevant. You should strive for such qualities.