This fight is about the kids?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

[Who wouldn't want a deal where you have to put in little or nothing towards your retirement and get a substantial payoff!!

 

Yep, that's exactly what j_b is looking for.

 

[j_b]

I find the "go educate yourself" comment quite laughable considering I am doing no more than regurgitating arguments held by people who not only have considerably more education than me and Jim combined in the domain of economics, but also have shown much better judgment than 99% of economists out there. If anything this discussion isn't showing Jim's better side: the level of his argumentation has been overall quite poor and he certainly can't claim to be above the fray in term of personal attacks.

 

 

[JayB]

Are you talking about public employee pension funds? Most of them are not funded by tax dollars.

 

Public pensions are funded by employee contributions, employer contributions, earnings, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls.

 

Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money.

 

Employee contributions and earnings = not taxpayer money.

 

If public employee unions could be paid out with the contribution of employee contributions + earnings, there'd be no issue. They can't. Not by a long shot - which is why they'd go berzerk if someone proposed that their pension benefits be limited to those that could be financed by their contributions plus their earnings.

 

Bear in mind that it takes $20-30,000 to cover every thousand dollars in inflation indexed pension benefits. Significantly more if you have a retiree significantly below the age of 65. That means it takes between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 to fund a $50,000 pension. That doesn't even consider health benefits, which are typically funded out of general revenues, with no money set aside to pay for them.

 

Assuming that the pension is for 60% of the final year's pay, that means someone with a final three year's salary of ~$83K would get $50,000 per year. Play with the calculator I've linked below and see what kind of annual contributions and return rates it takes to get that kind of cash. Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone who retired at 83K could have ever made anything like the kind of annual contributions required to accrue that kind of balance.

 

They haven't been. They won't be. It is going to take massive amounts of tax money to cover the difference.

 

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots:

 

Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion

by Jack Z. Smith

 

A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

[j_b]

Baker writes a humorous post about the oft-noted hypocrisy of economists who choose a rate of return according to whether it is politically convenient:

It is interesting to note that the economists' concern with pension fund accounting just happens to coincide with a major push by the right-wing to attack public sector workers and especially public sector pensions. State pensions have been assuming 10 percent nominal returns on their pension's stock holdings for decades. This fact never seemed to trouble economists previously.

 

Interestingly, many economists had argued the exact opposite position in the context of Social Security privatization. Andrew Biggs, one of the economists who has been very prominent in the debate for lowering the return assumptions on public plans, explictly argued for assuming a high rate of return for the stock held in privatized Social Security accounts. Other proponents of privatization took the same perspective, which was the main benefit of their proposal.

 

Even advocates of preserving the current Social Security system wanted to assume a higher rate of return for money held in stock, albeit for stock held in the Social Security trust fund. Two of the country's leading experts on Social Security, Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer, both explicitly called for putting part of the Social Security trust fund in the stock market to take advantage of the higher rates of return offered by stock. President Clinton made the same proposal.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/economists-on-stock-returns-it-depends-on-the-weather-or-maybe-politics

[Crux]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj1rhyKe5LM

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots:

 

Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion

by Jack Z. Smith

 

A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

 

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless.

[rob]

THIS fight is about the kids

 

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81350844/

 

[Jim]

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots:

 

Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion

by Jack Z. Smith

 

A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

 

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless.

 

My next post will be about organic vegetables. ...

[JayB]

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots:

 

Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion

by Jack Z. Smith

 

A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

 

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless.

 

My next post will be about organic vegetables. ...

 

Best to avoid asking whether or not they're stored in root cellars, IMO...

[Jim]

Are you talking about public employee pension funds? Most of them are not funded by tax dollars.

 

Public pensions are funded by employee contributions, employer contributions, earnings, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls.

 

Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money.

 

Employee contributions and earnings = not taxpayer money.

 

If public employee unions could be paid out with the contribution of employee contributions + earnings, there'd be no issue. They can't. Not by a long shot - which is why they'd go berzerk if someone proposed that their pension benefits be limited to those that could be financed by their contributions plus their earnings.

 

Bear in mind that it takes $20-30,000 to cover every thousand dollars in inflation indexed pension benefits. Significantly more if you have a retiree significantly below the age of 65. That means it takes between $1,000,000 and $1,500,000 to fund a $50,000 pension. That doesn't even consider health benefits, which are typically funded out of general revenues, with no money set aside to pay for them.

 

Assuming that the pension is for 60% of the final year's pay, that means someone with a final three year's salary of ~$83K would get $50,000 per year. Play with the calculator I've linked below and see what kind of annual contributions and return rates it takes to get that kind of cash. Then ask yourself how likely it is that someone who retired at 83K could have ever made anything like the kind of annual contributions required to accrue that kind of balance.

 

They haven't been. They won't be. It is going to take massive amounts of tax money to cover the difference.

 

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/InvestmentReturn.html

 

Math. It's a wonderful thing.

[j_b]

Well that's acutually pretty easy - the government kept some large institutions afloat, the private sector cut back (some say too much) and reduced overhead, and the economy is picking up steam ever so slowly. The stock market is generally a predictor of future conditions - so is thus anticipating future growth.

 

What a surprise. You haven't learned a thing. We have gone through 3 bubbles in as many decades (the last one requiring huge government intervention), we have ignored all limits to growth for 30 years, the kleptocrats have pillaged all they could and keep doing so, the economy is supposedly "growing" at 2% per year (much less when accounting for pop growth), we are about to test the ability of our economy to function with much more expensive gas and you claim the stock market is anticipating future growth because it returned near its prior high? Laughable.

 

Now if you are some how making the convoluted argument that the government constantly goes into debt to uphold the stock market - and that debt is similar to the pension obligations of the states - well, that's an interesting take. Especially since the states can't sell bonds for that debt while the US government can - but you likely don't understand that state's cannot run deficits and the details of bond obligations.

 

there is nothing like building strawmen to better demolish them, isn't?

 

[j_b]

Another deregulation fiasco not acknowledged by Laissez Faire zealots:

 

Study Puts Cost of Texas Energy Deregulation at $11 Billion

by Jack Z. Smith

 

A report released Monday concludes that electric deregulation has cost Texas residential consumers more than $11 billion in higher rates and that the operator of the state's major power grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, has been poorly managed and industry-dominated.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/16-4

 

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless.

 

check out the Libertarian retard who doesn't like my poking at his zealotry.

[j_b]

j_b is losing one argument so he changes the subject again... and adds some more lame left-wing verbiage to boot. Priceless.

 

My next post will be about organic vegetables. ...

 

right, because KKK is so credible when he takes pot shots at others because he thinks they are off topic.

 

Are you sore for some reason? Why don't show us your expertise at reading charts, again ...

[j_b]

What a surprise. You haven't learned a thing. We have gone through 3 bubbles in as many decades (the last one requiring huge government intervention), we have ignored all limits to growth for 30 years, the kleptocrats have pillaged all they could and keep doing so, the economy is supposedly "growing" at 2% per year (much less when accounting for pop growth), we are about to test the ability of our economy to function with much more expensive gas and you claim the stock market is anticipating future growth because it returned near its prior high? Laughable.

 

AND then, you'll claim to be some kind of economic conservative! ROTFL

[j_b]

Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money.

 

Which fund of taxpayer's money was used to issue trillions in cheap loans to the banskters so they could keep going with outrageous compensations? Oh, sOrry, I forget that corporate welfare doesn't really register with you despite your posturing to the contrary.

[JayB]

Employer contributions, and transfers from the general fund to cover shortfalls = taxpayer money.

 

Which fund of taxpayer's money was used to issue trillions in cheap loans to the banskters so they could keep going with outrageous compensations? Oh, sOrry, I forget that corporate welfare doesn't really register with you despite your posturing to the contrary.

 

Jim's point, which bears repeating, is that even if - for the sake of argument - you accept every one of your claims, that does absolutely nothing to close the gap between what state and local governments are obliged to pay and what they have the actual resources to cover.

 

If repeating the above ad nauseum would make the assets necessary to fund public sector pension and retiree healthcare benefits, then the people running those systems would have done so. It won't. It can't. The end.

 

 

[prole]

The Federal bailout will come with strings attached, this time.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Seek help.

[j_b]

Jim's point, which bears repeating, is that even if - for the sake of argument - you accept every one of your claims, that does absolutely nothing to close the gap between what state and local governments are obliged to pay and what they have the actual resources to cover.

 

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty much sums up the difference between Jim and me.

[j_b]

The Federal bailout will come with strings attached, this time.

 

Anti-tax zealots caused both the financial crash and the drowing of government in a bathtub, but they will only allow bailing out of kleptocrats. Fuck you middle class (no need to mention those below)

[j_b]

Clearly, JayB appears especially concerned with maintaining the profit margin of the Military-Industrial complex (please remind me of any evidence to the contrary if you can). So fuck you teachers, bus drivers, nurses, you'll have to earn even less than you did relative to the private sector from now on because the killing machine has to be fed before you.

[JayB]

Jim's point, which bears repeating, is that even if - for the sake of argument - you accept every one of your claims, that does absolutely nothing to close the gap between what state and local governments are obliged to pay and what they have the actual resources to cover.

 

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty sums up the difference between Jim and me.

 

The Federal government won't be riding to the rescue. Political economy won't allow that unless it goes to all states, which would never fly in Congress or the bond market. Any state or local official who sticks his head in the sand and waits for a Federal bailout will wind up inflicting even more pain on both the public employees and the constituents who elected them by allowing the deficits to expand while they delay the inevitable restructuring.

 

 

[Jim]

Jim's point, which bears repeating, is that even if - for the sake of argument - you accept every one of your claims, that does absolutely nothing to close the gap between what state and local governments are obliged to pay and what they have the actual resources to cover.

 

What hogwash! Let's seriously cut the war budget, take back the various corporate welfare that isn't doing anything worthwhile for the greater whole, effectively tax (because tax rates tell us nothing of actual taxation) corporations and the wealthy (in particular make war on tax heavens and close loopholes), and invest in the economy. Then, we'll see what we can afford to do or not, but not before we do all of it. I guess that pretty much sums up the difference between Jim and me.

 

No. In general, I think what separates us is that I tend to stay on topic. The argument that because there are inequities on the federal level - military inflated budgets, federal tax breaks for the rich, etc. that that somehow absolves the states from taking responsibility for their actions - where the federal white knight is not going to come to the rescue - and that conservative - meaning reasonable - budget approaches should be implemented.

 

In general I think the middle class is getting the big stick up the butt lately but mostly because of their laziness and and choice in leaders. But the left is winging itself by defending unsustainable policies veiled in class warfare. Seriously - grow up already, call a spade a spade, and I'm on board. I'm really tired of programs, such as government pensions, sucking funds from essential, and more worthy, progressive programs.

[j_b]

The Federal government won't be riding to the rescue. Political economy won't allow that unless it goes to all states, which would never fly in Congress or the bond market. Any state or local official who sticks his head in the sand and waits for a Federal bailout will wind up inflicting even more pain on both the public employees and the constituents who elected them by allowing the deficits to expand while they delay the inevitable restructuring.

 

Your poor rationalizations (corporatists are preventing the fed gov from bailing out the states) for your not wanting to cut the war budget, effectively tax the wealthy and corporations, cut all unnecessary corporate welfare are really irrelevant.

 

Demagogues like you made it toxic for politicians to discus raising progressive taxation, yet you now blame politicians for their demagoguery and their passing the buck onto the future. Your argument is transparent and worthy of an anti-government zealot.