US on track to borrow most money since 2008 financial crisis: report

LV426 said:
Right, which is why this whole discussion is pointless. It's you trying to gin up fiscal fear so you can punitively attack state workers because of whatever shitty inherent biases you have as a human being.
Click to expand...

I truly admire your efforts and the time you put into your replies, but you're not simply casting your pearls before swine; you're casting your pearls before pigshit in this case.
 
LV426 said:
First of all, you can't even articulate what those shortfalls are. The reason is because you are not taking an academic approach to it; you're taking an emotional approach to it. And you're making it emotional because what is driving your intention is the emotion you feel at state workers enjoying generous benefits they negotiated and earned.

And I did address your Op-Eds. Numerous times. In fact, I addressed one of your Op-Eds in my last post, when one of the many you posted discussed how the state can continue to pay full benefits until the mid-2020's.

The problem is that you don't take an academic approach to this because your emotions are guiding you. Emotions of envy, jealousy, fear and insecurity. Those CA state workers earned their pensions. They negotiated for them and got what they wanted. Because the Conservative Fiscal Collapse caused the pension value to drop, your remedy is to punish the workers who earned and negotiated their benefits prior to Wall Street ripping everyone off.

So how about instead of demanding cuts to employee pensions because of the Financial Collapse, you demand the firms responsible for lying to pension funds and managers cover the shortfall?

Why is that not an option? Why must the deception of Wall Street result in punishing workers who had nothing to do with that?
Click to expand...

At least we're getting to the core of your issue. You deny the economic reality out of ideology. I love that you consider the WSJ, LA Times, Sac Bee and SF Chronicle all spam. You live in the South but being a liberal put California up on some pedastal as if we have no challenges here. (and the pension issue is far bigger than California. Look at Illinois if you want some fun reading.). So you speak from a position of ignorance. It's a topic that is discussed on a regular basis here yet living in the South you have no clue. Nor do you have any idea of the deals our politicians cut with the workers that allowed for this to occur.

I live here. The shortfalls we face are very real. Some kid on a message board from the South claiming otherwise doesn't change our reality.
 
LV426 said:
You're not really dealing with it today.

From what I read in one of the many spam links you've posted, the state can continue to pay out full benefits until mid-2020's. So again, not an immediate thing. Secondly, the remedy is quite simple; raising revenues to cover shortfalls.
Click to expand...

For sh*ts and giggles where did anything I post say it's not a problem into the mid 2020's?
 
Hello Jean-Jacques Dessalines,

Jean-Jacques Dessalines said:
If you think it's bad now just imagine how bad it's going to be once a recession hits. We've decide to reset the new baseline for borrowing during a boom at the debt we were generating during a year when revenue fell by like a trillion dollars. So imagine revenue following a trillion from this. That's the trap that Trump is setting us up for with his extreme irresponsibility.
Click to expand...

I regret that I have but one :thumbsup: Thanks to click for this post.

Spot on correct.
 
cawacko said:
Raising minimum wage makes it more difficult for those at risk, since margain is difficult to comprehend. It does t allow them an opportunity to gain much valued and needed work experience. Remember, these are the people you supposedly care about.
Click to expand...

I guess because you are wrong again. Raising the min wage results in all wages going up. As I pointed out, the data exists in great amounts. The usual criticisms like yours, are simply not correct. If you are running a company, you have a certain amount of work that has to be done. You don't just quit making things or provide services. Your argument is sophistical.
 
hvilleherb said:
We can fix that by cutting spending we currently waste on entitlements. If that's not enough to cover it we should consider a national sales tax.
Click to expand...

Waste? Such as Social Security , Medicare and Medicaid? Not only are you uninformed, but cold-hearted too. Fuck everyone who is not you.
 
cawacko said:
At least we're getting to the core of your issue. You deny the economic reality out of ideology.
Click to expand...

It's not an economic issue, it's a fiscal one. And it's a fiscal one that isn't really that much of an issue either, because it's easily solved by raising revenues.

Look, these people negotiated and got these benefits. Telling them that they have to sacrifice because of what are ultimately the actions of bad actors on Wall Street is bullshit.


I love that you consider the WSJ, LA Times, Sac Bee and SF Chronicle all spam. You live in the South but being a liberal put California up on some pedastal as if we have no challenges here. (and the pension issue is far bigger than California. Look at Illinois if you want some fun reading.). So you speak from a position of ignorance. It's a topic that is discussed on a regular basis here yet living in the South you have no clue. Nor do you have any idea of the deals our politicians cut with the workers that allowed for this to occur.
Click to expand...

Again, reports and op-Eds are two different things. Secondly, this is an issue easily solved by raising revenues, of which there are plenty. If the fiscal picture of the pensions keeps you up at night, instead of asking those who earned their pensions to sacrifice, how about you go after the bad faith actors who lied to these pensioners about the returns on their pensions instead?

Why are you so consumed with taking punitive action against people who negotiated for benefits the state agreed to pay?
 
cawacko said:
For sh*ts and giggles where did anything I post say it's not a problem into the mid 2020's?
Click to expand...

One of the many links you posted. I think it was the LA Times link that said that by 2026, the revenue shortfall with pensions would actually start. You should remember that because it was in your links, buddy.
 
cawacko said:
At least we're getting to the core of your issue. You deny the economic reality out of ideology. I love that you consider the WSJ, LA Times, Sac Bee and SF Chronicle all spam. You live in the South but being a liberal put California up on some pedastal as if we have no challenges here. (and the pension issue is far bigger than California. Look at Illinois if you want some fun reading.). So you speak from a position of ignorance. It's a topic that is discussed on a regular basis here yet living in the South you have no clue. Nor do you have any idea of the deals our politicians cut with the workers that allowed for this to occur. live here. The shortfalls we face are very real. Some kid on a message board from the South claiming otherwise doesn't change our reality.
Click to expand...

Look at this bullshit.

So you start out with a hair-on-fire panic about impending pensions obligations, but then don't really go into detail about what those obligations are, but you're using them as an excuse to take punitive action against state workers who negotiated those benefits before the economic collapse. The investment funds lied to the pension managers by promising greater returns than were actually delivered. We've come to find out that fraud was rampant throughout the financial services sector during Bush the Dumber. So these pensions were negotiated with state workers at a time when Wall Street was over-promising returns while concealing the true risk these products had.

So naturally, when the products became toxic, the value and returns that served as the basis for the negotiation of the actual pensions became shit. And they became shit because those investment firms were lying about the risk and the rate of return to pension managers.

So your response is to...take punitive action against the pensioners?

What sense does that make?

Why not take punitive action against the banks and investment firms who did all the lying and concealing, suckering pension funds by promising massive rates of return and low risk?

That is, if you even think this is a serious problem.
 
Nordberg said:
I guess because you are wrong again. Raising the min wage results in all wages going up. As I pointed out, the data exists in great amounts. The usual criticisms like yours, are simply not correct. If you are running a company, you have a certain amount of work that has to be done. You don't just quit making things or provide services. Your argument is sophistical.
Click to expand...

If people don't have skills to be hired at $10/hr do you think raising he minimum wage to $12/hr is going to help them? They are "usual criticisms" because they are economic reality. If raising the minimum wage helped people as you claim all big cities would raise it and wouldn't stop at $15/hr.

I don't know where you live but I live in San Francisco. Read up on our restaurants and all the challenges /issies the increased minimum wage has created if youb would like an example. And read the UDub report for how it cost low income workers jobs
 
LV426 said:
Look at this bullshit.

So you start out with a hair-on-fire panic about impending pensions obligations, but then don't really go into detail about what those obligations are, but you're using them as an excuse to take punitive action against state workers who negotiated those benefits before the economic collapse. The investment funds lied to the pension managers by promising greater returns than were actually delivered. We've come to find out that fraud was rampant throughout the financial services sector during Bush the Dumber. So these pensions were negotiated with state workers at a time when Wall Street was over-promising returns while concealing the true risk these products had.

So naturally, when the products became toxic, the value and returns that served as the basis for the negotiation of the actual pensions became shit. And they became shit because those investment firms were lying about the risk and the rate of return to pension managers.

So your response is to...take punitive action against the pensioners?

What sense does that make?

Why not take punitive action against the banks and investment firms who did all the lying and concealing, suckering pension funds by promising massive rates of return and low risk?

That is, if you even think this is a serious problem.
Click to expand...

I love that you think this only became a problem in 2008/2009. Look at you trying to create some story to match your ideological desires. You don't once reference the crutch of the problem which is politicians giving outsized benefits in the future in exchange essentially for votes and support now.
 
LV, if you want to read up on a little California history read about SB400 from 1999 on pensions. It explains a big reason why we have the unfunded liabilities we do today.
 
cawacko said:
You are definitely a millennial WM. "YOLO b*tches! Fvck planning for the future!"

We're already seeing the effects today. We pay higher taxes but instead of going to increased services it's going to pay pensions of ex-workers. So yes it's easy to say who cares on a message board but in the real world most people don't enjoy paying more then still having less cops and firefighters on the streets for instance
Click to expand...

The plan for the future is to raise taxes when it comes to that. This is like asking a corporation to always be generating enough profit to cover theoretical expenses in a hundred years.
 
Jean-Jacques Dessalines said:
The plan for the future is to raise taxes when it comes to that. This is like asking a corporation to always be generating enough profit to cover theoretical expenses in a hundred years.
Click to expand...

You're a politician's dream WM. Let me promise high future benefits to workers today so I get the credit even though I know we can't possibly achieve them because I'll be out of office when they come due and future tax payers will be stuck with the bill.

It's especially ironic considering the Baby Boomers have done this to your generation
 
Raising the minimum wage is a no-brainer way to improve the economy. It doesn't increase government spending but it increases revenue.

It raises wages for workers at the bottom and near bottom. Those workers spend nearly everything they get, so it represents a huge injection of spending into the economy.

Economic spending is directly related to GDP.

Powerful big corporations which employ large numbers of low wage workers are against it, so that's why it doesn't happen - they pay off our legislators to make sure it doesn't happen.

Minimum wage needs to be a Democratic campaign platform in the midterms and in 2020. That will amplify the blue wave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top