Can’t Elect Money Into Existence

The New Jersey Education Association is holding their convention this week and, according to an njspolight story, they are partying it up:

Gov. Chris Christie may claim in places like New Hampshire and Iowa that he has tamed New Jersey’s public employee unions, but you wouldn’t have known it from the smile on the face of one union’s leader.

“We had a terrific week,” said Wendell Steinhauer, president of the New Jersey Education Association, as his union gathered yesterday for its annual convention in Atlantic City. “Nobody can ruin this week for me.”

…..

The NJEA was all in for the Democrats this year. For the first time in recent memory, the union did not endorse a single Republican. But the union also insisted that it wasn’t party affiliation that mattered. “We would have liked to endorse a Republican,” said Ginger Gold Schnitzer, the NJEA’s head of government relations and director of the NJEA’s PAC.

“The reason the Republicans weren’t endorsed was that none of them stood up and voted for the five-seventh pension payment,” she said, referring to the proposed $3.1 billion payment of five-seventh of the state’s obligation. “The rubber met the road on the pension payment. This election for the NJEA was very much about one thing: It was about candidates keeping promises.”

There might be one thing that could ruin this week for union leaders:

The realization that there is no money to make the type of pension payments that would sustain the current benefit structure and electing (or re-electing) a bunch of innumerate panderers won’t make that $160 billion+ magically appear.

91 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on November 6, 2015 at 10:53 am

    It’s an annual event why shouldn’t they enjoy it?

    Get ready for more of the same in next November’s Senate races, picking up two seats is a dream but one would be great.

    Time for the GOP to side step the Gov’s sinking ship before it costs them their seat!

    Reply

  2. Posted by Anonymous on November 6, 2015 at 11:29 am

    Regarding your closing statement; but the end result of the much needed P&B reforms will be different than the current conversation.

    Sorry Tough Luck, there’ll be no response from me on your typical BS. Your so full of it the crap rolls off your fingertips and onto the keypad.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 6, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Indeed the end result of P & B reform (per the NJ pensions Commission’s proposals) would be different ………….. because all of your current grossly excessive pensions would be frozen (ZERO future growth), and large share (if not all) of your grossly excessive PAST Service accruals would be paid for fromm saving generated by materially reducing your now “platinum+” (active and retiree) healthcare coverage/subsidy.

      As a taxpayer …. Lets go for it …NOW.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 6, 2015 at 7:24 pm

        Not exactly as the taxpayers (voters) have spoken and will continue in the next two elections! Union members, relatives, friends, and supporters let your voice continue to be heard!

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 6, 2015 at 7:59 pm

          Yes, all the “takers” (and their families) ….. re-proclaim your greed !

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 6, 2015 at 10:40 pm

            Wrong, your math doesn’t work again. The recent election results prove it, as will be the case going forward.

            Time to exercise your free market choice, liquidate your NJ assets and MOVE.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 7, 2015 at 12:24 am

            What math …. searching, but don’t see any.

            Grasping at straws again ?
            —————————————–

            If the “State” of NJ ever succeeds in foisting the responsibility for NJ’s Teacher’s pensions and retiree healthcare cost down to the Localities (without the Commission’s supposed offset via VERY material reductions in active and retiree healthcare subsidies at the Local level), I will indeed move ….. as will anyone with money and a brain. The result will be a RAPID acceleration of the failure of Local Plans.

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on November 7, 2015 at 7:54 am

            Better start packing TL…..
            The writing is on the wall…..
            Very very little reforms with next governor…. But significant tax increases as it should be. Time to pay the piper!!! You’ve had it easy for far to long.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 9:48 am

            In an effort to retain NJ’s wealthy residents the Legislative Majority, as part of their P&B reform, is contemplating a “millionaires move tax”!

            Tough Luck better hurry before it’s too late, oops that’s right your not rich (wealthy) just a regular working middle classer!

  3. Posted by Anonymous on November 6, 2015 at 11:59 am

    Hey Pat how many days now? If you and anybody you know are thinking about moving may I suggest you wait until after next November’s Senate election. I don’t think the Dems will need too much help getting into the Governor’s office after this guy!

    Reply

  4. Posted by Pauline Walnuts on November 7, 2015 at 1:30 am

    Amusing bit lifted from another site… Christie born 1962

    Nicotine Patch available 1992

    Nicotine Gum available 1984

    Christie said he watched mother take Nicotine Patches and gum “growing up as a kid”on his viral addiction video.

    Does the time line above add up??

    Looking for sympathy votes by using.. 9/11, Sandy, his friend’s death, his mother’s cancer. Can he go any lower?

    Reply

  5. “The rubber has met the road” on pension payments……indeed it has

    Reply

  6. Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 7, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Actually you can” Elect Money Into Existence” …it’s called a IOU ….

    Reply

  7. Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    Indeed, the GOP “tax breaks” for the 1% so they can continue to grow their mega billion wealth accumulation!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      The one really abusive Tax break for the very wealthy (primarily Hedge fund operators) is “carried interest”. The rest is BS.

      The very rich already pay FAR FAR more than what they consume in public services via the progressive-rate income tax system. The fact that was even MORE “progressive” in the past is irrelevant.

      The “takers” like Public Sector workers/retirees want far MORE than their fair share, and want others (anyone else….. meaning primarily MIDDLE CLASS PRIVATE SECTOR TAXPAYERS) to pay for the HUGE cost of their grossly excessive unnecessary, unjust, unfair, and unaffordable pensions & benefits.

      Their protests and redirection to the misdeeds of the 1% are a red-herring, simply to divert attention from their own insatiable greed.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 1:53 pm

        Spoken like a (not) true working middle class!!! What a load of CRAP, red herring my a*s you and your 1% are the elephant in the room!!!

        Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 4:22 pm

    Mitt Romney tried to demonize the 99%, didn’t work for him and it won’t work for you anti-publics – Panama and Ecuador are good options!!!

    Reply

  9. Posted by mrdenis on November 7, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    I think it’s disgraceful that the boomers in public service (Teachers,police,municipal workers )have the state by the throat and are forcing them to pay outlandish pensions promised by fellow boomers on the backs of the younger generation . This will not end well for the boomers dependding on the next generation to fund them ,I don’t care what was promised and by whom.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 6:29 pm

      There’s enough blame and greed to go ariund in the PRIVATE sector. It won’t end until everything crumbles OR the insatiable greedy Corporate America & 1% start to give back what was unjustly taken from private sector workers AND the Publics come to their senses on the reality of the situation.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 7, 2015 at 9:37 pm

      I think it’s disgraceful that the promises and more importantly, the payments haven’t been made into the pensions!!! These people did nothing wrong but took a job..a career!! When the administration then fails to pay into the pensions for decades and then cry they can’t afford to make the payments… It’s insane to think anything other than these hard workers were wronged.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 8, 2015 at 5:05 am

        Not when the GROSSLY EXCESSIVE Promises” were BOUGHT” from our self-interested elected officials with Public sector Union Campaign contributions.

        Reneging on such underhanded promises is eminently justifiable.

        Reply

  10. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 7, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    I shamelessly borrowed this from Pam on an Illinois site. Say it ain’t so.

    There are reasons to advance the themes that public pensions are excessive and undeserved and imposed upon innocent taxpayers illegally and immorally by evil union boss’ who controlled the legislature. If you dont want taxes raised to make up for the years of pension underfunding, and you do not have an alternative revenue source to pay the backbill, (The state of our State) you must then make justifications for default. If you’re going to convince the public to renege on the pension contract then you attempt to plant the theme that pensions are excessive and undeserved. Evil union public employees retiring too early….with too much money …and unfairly generous when compared to everyone else. This is how you attempt to sell default to the public. Divide and conquer. Pit public employees vs private. Pit tier 1 vs tier 2. Pit the have not with the haves. Taxpayers vs pensioners. The State of Illinois is being squeezed by that old pension debt. If you belive the “end justifies the means” then villainizing public employees to achieve fiscal flexibility for Illinois is a justifiable end. The public won’t take Mrs sweet Kindergarten teachers money away unless the case is made she didnt deserve it. Tough Sell, 

    Substitute New Jersey for Illinois. It works either way.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 8, 2015 at 5:11 am

      Substitute your “plant the theme” with “accurately described (grossly excessive) pensions & benefits” ….and you’ve got it right.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 8, 2015 at 6:43 am

        In

        Your

        Opinion

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 8, 2015 at 8:34 am

          And in their world the only right one that matters – LOL!!!

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 8, 2015 at 10:15 am

            If I may correct you, AND one NJ voters don’t agree with as indicated by Assembly election results.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 8, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            If a referendum were put to NJ voters as to whether to materially reduce the future service pension accruals of CURRENT workers down the level commonly granted Private Sector workers, it would win OVERWHELMINGLY …. just has every such initiative put to voters in CA’s cities.

          • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on November 8, 2015 at 2:59 pm

            TL…… I pray that gets put to a vote!!! Believe it or not, but the majority of NJ would approve higher taxes in order to keep its promises. That’s what’s great about this state. People like you are far and few in between,.

  11. Posted by Anonymous on November 8, 2015 at 10:35 am

    There goes Tender Loving off his meds again. You can always tell when his needle gets caught in the “grossly excessive” track. Need to press reset. Nothing too intelligible here but he’s really not as mean spirited as he pretends. He just realizes he is stuck shilling for the HONESTLY governor (Christie) who is going nowhere and caught covering with the EDUCATED governor (Walker) who crashed and burned. Poor Tender Loving. Who will he shill for when Christie is gone. Look at the posts. There getting more inane, repetitive and frenetic. He’s not an outraged taxpayer. He’s just an early autumn bee doing his last frenzied dance before he dies. Do not provoke him. Maybe just respond to every fifth manic post so he can expire peacefully. I’m with you Tender Loving. You’re with friends now. We understand.

    Reply

  12. Posted by Anonymous on November 8, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    PW’s do not relish in imaginary victory, you’ll regret it once again! P&B reform is inevitable with dedicated funding, best to use this moment advantageously and negotiate in “good faith”, NOW!

    Reply

  13. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 8, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    There is a difference between “excessive” pensions and “unaffordable” pensions.

    The normal cost of Illinois and New Jersey pensions ARE affordable. It is the unfunded liability which is unaffordable. Because, and only because, ARCs have been regularly unpaid or underpaid.

    To blame that on “the unions” or “Mrs sweet Kindergarten teacher” is chutzpah.

    Reply

    • Posted by mrdenis on November 8, 2015 at 4:08 pm

      So is it fair to dump this responsibility on the upcoming generation ,who can’t find jobs and are already burdened with student loans ,and keep losing jobs to robots ..? what ever happen to “it’s for the kids” ,just because the’ve grown up with no job prospects they are supposed to pay for promises made that politicians knew could never possibly be kept but they would be out of office living elsewhere .

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm

        I don’t know about fair. I don’t know if this is true, but I have seen it from more than one source. (“It was on the web!”)

        Social Security:
        “Because the system wasn’t pre-funded, the first recipients of Social Security put in a lot less and got a lot more out; that gap is still being subsidized by today’s workers.”

        (Lucy Mueller, GOBankingRates.com)

        Are we still paying for Ida May Fuller?


        ———————————
        Did you know that we are still paying pensions for soldiers from WWII?

        Those pensions are not prefunded. Pensions (and retiree healthcare) earned by today’s military will be dumped on the upcoming generation.

        As far as robots and jobs, we don’t know yet. That may be the best thing that’s happened to society. “the kids” two generations hence may be looking back at our generation with pity and humor.

        “They HAD to work? Whether they wanted to or not?”

        “Until they were SIXTY?”

        “And instead of levitating vehicles, all they had was PT Cruisers?)”

        and “What is this “Tough Love”? Seriously!

        OMG LOL

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 8, 2015 at 7:57 pm

          Historically preceeding generations have left succeeding generations “better off”. Are we at a tipping point to change that? Hopefully and for the better!

          We’re all to blame and can take credit for where we are today. Not just on this issue but everything! We all, at one time or another, fall prey to believing what we hear even though it sounds to good to be true.

          Our laws, specifically those fiscal related, are to inflexible and require amending legislation for change to occur. Unfortunately, politics come into play with conflicting agendas resulting in a stalemate. For example, SS could have a flexible eligible retirement age that automatically changes every xx years based on a predetermined independent life expectancy table.

          We’re probably one or two MAJOR discoveries away from turning the corner and leaving the lingering effects of the ” Great Recession” being us.

          Reply

        • If memory serves correctly, I believe we are still paying exisiting families members of Civil War veterans pensions and benefits and SS.

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 8, 2015 at 7:52 pm

      Quoting S. Moderation Douglas …………..

      “There is a difference between “excessive” pensions and “unaffordable” pensions.
      The normal cost of Illinois and New Jersey pensions ARE affordable. It is the unfunded liability which is unaffordable. Because, and only because, ARCs have been regularly unpaid or underpaid. ”

      To to blunt ……….. Bullshit.

      In the past, you have argued that while pensions & benefits ARE indeed far greater than those of Private Sector workers, that that excess is offset by lower cash pay. While numerous studies show differing results of Public/Private Sector “Total Compensation” (cash pay plus pensions plus benefits) you have never before taken the position that pensions alone (either in total, or just the Normal Cost) are not far greater in the PUBLIC Sector.

      The “Normal Cost” of a pension is simply the value of a single year’s accruals (ignoring that additional monies are needed to amortize existing unfunded liabilities).

      You statement above that ….”The normal cost of Illinois and New Jersey pensions ARE affordable.” …. is Bullshit, plain and simple.

      In this (John Bury’s Blog) on May 14, 2015 in comments #s 95 and 96 (out of the total of 99 comment to that day’s post) I demonstrated that when the TYPICAL pensions granted Public Sector workers are compared to those typically granted comparable Private Sector workers, the Public Sector pensions of Non-Safety workers are 2.41 times greater in value at retirement, and that 2,41 times, rises to 5.41 times greater for Safety workers with the richest (and hence most egregious) pensions.

      Those demonstrations ONLY included the calculation of the NORMAL COST. Not one dime of the 2.41 times or the 5.41 times reflects amount due to amortize existing unfunded liabilities.

      My 2 demonstrations referenced above can be found here:

      https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/its-embarsaing-and-im-tired-of-hearing-this-i-want-what-i-was-promised/#comments

      —————————

      And as to your last sentence quoted above ….

      “Because, and only because, ARCs have been regularly unpaid or underpaid. ”

      I again say ….Bullshit.

      Public “takers” (Public Sector Unions, workers, and retirees such as yourself) like to say that the CAUSE of the pension mess many States and Cities find themselves in today is the lack of full funding.

      Baloney. “Funding” requirements are A FUNCTION OF (and directly proportional) to the “generosity” of promised benefit levels. A VERY “generous” pension will always be VERY costly and VERY difficult to fully fund.

      The ROOT CAUSE of the pension mess is grossly excessive pension (AND benefit) “generosity”. And the lack of full funding is not a CAUSE of the pension mess, but a CONSEQUENCE of the real root cause …. grossly excessive pension “generosity”.

      Reply

  14. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 8, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    What could be worse than Garbage In Garbage Out?

    How about ……GIGO to two decimal places?

    AND…..

    Copied and pasted ad nauseum.

    ……………………….

    We should all learn from Pam. She hit the proverbial nail right on the head in two hundred words or less. No phony statistics. No hyperbole. No ad hominem attacks. Just common sense and brutal honesty. I guess it takes a woman to cut through all the BS and say it like it is.

    Good job, Pam!

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 10:44 am

      AMEN and a big THANK YOU for the Pam’s & SMD’s of the world!!!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 12:58 pm

        LOL ….. surprising, BH ( this Blog’s “Resident Nutcase”) thanking California’s resident Pubic Sector “Taker” SMD whose claim to fame is a mastery of distortion, exaggeration, omission and lies.

        Reply

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 9, 2015 at 1:01 pm

          Name one lie.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 1:03 pm

            Quoting from your above comment …..

            “The normal cost of Illinois and New Jersey pensions ARE affordable.”

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 9, 2015 at 1:58 pm

            What is the normal cost of New Jersey Pensions?

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 2:40 pm

            Let’s use Police as the example because they are a very homogeneous group with respect to salary and most work for a full career (25 years). Based on the wages available here:

            http://php.app.com/NJpublicemployees14/search.php

            The TYPICAL “wages” of Police officers with 20+ years of service (and nearing retirement) is OVER $150,000.

            The NJ formulas are lower that those in CA, but still give 65% of final payafter 25 years, and assuming they retire at age 55, a COLA-increased pension STARTING at 0.65 x $150,000 = $97,500 has a lump sum “value” upon retirement of between $1.6 and $1.9 Million.

            The level annual cost (i.e., the “Normal Cost”) to fully fund that pension over their working career (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. akin the those REQUIRED of Private Sector Plans by US Gov’t regulation) is just about a level annual 50% of pay.

            Compare THAT to the 3%-4% of pay (plus the 6.2% of pay taxpayer contribution into SS on the worker’s behalf) that Private Sector workers typically get in retirement benefits.

            Not only is their base pay excessive, but the richness (and hence cost) of their pensions and benefit is so over the top, that the only word to describe them is “ludicrous”.

            So yes ……. I believe these Pensions are “unaffordable”.

            ——————————————

            While somewhat less excessive (but STILL excessive) all non-safety worker pensions are also far far richer (and hence far far more costly) that those of their Private Sector counterparts, and also “unaffordable”

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 9, 2015 at 3:44 pm

            You crack me up.

            Boston college, and others, say the normal cost of NJ PERS is 6%; TPAS is 8%; and PFRS 19%.

            All three, since the recession, have a UAAL higher than the normal cost, meaning the ARC is more than double the “affordable” normal cost. And New Jersey hasn’t been fully paying either.

            Usually, when you call someone a LIAR; you should have better evidence than “I BELIEVE these Pensions are “unaffordable”.
            …………….
            “Let’s use Police as the example…..” ?

            ……TYPICAL “wages” of Police officers……. irrelevant.

            ……costs REQUIRED of Private Sector Plans…… irrelevant

            ……Compare THAT to Private Sector workers…… irrelevant

            …… base pay excessive…… irrelevant (and opinionated)

            What is the total payroll for New Jersey public workers?
            What is the total normal cost for those workers?

            Not, What is Tough Love’s “opinion” ?

            “ludicrous”

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 5:02 pm

            SMD, You can crack yourself all you want, but it will not change that you distort, exaggerate, and lie…..

            I found your reference to the Boston College figures … on page 5 of THIS document:

            http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/New-Jersey.pdf

            MY 50% Normal Cost was TOTAL Plan costs (from both the workers and the Taxpayers) ….. did I say otherwise?

            YOUR (and Boston College’s) 19% is only the Taxpayer share. If we add the other 9% (shown on Report page 5) as the worker’s contribution, your 19% becomes 28% vs my 50%.

            Next. That 28% assume a continuation of the accounting/actuarial malfeasance that John rails about on this Blog, with the liability measurement and costs based on impossibly rosy (interest, mortality, and other) assumptions. That 28% EASILY grows to my 50% (and likely MORE) if AS I STATED IN MY ABOVE Comment, the calculations are done …. “using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. akin the those REQUIRED of Private Sector Plans by US Gov’t regulation”.

            YUP ….. you distort, exaggerate, and lie.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 5:39 pm

            Pardon the interruption but breaking the numbers down, the only amount in question as deemed affordable or unaffordable is the employer (taxpayer) cost. Therefore, to determine affordability it’s misleading to include the employee’s contribution. Second, to the validity of the source data; there are an infinite number of conflicting and bias data sources out there!

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 7:07 pm

            OK Anon, fair enough request for making the comparison a clear Apples-to-Apples ….. cost to taxpayers for Police Officer Public Sector pensions vs cost to Private Sector employers for employer-provided retirement benefits.

            Police Officer (noting that in NJ they don’t participate in SS …. someone, please correct me if they in fact DO participate in SS):

            Taxpayer cost = A level annual 50% of pay less the 9% of pay that the officers contribute = 41% of pay

            VS

            Private Sector employer cost = 3%-4% of pay into a 401K Plan + 6.2% employer contribution into SS on the worker’s behalf = 9.2%-10.2% of pay.

            Bottom line ….. Taxpayers are FORCED to be responsible for paying 4 TIMES more than what Private Sector employers are willing to pay.
            ——————-

            Clear enough ?

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 9, 2015 at 7:15 pm

            ” ….. did I say otherwise?”
            “YOUR 19% is only the Taxpayer share.”

            “your 19% becomes 28%”

            “That 28% EASILY grows to my 50%”

            LOL OMG SMH Still cracking up, Love.

            ……………..
            S Moderation Douglas said “The normal cost of Illinois and New Jersey pensions ARE affordable.”

            Meaning that portion of the pension contributions actually PAID by New Jersey. (Thank you Anonymous. )

            Which, much as thou doth protest, does not use “assumptions …. akin the those REQUIRED of Private Sector Plans”.

            And it means the normal cost of ALL NJ workers, not just the safety workers.

            The last aggregate numbers I see are 2012, when the normal contribution was $1.432 B on a payroll of $27.130 B (about 5.2%)*

            The UAAL that year was over $4 B.

            S Moderation says $1.4 B is “affordable”, whereas the total ARC for that year ($5.4 B) is ….problematic, at best.

            1) Those numbers have surely grown since 2012, and I don’t know what they are today, which is why I asked you (if you KNOW I am lying, hopefully you have better information than your opinion of the private sector pension plan requirements of the salary of a “typical” police officer. Whatever that is.)

            2) * The asterisk up there on the 5.2% normal cost (2012) is because, as you mentioned, John called bulls hit (LOL! “bulls hit” was auto correct, but it works) on that Normal Cost.

            AND

            I don’t disagree.

            BUT

            Your 50% is also bulls hit. As Anonymous (5:39) says, there are an infinite number of conflicting and bias data sources out there!

            If I had to guess, I would call NJ normal costs around $2 B this year, and UAAL $5B or more.

            As S Moderation Douglas said, $2B = affordable. … $2B plus $5B, not affordable.

            But the reason that $5B is even a question is because NJ, and Illinois, never paid the damn $2B when it was due.

            ………………
            Tough Love:

            “your 19% becomes 28%”

            “That 28% EASILY grows to my 50%”

            You have GOT to tell us who you work for. I don’t want any innocent bloggers patronizing any company which uses TL math.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm

            Clear enough based on your data source, but not based on calculations using SMD’s Boston College data source.

            Regarding pensions; (as you’ve suggested to the extreme based on your opinion and bias data sources) further reduction of future accruals and increase employee contributions.

            Regarding benefits; significant changes to health care by reducing coverage type and increasing premium share.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 7:42 pm

            The focus on unaffordable seeks to distract from the root cause, continual UNDERFUNDING. Minor adjustments to P&B with required funding are indeed affordable!!!

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 7:56 pm

            SMD “thou” can protest all “thou” wants …..

            It will STILL be distortions, exaggerations, and lies.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 9, 2015 at 8:44 pm

            Yes, well, I’m polymerised tree sap, and you’re an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory, and adheres to you.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 9:12 pm

            SMD,

            Well ……… Assuredly with some smaller words, I recall coming up with the same retort to an annoying school bully ….. when I was about 6 years old.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 9:25 pm

            Your sounding more and more like NJ’s sorry a*s Governor!!!

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 1:12 pm

          TL the MASTER of double talk, misstatements, and lies. Read their blog posts, so many no reason to narrow the scope, to track their trail of BS!!!

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 2:41 pm

            I’d bet your IQ is 90 or less ……….

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 2:54 pm

            Yeah I’d bet your is, still the idiotic moron!!!

          • Posted by Sean on November 9, 2015 at 9:00 pm

            “Anonymous,” have you EVER posted ANYTHING of substance? EVER? Tap dance all you want, but when hit in the face with factual statements, all you seem to be capable of is wetting your pants…

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 9:11 pm

            Just trying to keep pace with the MASTER TL and needless to say your post was full of “substance abuse”. The bias opinions you refer have been and will continue to be refutted by factual source data. Time to change your diapers their full of poop!

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 9, 2015 at 9:15 pm

            “BH”, “the Resident Nutcase”, “Anonymous” (whoever you are today) ……….. you couldn’t have kept pace with me when I was 10 years old..

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 9:24 pm

            Oh right, what an inflated ego must be the source for all your BS Sean, MJ, or whoever you claim to be.

        • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on November 9, 2015 at 3:20 pm

          Not me… Netball!

          Reply

  15. Posted by Anonymous on November 9, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    TL a little testy when challenged. Motphs into other handles to write even more provoking and demeaning posts. Clearly a misguided solider for an army on the verge of defeat.

    Reply

  16. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 10, 2015 at 3:11 am

    “your 19% becomes 28%”

    “That 28% EASILY grows to my 50%”

    ???

    See my long comment above.

    https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12108255_958707200869135_1321328754858148292_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2cb310842b5e21c284762654915e3708&oe=56F6A178

    (Apropos of nothing.)

    Reply

  17. Posted by Anonymous on November 14, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    Maybe not but you can re-elect it into oblivion!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: