Jindal Points Up the Obvious

While he was on the main debate stage Chris Christie flew under the radar as nobody wanted to waste their 30 seconds to make the obvious point on his record.  With fewer participants and more time Bobby Jindal put the case as well as he could considering the setting:



.
Put more bluntly, what Jindal wanted to get across is that Christie is a disaster as a governor with a record he cannot defend beyond bad jokes and sophistry.  In this case:
.

.
Is anyone buying this?

73 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2015 at 3:02 am

    Yes! TL is buying that, Hook, Line and Sinker!

    Reply

  2. Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 11, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    RINO’s always are a disaster to New Jersey …trying to satisfy conservatives with lies while cow towing to liberals to garner their votes never makes either group happy .

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      Makes things kind of BLUE while the State is seeing RED, I was for WALKER!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 1:50 pm

        Walker would have ….. by ENDING all collective bargaining with NJ’s Public sector Unions/”Associations” ….. set NJ on a path to financial health.

        Without VERY material pension/benefit reform ….. due to the insatiable greed of it Public Sector Union/workers, and our self-interested Elected Officials, whose favorable votes (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) are BOUGHT with Public Sector Union Campaign contributions and election support. ……. NJ is doomed.

        And the greedy workers won’t get anywhere near what they have been “promised” anyway. When there is no money, such “promises” do not get paid. They won’t be happy with the end-game ……… and many will be thinking, “perhaps we should have SERIOUSLY compromised when things could have been fixed”.

        Greed HAS consequences, and the Pied-piper in looking for his due.

        Reply

        • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on November 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm

          You obviously know little about negotiations TL…..
          Collective bargaining has been off the table since this administration took office. But all you do is copy and paste the same old crap!!!
          I’m sure most people, at this point, see a post authored by you, and simply skip it because it’s just the same old BS!!
          You and drone…. Two peas in a pod!!

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 8:33 pm

            HONEST “negotiations” (between 2 sides with DIFFERENT constituencies … i. e., workers and Taxpayers) never happens in the PUBLIC Sector.

            Both sides are ONLY looking out for the best interests of the workers ….. with “management” betraying their responsibility to look out for the best interests all taxpayers, not just the workers.
            ______________________

        • Posted by The Resident Nutcase on November 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm

          And…..the pension will continue to be paid… Now and into the future. It’s not something that’s open to your interpretation of what’s right or wrong. Public workers are protected and will always get paid. Sorry to rain on your parade.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 8:41 pm

            Unlike the Federal Gov’t, NJ doesn’t have a money tree (a printing press), and once Pension Plan assets run out, I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you think full pension/benefits payments will continue on a pay-as-you-go basis out of annual revenue collections.

            The tax increases to do so would never be passed ….. even by the Public Sector Unions’ “in-their-pocket” Democratic Legislators.

        • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 12, 2015 at 6:51 pm

          “ENDING all collective bargaining with NJ’s Public sector Unions/”Associations”

          Except for police and fire, of course. How could that go wrong?

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 12, 2015 at 8:46 pm

            THAT was one of Walker’s biggest mistakes…. a royal “cave-in”.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 1:34 pm

            But Walker was by no means unique. Excluding police and fire from pension reform seems to be more the rule than the exception.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 3:51 pm

            Yes….. but is excluding them “fair” to Taxpayers, when THEIR pensions (AND benefits) are the MOST generous (by FAR), and hence the MOST costly ?

          • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on November 13, 2015 at 8:37 pm

            Excluding police and fire because….
            #1. Our safety is paramount. And can’t have that security without police fire end regardless what some idiots say. It’s a fact.
            #2. They have paid the most into their pensions since day 1!!!
            #3. They have the best funded, because unlike the state plans… The respective municipalities pay into it as well. Unlike the state.

          • So instead of dissing the private citizens who pay your very generous salaries, benefits, pensions and early retirements, best to protect those private citizens best and don’t bite the very hand that feeds you! In other words, don’t sh*t where you live

  3. Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    Guess we’re ALL beholding to somebody – KOCH BROS!!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 4:33 pm

      No amount of pointing out the misdeeds (real or imagined) of others will change the undeniable FACT that Public Sector Plans everywhere are grossly excessive and need to be VERY materially reduced for the future service of all CURRENT workers.

      While we CERTAINLY DON’T (have the money) in NJ, even if we had the money to fund these grossly excessive “promises”, there is no justifiable reason to do so …. i.e., to honor the results of such underhanded deal-making between the Public Sector Unions and NJ’s self-serving, taxpayer-betraying Elected Officials.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2015 at 5:01 pm

        Hmm are you saying the Local, State, and Federal elections are all rigged.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 6:21 pm

          I’m saying that NJ’s Elected Officials are very clearly trading their affirmative votes (on Public Sector pay, pensions, and benefits) in exchange for Public Sector Union Campaign contributions and election support.

          More like bribery and racketeering than rigged elections.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 11, 2015 at 6:38 pm

            Oh so it’s just NJ, Walker didn’t exchange any big business $ (Kohls, etc.) in return for? Any on and on…

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 11, 2015 at 8:46 pm

            No, not just NJ. With few exceptions, it’s happening everywhere.

  4. Posted by Pauline Walnuts on November 11, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    You know who else used to look into the camera too much? Nathan Hale. Just sayin…

    Reply

  5. Posted by dentss dunnigan on November 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm

    What should scare the bejesus out of the the pension holders would be last year the market was up 12% and the pension fund produced a 5% gain …this year the market is flat ,unchanged with interest rates zero what kind of return do they expect and how much of a drawdown will there be in the fund …minus 7 to 9 billion with no market loss .How many years can this go on until……?

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 12, 2015 at 4:36 pm

      Until….? The State follows the law they agreed to in 2011 and fund the pensions!

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm

        Silly man …..

        No, until #1 retiree healthcare subsidies end (to free up some money for the pensions) and #2 the pensions get cut by ??? …….. 25%, 50%, ??.

        Reply

    • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on November 12, 2015 at 5:47 pm

      That’s because those who manage these funds make millions upon millions for making unrealistic benchmarks…. Regardless of the funds performance. Thanks to the governed, he and his friends are making all the money while we idiots fight over the crumbs.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on November 12, 2015 at 6:11 pm

        I don’t disagree with you but small in relation to total $.

        Also contributing, depending on where your opinion lies, the P&BP varying from modestly to grossly excessive and the lack of proper funding by both parties over the past decades.

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 12, 2015 at 6:23 pm

        Boob ……

        It’s because the “promised” pensions are GROSSLY EXCESSIVE ……. ROUTINELY 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than those of (the lucky few ) Private Sector workers (who still have Defined Benefit pensions) and retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.

        As recommended buy the NJ pension Commission ………. Freeze the pensions for all CURRENT State and Local workers and replace them for future service with DC retirement Plans NO MORE generous than those typically granted Private Sector workers (3%-4% of pay annually) …… and we STOP digging this financial hole we are in deeper EVERY DAY.
        —————————————————————————–

        The fees paid to fund manager are a pittance compared to the thievery & union/politician collusion associated with the granting of these grossly excessive “promises” in the first place. It’s a red herring and more of your consistent attempts to divert attention from the ROOT CAUSE of the problem ….. GROSSLY EXCESSIVE Public Sector pensions & benefits.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 12, 2015 at 6:37 pm

          Quoting SMD “In Your Opinion”, both of you have referenced varying sources with differing opinions on this issue ……………….

          Reply

        • Posted by ~The Resident Nutcase on November 12, 2015 at 6:43 pm

          Never gonna happen!
          Take your hatred and greed elsewhere!

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 12, 2015 at 7:04 pm

            My greed ? I’m just a NJ taxpayer fed up with having the absurdly high financial responsibility for your grossly excessive pensions & benefits hanging over our heads. They were NEVER necessary, just, fair, or affordable, and I want them ERASED.

            YOU (and you Public Sector ilk) are the ….GREEDY.

            And NJ’s in-the-Union’s-pocket, self-interested, contribution-soliciting, vote-selling, taxpayer-betraying Elected Officials are the ENABLERS.

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 19, 2015 at 3:14 pm

          TL,
          Once again I will point out your statement below is absolutely FALSE…

          “… ROUTINELY 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than those of (the lucky few ) Private Sector workers (who still have Defined Benefit pensions) and retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service…”

          I have 4 close friends that are my age, all have similar no. of years working at their jobs. Three recently retired and one will within a year or two. A construction worker, major oil company, telecomminications and defense contractor. We have discussed pensions on numerous occassions. Formulas are all different but the pension amounts essentially are the same compared to the salaries. Very, very similar especially now that COLAs are dead for public workers in NJ. Certainly my pension, as a public employee is nowhere close to 3 or 4 times more generous than these private workers. It is not even 1.5 times more generous . One big difference though is I contribute far more to my pension system than they do. One does not contribute a dime. Overall, these private workers have a pension more generous than this public employee. I am sure this isn’t just a coincendence… For young, new employees…different story maybe.

          Just stop with the constant LYING. STOP!! How many people have to tell you this before you will just “sit down and shut up” like your boss tells everyone?

          Reply

    • They are scared, thats why there is all of ranting, name calling and ridiculous comments on this blog, publics and TL included (sorry TL). Anybody who is depending on the government to manage their finances and retirement accounts has to be living in a bubble. We are all discouraged about the way our hard earned dollars have been squandered and the bottom line is tgat we have been and still are being taxed to death and the race to the bottom continues. If I were a public depending on the whims of a corrupt, greedy and out of control government to mind my business I would be demanding reform immediately and an option out of this ponzi scheme.

      Reply

  6. I think you all need to listen to what Gov Jindal said one more time…..then listen to Christie dance around the issue and blame Obamacare for the public sector healthcare and pension costs. Why would anyone want Christie in the White House.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 1:37 pm

      I have heard Christie “blamed” for a lot of things (some legitimate, some not), but this is the first time I have heard anyone (you) say that Christie blamed Obamacare for Pubic Sector pension costs.

      Beyond ridiculous ….

      Reply

  7. Posted by denss dunigan on November 13, 2015 at 11:18 am

    These are the group of people who the unions want to pay for their pensions going forward …..good luck with that ,they don’t want to pay for what they receive now let alone unaffordable pensions politicians “promised ” for past votes ..http://finance.yahoo.com/news/thousands-students-activists-streets-demanding-231544203.html

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 12:33 pm

      Oh you mean our children, the future, that we should care so much about. Wanting something handed to them that previous generations had to work for?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 1:44 pm

        It’s not ………….”Wanting something handed to them that previous generations had to work for?”

        It’s …… NOT wanting to pay for the cost of pension & benefit promises both grossly excessive and (THEREFORE) very materially underfunded during the years the workers were employed. AT LEAST 50% of these grossly excessive promises should be disavowed …… and not paid.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 2:24 pm

          Guess I missed the free college option when I went?

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 11:42 pm

            You must be too young.

            San Francisco State University, up till about 1983, no tuition. “Registration fees” were less than $100 semester, as I recall. Typically books were more than registration, even if you bought used books.

  8. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    I was somewhat surprised by the bottom line of the latest STUMP blog:

    “The bottomless money fund of “let’s tax the rich people” is not so bottomless after all.

    So what will be cut to fund your pensions? If you can come up with that, then this idea is not necessarily a bad one after all.

    Full contributions should be made.

    Whether they can be made, or will be made…. that’s entirely different.”

    (Kind of the opposite of what TL always rants. )

    Perhaps the most important line in the article:

    “Yes, this could have been manageable if the “required” contributions were actually required.”
    ……………………..
    The Annual Required Contribution ….IS….. affordable. It’s the buildup of unfunded liabilities that makes full funding impossible.

    “But shoulda, coulda, woulda doesn’t help New Jersey now.”

    Either allowing states to file bankruptcy (how well did that work for creditors in Detroit and Stockton?) or federal guarantees combined with more stringent controls.

    “Full contributions should be made.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm

      I’m surprised you read the Stump blog, the writings of Mary Pat Campbell, and actuary (and in my opinion, quite accomplished and rather brilliant).

      But not surprising that you cherry pick just a small bit of her many posts. While she calls for fully funding of promised benefits, oh how she has many many times pointed out the collusion, underhanded dealings, grossly excessive pensions, spiking, and retroactive increases as the REASON why pensions are so costly ….. and hence so difficult to fully fund.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 2:26 pm

        So you surprised me.

        Yes, I’ve read Mary Pat often. That’s why I was surprised she said the pension SHOULD have been fully funded.

        Also surprised you didn’t call me a LIAR again for omitting her next line:

        “Yes, if that had happened, people would have noticed how expensive the pensions were earlier and tried reform well before Christie came on the scene.”

        Although I respectfully disagree.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 2:46 pm

          Who’s cherry pick here TL, READ the blog post in detail b/c there are more points made contradicting your BS. Granted it’s a retrospective analogy, that due to decades of inadequate funding, doesn’t solve the problem prospectively.

          Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 2:27 pm

        “Full contributions should be made.”

        Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm

        Quoting from that blog article ….

        “Yes, this could have been manageable if the “required” contributions were actually required.

        Yes, if that had happened, people would have noticed how expensive the pensions were earlier and tried reform well before Christie came on the scene.”

        Did you notice the 2-nd sentence ?

        Bottom line…….. if we (the State) attempted to fully find these promised pensions (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. NOT the extremely “rosy” assumptions incorporated into the State’s “official” valuations), it would have become VERY obvious that to do so is too costly BECAUSE the promised pensions are TOO GENEROUS.

        THAT is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 4:28 pm

          Can you please quote from the blog in question YOUR below statement?

          Quoting TL’s conclusion;

          Bottom line…….. if we (the State) attempted to fully find these promised pensions (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. NOT the extremely “rosy” assumptions incorporated into the State’s “official” valuations), it would have become VERY obvious that to do so is too costly BECAUSE the promised pensions are TOO GENEROUS.

          THAT is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 4:38 pm

            Clarification, specifically YOUR last sentence.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm

            No clarification need ……….. while Public Sector Unions/workers like to point to the lack of full funding as the CAUSE of NJ’s pension mess, that’s false and misleading.

            “FUNDING” follows from (and in direct proportion to) the “generosity” of the Plan. Extreme generosity is extremely expensive …….. and hence very difficult to fully fund.

            The lack of full funding is not the CAUSE of the pension mess, but a CONSEQUENCE of the real ROOT CAUSE …. grossly excessive pension “generosity”.
            ——————————————-

            And as to the extreme “generosity” of Public Sector pensions, I have demonstrated that numerous times on THIS and other blogs.

            It’s easy to demonstrate the MULTIPLES GREATER PUBLIC Sector pensions noted above. The last demonstration of mine to this effect can be found in the 95-th and 96-th comments (of the 99 comments) to an earlier John Bury Blog article found here ……

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

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 4:54 pm

            Too much of YOUR personal interpretation mixed in with blog reference. I asked for clarification on stump’s blog and you give me bury’s blog. Like Mr Wonderful says……..

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 6:54 pm

            Be specific …what exactly are you looking for ?

            P.S. I didn’t quote anything from STUMP in any of my comments.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 7:50 pm

            Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
            Quoting from that blog article ….

            “Yes, this could have been manageable if the “required” contributions were actually required.

            Yes, if that had happened, people would have noticed how expensive the pensions were earlier and tried reform well before Christie came on the scene.”

            Did you notice the 2-nd sentence ?

            Bottom line…….. if we (the State) attempted to fully find these promised pensions (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. NOT the extremely “rosy” assumptions incorporated into the State’s “official” valuations), it would have become VERY obvious that to do so is too costly BECAUSE the promised pensions are TOO GENEROUS.

            THAT is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 7:52 pm

            TL’s above copy and pasted post in response to:

            S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 1:32 pm
            I was somewhat surprised by the bottom line of the latest STUMP blog:

            “The bottomless money fund of “let’s tax the rich people” is not so bottomless after all.

            So what will be cut to fund your pensions? If you can come up with that, then this idea is not necessarily a bad one after all.

            Full contributions should be made.

            Whether they can be made, or will be made…. that’s entirely different.”

            (Kind of the opposite of what TL always rants. )

            Perhaps the most important line in the article:

            “Yes, this could have been manageable if the “required” contributions were actually required.”
            ……………………..
            The Annual Required Contribution ….IS….. affordable. It’s the buildup of unfunded liabilities that makes full funding impossible.

            “But shoulda, coulda, woulda doesn’t help New Jersey now.”

            Either allowing states to file bankruptcy (how well did that work for creditors in Detroit and Stockton?) or federal guarantees combined with more stringent controls.

            “Full contributions should be made.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm

            No Anonymous,

            My above post (which you quoted correctly) was NOT a response to an SMD comment, but was simply a response to an above comment (time-stamped November 13, 2015 at 2:40 pm) by an “Anonymous” with the link to a STUMP blog-post.

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 13, 2015 at 9:04 pm

            Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
            Quoting from that blog article ….

            And as to this part of your reply comment regarding the ANNON STUMP blog reference;

            Did you notice the 2-nd sentence?

            This is what I’m talking about, YOUR opinion OR factual restatement from STUMP blog link?

            Bottom line…….. if we (the State) attempted to fully find these promised pensions (using reasonable and appropriate assumptions …. NOT the extremely “rosy” assumptions incorporated into the State’s “official” valuations), it would have become VERY obvious that to do so is too costly BECAUSE the promised pensions are TOO GENEROUS.

            THAT is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

  9. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    “P.S. I didn’t quote anything from STUMP in any of my comments.”
    ________________
    Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    Quoting from that blog article ….

    “Yes, this could have been manageable if the “required” contributions were actually required.

    Yes, if that had happened, people would have noticed how expensive the pensions were earlier and tried reform well before Christie came on the scene.”
    ________________
    Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 8:41 pm

    No Anonymous,

    My above post (which you quoted correctly) was NOT a response to an SMD comment, but was simply a response to an above comment …………..
    __________________
    (from the archives)

    Posted by Tough Love on May 15, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    see my long comment above …
    __________________
    S Moderation says:

    This is starting to sound like “Who’s on first?”

    “Full contributions should be made.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on November 13, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      “Full Contributions should be made” ???????

      NO, taxpayers should contribute an amount towards Public Sector pensions (expressed as a % of pay) no greater than what THEIR employers contribute towards their retirement security.

      Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal ……. a FAR FAR FAR better deal RIGHT NOW ….. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 13, 2015 at 10:36 pm

        ¡No hay problema!

        Take from the poor (janitor). ……BECAUSE the promised pensions are TOO GENEROUS.

        Give to the less poor (attorney). ……Got a problem with EQUAL?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on November 14, 2015 at 1:45 am

          SMD, It doesn’t seem to sink in with you…..

          Taxpayers are not in the business of UNNECESSARILY giving away their wealth. The Public Sector Janitor deserves EQUAL compensation (pay, pensions, and benefits) typically granted comparable Private Sector workers …. but not more.

          If that’s not enough to live on (or retire on), he …… JUST LIKE THE PRIVATE SECTOR WORKER WOULD HAVE TO DO ……… is to seek out assistance from social services.

          Public Sector workers are not “special” and deserving of a better deal than the taxpayers that pay their way.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 14, 2015 at 2:05 am

            TL,  It doesn’t seem to sink in with you…..

            “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” 

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 14, 2015 at 2:10 am

            And you have NEVER mentioned even one. ….. repeatedly, just self-interest and greed.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 14, 2015 at 8:09 am

            Because I’m not CRAZY.

            The Navy had a saying, ” Do something, even if it’s wrong.”

            But it’s not do ANYTHING. You have to try to reason the nature of the problem, IF there actually is a problem. Use a little logic. Your thinking is one dimensional.

            You see one janitor who makes more than another, you automatically assume one is overpaid and must be cut. There are at least two other possibilities: the other janitor is underpaid, and we should find a way to raise his pay (or pension) such that he doesn’t have to rely on social services; or, just perhaps, it’s actually OK for two similar workers to have unequal pay. (That occurs regularly, even in the private sector.)

            If you are absolutely insistent on reducing the benefits of lower skilled public workers, you should be just as adamant about increasing the pay of public sector professionals.

            “The first thing we do, let’s raise the pay for all the lawyers.” (Sorry, Shakespeare)

            Or

            There are more things in heaven and earth, Tough Love, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

            Here is but one source that discusses the phenomenon of wage compression in the public sector.

            “The Wage Structure and the Sorting of Workers into the Public Sector”

            George J. Borjas

            You opinions are too doctrinaire and biased, so your solutions are simplistic and, ……..wrong.

            You could use a little moderation.

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 14, 2015 at 12:59 pm

            I AM being VERY reasonable …..

            End the (grossly excessive and unaffordable) DB pensions for the future service of all CURRENT Public Sector workers and put in place future service pensions & benefits (AND pay) EQUAL to what their Private Sector counterparts get.

            Got a problem with EQUAL ?

          • Posted by Anonymous on November 14, 2015 at 3:07 pm

            You are anything but fair. Lol

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm

            Anon,

            You’re stuck in ……. greed/entitlement/I’m-special …… mode.

            What’s “unfair” about my above proposal ?

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 15, 2015 at 1:13 am

            What’s unfair?

            “and put in place future service pensions & benefits (AND pay) EQUAL to what their Private Sector counterparts get.”

            Will work about as well as Chapter 78 worked. Employees will lose DB; EQUAL pay will never happen.

            http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/a/a0/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100523172400

          • Posted by Tough Love on November 15, 2015 at 1:34 am

            Quoting SMD ….

            “Will work about as well as Chapter 78 worked. Employees will lose DB”

            Well Duh, Public Sector employees NEED TO LOSE ….. because (when taken as a group) they are materially OVERCOMPENSATED.

            Yup, that INCLUDES of all your cherry-picked studies claiming they make (oh so much) less in cash pay.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on November 15, 2015 at 1:46 am

            Just can’t trust them biased liberal bastards at The American Enterprise Institute.

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: