Good morning gentle reader.
I had intended this Friday to be a very productive day with many goals to meet. I read some older posts on older sites and find my motivation is thin this morning.
I am trained as an economist. We are taught to move decimals when there is a crisis-reduce benefits and the like. But I am also a man. From the very foundations of, take your pick, our nation, or our world, is the notion of the value of man in his existence not societal contribution.
Posts I read this morning are angry, screaming “corruption at all levels!” I would expect the next line to “off with their heads!” “Let them Fail!”
Many issues, including pensions, divide Americans at a time we should be standing together. Many of the blogs I read this morning say no federal intervention! I shake my head at such naiveté. Remember the following words.
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”
This is the preamble to your constitution. When did these words fail to remain true? Are they still true?
I am trying to complete my first of three papers as early as Tuesday. My goal is to demonstrate;
- the Federal Reserve took erroneous actions and set up the conditions of our recent depression, and has a duty to fix what it broke, to intervene.
- A second argument for federal intervention in the single largest crisis is in the above preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.
My second of three papers shows the Federal Reserve can fund massive investments very quickly. Are you aware:
“Over a single weekend (March 17, 2008), the Federal Reserve was able to invest tens of billions of dollars in America. In a single month, September 2008, the Federal Reserve was able to invest more than $700 billion in America, and in a single quarter, more than a trillion dollars invested in America.”
Solutions are available but considerable work is necessary for us to get there. This blog claims to have more than 400 followers. Are any from Central States, the United Mine Workers of America, Teamsters local 805? I would appreciate any that have never commented before to do so now as I could use some motivation.
Thank you and God Bless.
Tim Alexander
Triune
805-402-4943
tim@triunegfs.com
Burypensions Blog 
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Ah, if only Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan were reader of this Blog ……………
Posted by Mary Pat Campbell (@meepbobeep) on March 9, 2018 at 1:06 pm
The Fed did not destroy pensions. Decades of decisions to underfund pensions and decisions to low ball what the promises were worth made pensions more precarious. Plans that did not lard on asset risk, that made sure full funding occurred and moderate benefits accrued, are actually in a pretty good situation.
Nobody is all that interested in bailing out the profligate. You misread – very few people are happy that Goldman Sachs was essentially bailed out. Saying “You bailed out those guys, why not these guys?” is not particularly persuasive to people who hated the earlier bailout.
Detroit got no bailout, neither did Rhode Island (esp. Central Falls) nor Prichard, Alabama. California sure as hell ain’t getting bailed out. Nor will Illinois, New Jersey, or Kentucky. Trying to invoke baseball, mom, and apple pie is not going to change the political calculus.
The MEPs may get their partial bailout this year, but it won’t be enough to keep them going indefinitely, especially once self-driving trucks hit the road. They will not be made whole, and some plans (NY Teamsters) will not get their old benefits back.
Posted by Mary Pat Campbell (@meepbobeep) on March 9, 2018 at 1:12 pm
And to be clear, I am talking about what will happen as opposed to what should happen. As TL’s smartass comment above indicates, none of us here at this blog have influence on Fed policy.
The Fed is unlikely to get bailout happy any time soon, esp. with regards to pensions. That is my point. Trying to appeal to the empathy of a few blog readers is not going to change a damn thing.
Posted by Stanley on March 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Great post, Ms Campbell. One of many.
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Mary Pat,
I too find you to be one of the few honest/unbiased resources commenting on pensions, although I would like to see a bit more emphasis on the ROOT CAUSE of the problem (grossly excessive pension “generosity”) rather than the lack of “full funding”, which I consider as not the CAUSE of the problem, but one CONSEQUENCE of that root cause …………. very generous Plans being very costly, and hence very difficult to fully fund.
My comment above was not to suggest that this Blog could influence the Fed Governors, but that at a direct response from one of those I mentioned might bring a quick end to (what I consider to be) Tim’s nonsensical suggestions.
Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2018 at 5:02 pm
How about social security how much money did the FED steel out of that fund
Posted by Retired police on March 11, 2018 at 5:39 pm
Anonymous
Excellent point,, the feds. have been milking this cash cow since it’s beginning.
Posted by geo8rge on March 10, 2018 at 8:27 am
“The Fed did not destroy pensions. ”
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
But where did the $2.4 Trillion come from?
Posted by geo8rge on March 10, 2018 at 10:42 am
But where did the $2.4 Trillion come from? … and where is it now?
Posted by Stanley on March 9, 2018 at 1:44 pm
Mr Alexander, You are stuck on empathy for those fat cat union pensioners who might have to cut back on their golf outings, restaurant meals and bar bills and you totally ignore the younger citizens stuck putting food on the table for themselves and an enormous contingent of retirees. It isn’t going to hurt older folks to cut back on their standard of living, live just a little more modestly and leave a little something for younger people. Unions brag continuously about delivering higher than market wages to members and in many cases the higher wages put employers out of business. On what grounds these union retirees deserve sympathy and a new handout is way beyond me to see. A little slack for younger people, if you please.
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 3:13 pm
While the focus of my comments is excessive State & Local PUBLIC Sector compensation (via excessive pensions & benefits), there are plenty of problems with Private Sector Union demands, just one example being the requirement that to bid on Gov’t/School Building construction contracts you must agree to pay “prevailing wages” that are invariably interpreted as being the official Labor Union wage-scale.
Why should a Town/City’s taxpayers be required to pay MORE than necessary if a contractor can hire LEGAL/QUALIFIED workers at lower compensation? To me, it’s just another example of our Elected Officials being more desirous of garnering the support and re-reelection votes of those Union members than looking out for the best interests of the Town/City’s Taxpayers.
Example: 20+ years ago, I passed a Gov’t building Construction site with Union workers parading outside with one of those GIANT inflatable rats. I asked one of the men holding a Union sign what the was fight about. He said that the contractor had hired non-Union workers because he refused to pay “Union-wages”. I asked him what kind of work he did and what was the Union wage.
Remembering that this was 20+ years ago ……………… he said that he was a Union “Laborer” (going on to say that he essentially carried construction material around the work site) and that the Union wage scale for a Laborer was $35/hr + benefits. To be honest, I was shocked, asking (without thinking about how big this guy was ….) if such high wages were reasonable for doing what he did. He did not respond verbally, but gave me the look of death ….. and I quickly departed also not saying a word.
Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2018 at 3:42 pm
Mr. Alexander: With all due respect to your apparently generous motivation, you’re looking for love in all the wrong places. Namely this blog. I don’t know how you landed here but there is nothing “mega” about what goes on here among the 15-20 regular commenters. It’s primarily about the sorry state of New Jersey public pensions, disdain for public employee unions/complicit politicians and “my taxes are too damn high.” For the most part, we don’t want to fix anything, we want to complain. And the loudest complainer (and your favorite nemesis) is doomed to eternal frustration because she/he also happens to be preaching to the wrong choir. You see, we are the internet replacement for the neighborhood tap room, and are equally powerless. But we’ll go home and be back tomorrow. You, on the other hand, might be better off to try your luck with a different audience in a different lounge. Just a thought.
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 4:12 pm
As to …………… “For the most part, we don’t want to fix anything, we want to complain. And the loudest complainer (and your favorite nemesis) is doomed to eternal frustration because she/he also happens to be preaching to the wrong choir.”
Indeed, I WOULD LIKE to “fix” our current pension mess (meaning AT THE LEAST, very materially reduce the value of Future service pension accruals for all current workers) but accepting that personally I can only so much (due to family-related responsibilities & concerns). And I’m certainly NOT trying to “preach”, just provide some “education”, keep things honest, and cut the endless stream of BS coming form those on the collecting end of these grossly excessive Public Sector pensions.
As far as this choir, of course I realize that commenting here doesn’t get a large audience, but one would hope that this Blog, together with the 100 or so other Blogs (e.g., Mary Pat’s STUMP) and internet news outlets (see Pensiontsunami.com) that regularly publish pension-related articles, is having some impact. I believe it is, but we’re fighting a formidable adversary (the insatiably greedy Public Sector Unions, Union-beholden Elected Officials who SHOULD BE supporting the Taxpayers, and judges who adjudicate matters for which THEY have a huge conflict of interest).
————————————————-
As to Tim finding another audience………………
Yes Evangelist preacher ……….. they’re a VERY receptive audience, and clearly Tim, THAT is your real calling.
Posted by Retired police on March 9, 2018 at 5:14 pm
Well said sir. I pray that the Good Lord God Almighty’s mighty hand sweep across this nation and bring forth peace and tranquility and heal the land.. Amen
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 5:43 pm
Would you be praising him if he were calling for PFRS pensions EQUAL in value to those now granted NJ’s Private sector workers ?
What’s wrong with (or not fair about) EQUAL ?
Posted by Retired police on March 9, 2018 at 8:31 pm
Tough Love:
I praise the Lord every day no matter what man has done or plans to do. God the Father is in complete control of everything.
I must add what a ridicules question you ask.
Posted by Triune on March 9, 2018 at 8:50 pm
Retired Police:
I am ridiculed as I include my religious beliefs in with my work. When I read your words I am reminded of a passage in my bible where God went looking for just a few good men. Perhaps the counting would have been easier if He included you in the count.
So Retired Police, a question for you. With economics, we can solve any problem, even a pension crisis. But economics lacks a moral focus and the easy solution is to cut everything until budgets balance. But humanity says no, find an equitable solution.
So, do I balance economics with morality-with the emphasis on humanity, or balance humanity with economics and put the emphasis on dollars?
Have you noticed the more feeble the mind the more simplistic the argument? For example, some can only say that pensions are fat and excessive, but do not give a factual basis for the belief?
Thank you for your kind words, exactly what I needed and good night. Call or write any time.
Tim Alexander
Triune
805-402-4943
tim@triunegfs.com
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 9:28 pm
Quoting Tim………….. “For example, some can only say that pensions are fat and excessive, but do not give a factual basis for the belief?”
I have included a demonstration of that excess (recently) several times, but you see only what WANT to see, and ONLY what supports your desired goal.
I re-posted it below.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO STATE WHAT IS NOT ACCURATE.
———————————-
A typical NJ Police Officer retires after 25 years with an annual pension of 65% of final wages starting at about age 55 (with NO reduction in that formula benefit). Getting 65% of pay after 25 years gives a per-year-of-service “formula-factor” of 0.65/25 = 0.026 or 2.6%.
Private Sector pension Plans (for the few Private Sector workers lucky enough to still be accruing benefits in such Plans) typically have a per-year-of-service “formula-factor” of about 1.5%, and the Plan has an NRA=Normal Retirement AGE (the youngest age at which unreduced pensions can commence) of 65. And if you elect to retire at a younger age, your pension is permanently reduced by about 5% PER-YEAR-OF-AGE younger than that NRA (noting that Social Security uses an even higher reduction of about 6% in it’s early retirement calculations).
Putting aside (for the moment) the question of reinstating COLAs, let’s compare the “generosity” of the above Public vs Private formulas/provisions assuming $150,000 in final wages (certainly NOT unusual for a 2017 NJ Police retiree given that the most retire with a rank above Patrolman), 25 years of service, and retirement at age 55…….
The NJ Policeman would get an annual pension of:
$150,000 x 25 x 0.026 = $97,500
The Private Sector worker (with the SAME wages, the SAME years of service, and the SAME age at retirement) would get an annual pension of:
($150,000 x 25 x 0.015)x [1 – (0.05 x (65-55))] = $28,125
Comparing the two, $97,500/$28,125 = 3.47
The NJ Police Officer’s pension is 3.47 times greater in value (more “generous”).
Instead of NJ’s Police retirees asking for a return of their COLAs, NJ’s Taxpayers should be demanding a material reduction in the “generosity” of the basic Police pension, the current one being ludicrously excessive. At a MINIMUM, the changes that were put in place in 2011 for NEW workers should apply to the FUTURE service of all CURRENT workers.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 12:40 am
Another damn $150,000 cop. Yes, it is unusual. That is nowhere near typical FAS, except perhaps in Bergen County. And your math is still moot.
—————————-
These numbers are not imaginary…
Posted by Smooth Moderation Truth on April 17, 2016 at 12:03 pm
So, here we are, again.
Posted by Tough Love on April 16, 2016 at 5:02 pm
The groups impacted by MPRA are FAR FAR different than Public Sector workers, where pensions are so absurdly generous (and so fraudulently obtained from Union-BOUGHT Elected Officials) that they were NEVER justifiable ….and SHOULD BE materially reduced.
These workers have run-of-the-mill pensions, clearly very modest (and MULTIPLES LESS) than those granted Public Sector workers.
____________________________________________________
TL 7:56 am
“Earth to SMD, examples REQUIRE “assumptions”. Tell me which were not appropriate or reasonable ?”
_____________________________________________________
Really?
Aristotle’s error:
“Observation versus Authority: To modern educated people, it seems obvious that matters of fact are to be ascertained by observation, not by consulting ancient authorities. But this is an entirely modern conception, which hardly existed before the seventeenth century. Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”
Back to 2016. You do not prove that one has a pension MULTIPLES LESS, by SUPPOSING that the the salaries are the same and the pension formula-factor is the same.
“(which assuredly is NOT true)”??? What the hell??
If you want to compare pensions, you do not have to …assume… anything. Several published examples of the Teamsters pensions are given. The state pension is easily calculated using actual facts that are easily obtained. Using 35 years, to match the private driver, the public workers pension is $2,566.56 per month. The private pension is given as $3,500, which is clearly not MULTIPLES LESS than $2,566.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 1:36 am
Stephen, You have a VERY short memory.
You raised the SAME issue (the $150k Cop) the last time I posted this demonstration, and my SAME answer applies……… you can re-do my above demonstration using any salary level you choose and the 3.47 times greater-in-value Police pension will REMAIN, because that multiple results ONLY from the richer “formula” and the more generous “provisions” …… NOT the wage level.
__________________
And ALSO (again)……….. my comparison is with a Single-employer Corporate-sponsored pension, not a multi-employer Private Sector Union-sponsored Plan.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 11:29 am
Ah, yes, I remember it well.
You can use any salary level you choose, but you always go for the extreme. Shock value.
And I always reply that the comparison is pointless because only about 15 percent of private workers have pensions anyway. Now you also want to disregard the 25 percent of those who are in multi-employer pensions. Why? The example I gave was not a mathematical calculation based on assumptions, it was copy/paste from the union website and from NJ state site. From comparable workers, NJ pensions were not multiples higher. They were lower (considerably) than the private sector.
You have unwavering faith in the AEI calculation that NJ state workers have (had) a 23 percent …….average…….. total compensation advantage, but ignore the national data which says that state workers have a 12 percent wage disadvantage which turns into a 10 compensation advantage. In that table, fully 60 percent of state workers are “nearly equal” or underpaid in total compensation. Kind of contradicts your constant claim that -all- public workers (AKA “moochers”) are overpaid.
Biggs compensation dispersion table (page 60) is not based on assumptions. It is actual data. It shows clearly that there are thousands of state workers who (even with their allegedly excessive pensions) earn less than, or equal to, equivalent private sector workers. Not greedy. Not moochers. It also demonstrates the concept that, even though the “average” comp may be higher, there are many in the group who have -lower- compensation. I don’t know why someone allegedly knowledgeable in finance can’t grasp that concept.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 12:02 pm
Stephen,
What do you not understand about the 3.47 times ( more likely 4 times and 5 times if COLA is reinstated) being the SAME multiple if the Police Officer’s pensionable pay with $150K, $100K, $50K or $1 ?
As usual ………. you’re simply trying to re-direct the focus AWAY from the ludicrously excessive Police pensions.
And while cash wages in CA are lower for Police, the Public/Private pension multiple in CA is about 6 times. Enjoy your pension while it lasts (it’s a house of cards with no foundation) ……… the math ALWAYS governs in the endgame.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 1:42 pm
I get it.
Although…
It is interesting that with all the variety of private pension formulas you are professionally familiar with, but still cannot provide verifiable sources for, you manage to find a “typical” which renders a multiple to two decimal places.
And, if the multiple would be the same for any FAS, why do you invariably use $150,000? It is not typical, even in NJ. It is inflammatory. Period.
As usual ………. you’re simply trying to re-direct the focus AWAY from the fact that even though the “average” public compensation in New Jersey is higher, there are tens of thousands of workers and retirees whose compensation is either lower than or EQUAL to similar private sector workers. Got a problem with EQUAL?
I don’t want to brag, Mr. Love, but my computer and my tablet both have copy/paste functions, and as long as you can keep repeating your 2 times, 4 times, 6 times pensions fallacy, I can reply with…
You cannot consider pensions outside the context of total compensation.
Also…
“DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”
Now, that’s a classic.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 2:26 pm
Stephen,
Lets make it as simple as possible……….
It’s CERTAINLY not difficult to find MANY MANY workers in the Private sector that are COMPARABLE in experience, education, skills and knowledge as NJ Police Officers AND who make very similar cash wages.
If you say that’s not true ………… you’re simply wrong.
If they are comparable in those attributes, and get comparable cash wages, there is ZERO justification for the Police officer to get a pension with a value 3.5, 4, even 5 TIMES (if COLAs are reinstated) greater in value upon retirement than what that COMPARABLE Private Sector worker gets from his/her employer. The taxpayers are just being suckered by the Union/Elected-Official collusion.
No matter how much “spin” you put on it, it won’t change that conclusion.
___________________________
And again, that MULTIPLE is the SAME regardless of the salary level used in the comparison. Just more of your attempt to distract with “spin”.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Joshua Rauh…
” I am, however, skeptical that comparability of individual and job characteristics in the public and private sector has been or really can ever be achieved. Attempting to benchmark the compensation of, say, public safety officials to private sector employees is obviously problematic. In such a case, the appropriate level of pay is simply whatever the employers and employees can agree upon – but that only leads to efficient outcomes if there is transparency about the public sector compensation packages that allows all parties, including taxpayers, to understand the value of the benefits. That transparency is currently lacking.”
But you’re still hung up on police. They, and firefighters are a special case and controversial particularly because of the early retirement factor. Whether or not you agree with that early retirement, it is nearly universal, not just in NJ or the U.S., but in most OECD countries.
Ergo, IF, unlike Josh Rauh, you can find a comparable private sector worker, to try to compare his pension to that of a safety worker is disingenuous. Look who’s spinning now.
Perhaps better to settle one disagreement at a time, and compare non-safety workers, which, according to Rauh, and Biggs, and Moderation, is still no simple task.
Moderation says your “2 times” multiple for non-safety workers is moot also, because, (Ctrl C/Ctrl V)
“You cannot consider pensions outside the context of total compensation.”
“If you say that’s not true ………… you’re simply wrong.”
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Stephen, Great quote from Jushua Rauh, particularly this part …………. “but that only leads to efficient outcomes if there is transparency about the public sector compensation packages that allows all parties, including taxpayers, to understand the value of the benefits. That transparency is currently lacking.”
This IS NO “transparency” ……… with the value of promised pensions & benefits VASTLY understated …………. only Union/Elected-Official COLLUSION.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 8:15 pm
Joshua
That statement was written in 2011.
Since then, Transparent California has had more than 98 million page views and is ranked among the top 0.001 percent most heavily trafficked websites nationwide.
It is a 501(c)(3) non profit, so your generous donation would be appreciated, I’m sure. With 98 million page views though, I suspect they are receiving quite a bounty from those ads, now. Apparently my personal pension information is worth more than I thought.
If anything, Transparent California =over= states the cost of cops and other public employees. I have notified Mr. Fellner several times that people who should know better are exaggerating pensions and salaries. He says they are “not responsible” if their data is misinterpreted.
Moderation says that when the “mistakes” are made by writers or officers of the California Policy center (a cousin, if not sister to TC) they are intentional.
In short, Mr. Love, yes , there is transparency.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 8:37 pm
Intentional ?
Like your non-stop attempts to downplay the ludicrously excessive pensions (AND benefits) now granted virtually all Public Sector workers (with Safety-workers pensions being the MOST generous/egregious …. by FAR).
Posted by Retired police on March 10, 2018 at 10:17 pm
Tough Love
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 10:42 pm
Moderation, it’s not just a name, it’s a way of life.
Truth, Justice and the American way.
It’s a blessing, and a curse.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 10:52 pm
Moderation is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Public Sector “moochers”.
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 9:09 pm
My question was in response to your 1-st 3 words …. “Well said sir”.
As to my balance of my comment to you, how about answering me?
NJ’s PRFS pensions (per my earlier demonstration) are now 3.5* TIMES greater in value upon retirement than those typically granted the lucky few Private Sector workers (who still accrue benefits in Final Average Salary DB pension Plans) who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.
With NJ Police certainly NOT paid less in wages that those in the Private Sector with equal experience, education, skills, and knowledge (AND in as risky jobs), and with NJ Police pension contributions (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that extremely rich pension, and with NJ’s Taxpayers responsible for the 85% balance, what justifies these ludicrously generous pensions ? Or, as I asked in my earlier comment ….
What’s wrong with (or not fair about) EQUAL ?
* closer to 4 times if the 51.5 (vs the age 55 assumption I used in my demonstration resulting in the 3.5 times multiple) average retirement age …. as calculated for year 2016 Bergen County Police retirees ……….. is typical of all of NJ’s Police Officers.
And that 4 times will rise to 5 times if COLAs are reinstated.
Posted by Anonymous on March 9, 2018 at 10:07 pm
Wow. I guess you don’t like Tim. Like I said, he kinda is growing on me. God bless you Tim. I wish you were in the state senate.
As for you TL, reap what you sow. For there is a greater chance of a camel squeezing through the eye of a needle, than a rich man getting into heaven. You will one day face judgement. What will you say that your greatest contribution to humanity be? Equal—but not better. Or moocher/ genius nonsense. Take a page out of Tim’s book and show some compassion for your fellow man. You will find yourself full of peace.
Posted by Tough Love on March 9, 2018 at 11:34 pm
I have plenty of “compassion”, but none for Public Sector “moochers”.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 12:43 am
Alleged moochers.
Posted by Retired police on March 10, 2018 at 11:05 pm
Tough love:
I have to say you are the most opinionated individual who loves writing very long nonsensical posts with bemused facts at best.
You Demonstrate your self-ascribed superiority in a wide variety of ways, including dominating conversations, offering unwanted advice.Void and totally argumentative in bossing other folks around. You can also be condescending, challenging legitimate facts and figures and engage others in pointless debates.
Know-it-alls like yourself, doesn’t mean they have an abundance of self-confidence. In fact, know-it-alls sometimes struggle with low self-esteem and use their braggadocio to prove to others that they are smarter than they are. It can also mask underlying anxiety and increase when they feel uncomfortable.
Know-it-alls may have a cluster of personality characteristics, including impulsivity, poor listening skills and an inability to read social cues. These could be symptomatic of certain mental disorders. Another words you have big mouth
that speaks volumes about you as a insincere individual that loves to attempt
to steal and command the platform. Your intent is to disrupt by the sheer number of posts with content of useless banter. Put a muzzle on it t.l.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 11:27 pm
Retired police,
Let’s start with this, quoting ………. “who loves writing very long nonsensical posts with bemused facts”
Identify exactly what I stated that is “nonsensical” and what are “bemused facts”.
Easy to say, now put such in writing……………. we’re waiting.
————————————-
The decades-long Taxpayer THEFT that these ludicrously excessive pension & benefit :promises” represent has eliminated any feeling I have for Political Correctness or niceties. VERY material pension/benefit REDUCTIONS are necessary, and not-withstanding the legal complications, it will need to be forced upon the insatiably greedy Unions/workers.
I say it like I see it, and I DO have an abundance of self-confidence in my knowledge of pensions. I can smell a “con job” a mile away. I would have called-out Murphy in one of his town hall meeting, but typical of most “politicians” he takes no unscripted questions from the audience ……. can’t risk a tough one for which he has no good answer.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 11, 2018 at 1:48 pm
s/b “overabundance”
Posted by Mike on March 10, 2018 at 7:48 am
Well…you used to believe that some sort of “profit” of maybe $4 trillion from the Fed unwinding its balance sheet would go to the Treasury and be available for whatever. If you no longer think that is the case, good.
However, you think the Fed should launch a spending project of its own, which is bad. You appear to want the Fed to be a sort of more accessible Congress, able to open its checkbook when you want it to do so. Do you really believe a democracy should work that way? Get Congress to fund your bailout.
And I don’t believe there will be much support anywhere except among the pensioners, for bailing out states that declined to contribute appropriately to their own pension plans. I agree with you that pensioners will suffer, but a broad Congressionally defined bailout is not the answer, or even the right general direction for finding an answer.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 10:15 am
Mike,
Great respnse, but change …………….
“declined to contribute appropriately to their own pension plans.”
to
“promised MUCH more than was necessary, reasonable (when compared to what Private Sector Taxpayers typically get from their employers), fair to taxpayers, or affordable”
And it would be perfect.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 4:13 pm
Mr. Love,
Great respnse, but add…………
“In my opinion.”
and,
Get a spell checker, fer chrissake. They’re free.
Posted by Tough Love on March 10, 2018 at 6:05 pm
No Stephen, “promised MUCH more than was necessary, reasonable (when compared to what Private Sector Taxpayers typically get from their employers), fair to taxpayers, or affordable” ” is a FACT, not an OPINION.
Posted by Stephen Douglas on March 10, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Source?
Posted by Retired police on March 11, 2018 at 6:17 pm
Stephen Douglas,
I love the post to tough love (Mr. Love) cracked me up. Reminded me of “Buddy Love” in the movie Nutty Professor. He’s much like the character with similar mental and moral qualities.
Posted by Patrick Whalin on March 11, 2018 at 10:24 am
I’m still waiting for the “paper” to be released. Where is it?
Posted by AAA on March 11, 2018 at 3:34 pm
It’s very simple: The pensions given to public employees generally and those in NJ specifically are obscene. So of course they could never be funded. The result is well deserved bankruptcy for the State.
Posted by Retired police on March 11, 2018 at 6:04 pm
Tough love:
Regarding your last rant toward me,everything I stated is all I have to say to you besides the following..
Stop your attacks on the people with frivolous long winded posts, no one cares to hear the same rhetoric. You have beat the dead horse long enough now please change your channel and go back to fairy tale land and let the adults go about there business.
Thank you for your kind compliance.
Posted by Tough Love on March 12, 2018 at 1:00 am
Retired Police,
Repeating my earlier response to you, for which you apparently HAVE NO ANSWER. You’re just incredibly pissed that you can’t bully me into be quite about your LUDICROUSLY excessive pension & benefits … and the need for VERY material reductions in your promised pension & benefits:
——————–
NJ’s PRFS pensions (per my earlier demonstration) are now 3.5* TIMES greater in value upon retirement than those typically granted the lucky few Private Sector workers (who still accrue benefits in Final Average Salary DB pension Plans) who retire at the SAME age, with the SAME pay, and the SAME years of service.
With NJ Police certainly NOT paid less in wages that those in the Private Sector with equal experience, education, skills, and knowledge (AND in as risky jobs), and with NJ Police pension contributions (INCLUDING the expected investment earnings thereon) rarely sufficient to buy more than 15% of that extremely rich pension, and with NJ’s Taxpayers responsible for the 85% balance, what justifies these ludicrously generous pensions ? Or, as I asked in my earlier comment ….
What’s wrong with (or not fair about) EQUAL ?
* closer to 4 times if the 51.5 (vs the age 55 assumption I used in my demonstration resulting in the 3.5 times multiple) average retirement age …. as calculated for year 2016 Bergen County Police retirees ……….. is typical of all of NJ’s Police Officers.
And that 4 times will rise to 5 times if COLAs are reinstated.
Posted by Tough Love on March 12, 2018 at 1:12 am
Retired Police,
And FWIW, you’re last few comments are speaking as would a retired NJ Police Officer (not as a retired Police Officer as a result of a disability) and I’m responding to you as a generic retired NJ Police Officer.
I do remember that you stated that you are seriously disable as a direct of an on-the job injury. As I stated earlier, I support COLA-reinstatement but ONLY for accidental on-the-job disablements that are serious enough to meet Social Sectuity’s stringent definition of disability.