http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/treasury-to-tap-pensions-to-help-fund-government/2011/05/15/AF2fqK4G_story.html?hpid=z1

SS 2.0 here we come. Borrow from the pension programs and issue IOUs. Naaaaaah, what could possibly go wrong with this?

Geithner, who has already suspended a program that helps state and local government manage their finances, will begin to borrow from retirement funds for federal workers. The measure won’t have an impact on retirees because the Treasury is legally required to reimburse the program.

I think the SS "trust fund" has a ton of IOUs that argue against the government paying this money back. What's next? Use up all the federal pensions, how soon before they come after the rest, a la Argentina? When will the public wake up to our debt crisis?

bump

Have mention lately ... "Not My President"

This is a very sound idea!!!!!

I think I'll employ this tactic come April 15, 2012 when i pay my tax bill wtih an IOU.

And the alternative is?

I haven't seen any real practical solutions for cuts coming out of Congress, just talk.
Sorry, if Congress can't get its act together and get agreeable cuts, then the Tres. has to do what it needs to to keep the lights on and not let us default.

Belly35;774119 wrote:Have mention lately ... "Not My President"

Yes he is Belly

Belly35;774119 wrote:Have mention lately ... "Not My President"

You aren't a US citizen?

ptown_trojans_1;774428 wrote:Sorry, if Congress can't get its act together and get agreeable cuts, then the Tres. has to do what it needs to to keep the lights on and not let us default.

Same thing will soon be said in the future when the feds are issuing IOU's against private pensions.

majorspark;774518 wrote:Same thing will soon be said in the future when the feds are issuing IOU's against private pensions.

Probably.
Thanks Congress.

ptown_trojans_1;774428 wrote:And the alternative is?

I haven't seen any real practical solutions for cuts coming out of Congress, just talk.
Sorry, if Congress can't get its act together and get agreeable cuts, then the Tres. has to do what it needs to to keep the lights on and not let us default.

Allowing the government to default is the only way to truly get REAL change.

dwccrew;774577 wrote:Allowing the government to default is the only way to truly get REAL change.

Perhaps. However, that road is filled with too many unknowns to take that risk.
I think defaulting would lead to even more instability in the markets. Not sure I want that.

dwccrew;774577 wrote:Allowing the government to default is the only way to truly get REAL change.

Real change like our country going down a hill that there likely isn't a path back up.

I Wear Pants;774631 wrote:Real change like our country going down a hill that there likely isn't a path back up.

Uh huh, and you ever see a point where the government gets their spending under control and pays down the debt? Default is the only way to make the government spend what they take in. We can not keep kicking the can down the road, it won't work anymore.

How does that benefit us though? What do you think happens when we default? Do you think everyone just goes "oh crap, we've got to spend less money" and then it's right back to being a world power?

I Wear Pants;774631 wrote:Real change like our country going down a hill that there likely isn't a path back up.

We're already going down that hill, we just haven't hit the bottom quite yet.

I Wear Pants;774679 wrote:How does that benefit us though? What do you think happens when we default? Do you think everyone just goes "oh crap, we've got to spend less money" and then it's right back to being a world power?

What happens is it will force the government to spend only what they take in because we won't be borrowing from any other country at that point. Also, most likely a lot of unrest going on in the streets when entitlement programs stop paying out. It's what this country needs though. Can't just keep raising the debt ceiling and borrowing and spending more. What's the point in having a debt ceiling if you just choose to ignore it?

the feds have been tapping social security for years... I do not find this suprising.

<sarcasm on> How can you racists live with yourself!? The hatred and bigotry you spew makes me sick. <sarcasm off>

dccrew said "What happens is it will force the government to spend only what they take in because we won't be borrowing from any other country at that point. Also, most likely a lot of unrest going on in the streets when entitlement programs stop paying out. It's what this country needs though. Can't just keep raising the debt ceiling and borrowing and spending more. What's the point in having a debt ceiling if you just choose to ignore it? "

Seriously...how can people in Ohio, on an internet forum, get this, but the people that are paid to get it (by the aforementioned set of people) do not!? One of the great mysteries in the world I suppose.

I think federal pensions have gotten a little out of hand, so on a list of unpalatable options this is one of the lesser evils. Govt pensions were fine when govt workers were making 60-80% of their private sector counterparts, but now on average they make as much (in some cases more). The problem is there's always losers involved for whom this is unfair (i.e. military). But as someone who's already contributed well over $100k to SS that I will probably never see a dime of, I find it hard to be sympathetic.

gut;776029 wrote:I think federal pensions have gotten a little out of hand, so on a list of unpalatable options this is one of the lesser evils. Govt pensions were fine when govt workers were making 60-80% of their private sector counterparts, but now on average they make as much (in some cases more). The problem is there's always losers involved for whom this is unfair (i.e. military). But as someone who's already contributed well over $100k to SS that I will probably never see a dime of, I find it hard to be sympathetic.

So how did the pensions go from "fine" to "out of hand"? Are you genuinely concerned or just jealous? I mean, they were being funded the same way when the workers were making 60-80% of their private sector counterparts, weren't they?


I'm guessing that if you've contributed "well over $100k to Social Security", you aren't exactly in your 20's. Do you really believe that you'll never see a dime of it, or is that just posturing?

stlouiedipalma;776090 wrote:So how did the pensions go from "fine" to "out of hand"? Are you genuinely concerned or just jealous? I mean, they were being funded the same way when the workers were making 60-80% of their private sector counterparts, weren't they?


I'm guessing that if you've contributed "well over $100k to Social Security", you aren't exactly in your 20's. Do you really believe that you'll never see a dime of it, or is that just posturing?

I doubt anyone under 40 sees a dime of SS.

Belly35;774119 wrote:Have mention lately ... "Not My President"

I believe Julia Roberts said this when Bush was in office.

Bush was her president, whether she liked it or not.

Obama is our president, whether we like it or not.

ptown_trojans_1;774428 wrote:And the alternative is?

I haven't seen any real practical solutions for cuts coming out of Congress, just talk.
Sorry, if Congress can't get its act together and get agreeable cuts, then the Tres. has to do what it needs to to keep the lights on and not let us default.

I liked this:

"Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."

I Wear Pants;774482 wrote:You aren't a US citizen?

I want to see Belly's birth certificate. If he doesn't show me verifiable documentation, I'm probably leaning toward Swaziland.

tk421;776116 wrote:I doubt anyone under 40 sees a dime of SS.

That may even be generous.

Full retirement age is 67 for anyone born after 1960. For someone 40 years old, that leaves 27 years. In 27 years, I have serious doubts that the U.S. will exist in it's current form. For sure, we can not keep borrowing money for 27 more years.

stlouiedipalma;776090 wrote:So how did the pensions go from "fine" to "out of hand"? Are you genuinely concerned or just jealous? I mean, they were being funded the same way when the workers were making 60-80% of their private sector counterparts, weren't they?


I'm guessing that if you've contributed "well over $100k to Social Security", you aren't exactly in your 20's. Do you really believe that you'll never see a dime of it, or is that just posturing?

Yes, with some 25-30 years until retirement I'm genuinely concerned I won't see a dime of my SS....Remember, you're actual contribution is @ 12.4% of income (since the employer match is theoretically income you could otherwise receive).

And I think you misunderstood my point. I'm taking a total comp perspective - funding has nothing to do with it. When wages were lower than the private sector, the beefier pension was "fine". But wages increased and the pension not only didn't decrease but as a benefit tied to salary it actually went up with wages. And even if you want to talk funding, pensions typically have defined rate or return independent of what the markets do and so while private sector 401k's took a 50% hit on the chin in the recession and near market crash, those pension benefits kept going up at @8-9% a year. So, yeah, I suppose the funding wasn't "fine", either, and appropriate revaluation should probably be addressed.

Hopefully that clears up your ignorance that I wasn't posturing.

gut;776226 wrote:Yes, with some 25-30 years until retirement I'm genuinely concerned I won't see a dime of my SS....Remember, you're actual contribution is @ 12.4% of income (since the employer match is theoretically income you could otherwise receive).

And I think you misunderstood my point. I'm taking a total comp perspective - funding has nothing to do with it. When wages were lower than the private sector, the beefier pension was "fine". But wages increased and the pension not only didn't decrease but as a benefit tied to salary it actually went up with wages. And even if you want to talk funding, pensions typically have defined rate or return independent of what the markets do and so while private sector 401k's took a 50% hit on the chin in the recession and near market crash, those pension benefits kept going up at @8-9% a year. So, yeah, I suppose the funding wasn't "fine", either, and appropriate revaluation should probably be addressed.

Hopefully that clears up your ignorance that I wasn't posturing.

It just seems from your wording that you're upset that public sector wages have gone up. It's almost as if you are pissed that someone got more money.

Perhaps I've got it wrong, but that's what I got from your post.

What do junkies do when they run out of shit to stuff up their nose, inject in their veins, or smoke till they choke? Cash money is very similar to a drug to these spendaholics and they'll do anything to get their hands on it...legally or not. Just like drug junkies, these addicts that have a psychosis to spend-spend-spend must come up with new ways to get more money that they didn't earn into their coffers.

For now, yeah, I suppose they can raid any federal pension account and promise with an IOU that they'll pay it back...maybe with interest. When? Oh, trust them, they'll pay it right back. When they come for the private accounts...and don't for a minute think they haven't thought of how they could pull this one off...then the illegalities start. But then, they can authorize policing agencies to strap monitoring GPS devices to anyone they choose, they can authorize home invasions without warrants nor 4th Amendment protections, and they can put a camera on you 24/7 should they feel the need. They have no lines drawn between legal and illegal in their minds.

Who's to stop these people that can't even write a budget to hold themselves accountable?