Why not? We are bailing everything else out.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/05/24/lawmaker-introduces-b-union-pension-bailout/
Sweet,
"Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die."
Let's just raid Social Security to cover this...oh wait, that's already been done to pay for other things the government had no business doing.
Makes one wonder if we shouldn't just pull a re-organization bankruptcy. Seriously some cities have done it before. And some states are contemplating bankruptcy, why not the whole freakin' country? All debts forgiven, everyone gets $2000 in gold coin, an acre of land with mineral rights, a tractor and a 4wd Suburban.
I give it 5 years and we'd have to do it all over again. ;D
Quote from: waterboy on May 24, 2010, 05:50:43 PM
Makes one wonder if we shouldn't just pull a re-organization bankruptcy. Seriously some cities have done it before. And some states are contemplating bankruptcy, why not the whole freakin' country? All debts forgiven, everyone gets $2000 in gold coin, an acre of land with mineral rights, a tractor and a 4wd Suburban.
I give it 5 years and we'd have to do it all over again. ;D
Hell, that's better than winning a couple of nights on Jeopardy
Wait a minute, give me a chance to run up some serious debt to be forgiven.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 24, 2010, 09:41:48 PM
Wait a minute, give me a chance to run up some serious debt to be forgiven.
But that's not what happened. At least not for the most part. What happened is that pension funds the world over (not just in the US) invested in many of the CDSs that the financial companies were hawking, but that were filled with so much crap real estate paper. They were triple A rated and the salesguys told the fund managers they were the safest and best bets out there. Great places to park your principal.
Of course the real estate market promptly tanks and voila, so do CDSs and so do the pension funds. The pension funds were always going to be one of the next boots to drop . . . and it's smart that someone's starting to talk about how to fix them.
Also: bailout bailout bailout boogety boogety boo! It's like you can say the word "bailout" and we all have to scream out "hell no!" regardless of whether it might be worthwhile to save either an institution. At this point it's mindless call and response. Let's talk, instead, about what we're rescuing and why, and who's to blame.
It is cheaper to payoff a politician than it is to make the proper payments into your pension fund.
"Eight of the largest unions have underfunded plans, according to the most recent 5500 reports, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of Northern America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the National Plumbers Union."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Almost-half-of-top-unions-have-underfunded-pension-plans--47162127.html
The SEIU took out loans to fund $85 million in contributions during the campaign season last year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243785248026055.html
Quote from: we vs us on May 24, 2010, 11:54:46 PM
Also: bailout bailout bailout boogety boogety boo! It's like you can say the word "bailout" and we all have to scream out "hell no!" regardless of whether it might be worthwhile to save either an institution. At this point it's mindless call and response. Let's talk, instead, about what we're rescuing and why, and who's to blame.
bailout = bad
labor unions = bad
labor union bailout = double bad
Obama labor union bailout = double bad times infinity
/sarcasm
Quote from: we vs us on May 24, 2010, 11:54:46 PM
Also: bailout bailout bailout boogety boogety boo! It's like you can say the word "bailout" and we all have to scream out "hell no!" regardless of whether it might be worthwhile to save either an institution. At this point it's mindless call and response. Let's talk, instead, about what we're rescuing and why, and who's to blame.
Well, if it makes you feel better, that's fine, don't call it a bailout. This seems to be a new defensive DNC talking point.
The term "bailout" was applied to the original $700 bln Bush plan and has been used ever since quite commonly in the media and every day conversation. It's hardly a moniker created to poke fun at President Obama's policies. Here's a Google search of about 3.6 million hits for "Bush, bailout"
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS269US269&q=bush%2c+bailout
I'll quit calling it "bailout" and will from here on refer to it as "emergency spending".
There are a few technical points to keep in mind.
1. The money funding these traditional defined benefit pension plans is paid by employers. The plans are ordinarily jointly administered by trustees appointed by the employer(s) and the union. Those trustees have the same legal responsibilities that all trustees have as fiduciaries.
2. Whenever a defined benefit pension plan becomes underfunded for any reason, the trustees are legally required to implement a rehabilitation plan. Such rehabilitation plans usually involve a combination of reduced benefits and higher contributions.
3. Aside from investment losses, a plan's funding issues become more pronounced when employers are making lower contributions, either because of large numbers of layoffs or substantial wage and benefit concessions. A good many of the plans mentioned in the articles have seen reduced contributions AND investment losses. They are in the same boat as the banks and insurance companies that have experienced similar losses.
Quote from: JeffM on May 25, 2010, 07:16:20 AM
bailout = bad
labor unions = bad
labor union bailout = double bad
Obama labor union bailout = double bad times infinity
/sarcasm stupidity
That's more like it.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 08:58:40 AM
Well, if it makes you feel better, that's fine, don't call it a bailout. This seems to be a new defensive DNC talking point.
The term "bailout" was applied to the original $700 bln Bush plan and has been used ever since quite commonly in the media and every day conversation. It's hardly a moniker created to poke fun at President Obama's policies. Here's a Google search of about 3.6 million hits for "Bush, bailout"
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS269US269&q=bush%2c+bailout
I'll quit calling it "bailout" and will from here on refer to it as "emergency spending".
The problem with "bailout" is that it's an RNC talking point, too. It's completely politicized at this point, and so means virtually nothing.
The question comes down to this: should we NOT bail out pension funds? These are funds from people who were trying to do the right thing, ie save for retirement and got caught in a once-a-generation recession. Should their savings be wiped out completely? Should we, essentially, allow a whole raft of middle class folks to retire into poverty? When you use the word "bailout" that's what I came away with. That supporting these retirement funds might be a useless way to spend federal dollars.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2010, 01:34:10 PM
The problem with "bailout" is that it's an RNC talking point, too. It's completely politicized at this point, and so means virtually nothing.
The question comes down to this: should we NOT bail out pension funds? These are funds from people who were trying to do the right thing, ie save for retirement and got caught in a once-a-generation recession. Should their savings be wiped out completely? Should we, essentially, allow a whole raft of middle class folks to retire into poverty? When you use the word "bailout" that's what I came away with. That supporting these retirement funds might be a useless way to spend federal dollars.
I lost 40% of my investment value during the "recession", anyone going to bail me out?
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2010, 01:34:10 PM
The problem with "bailout" is that it's an RNC talking point, too. It's completely politicized at this point, and so means virtually nothing.
The question comes down to this: should we NOT bail out pension funds? These are funds from people who were trying to do the right thing, ie save for retirement and got caught in a once-a-generation recession. Should their savings be wiped out completely? Should we, essentially, allow a whole raft of middle class folks to retire into poverty? When you use the word "bailout" that's what I came away with. That supporting these retirement funds might be a useless way to spend federal dollars.
I get your point, but I want to know who is going to make me whole for losses in my IRA which my company participates in matching with. I'm trying to figure out where we need to draw the line on which people we make whole and which we don't. I'm not a wealthy independent investor who rode the market all the way down at a profit. It's a key part of my retirement funding which I'd like to be there when it's that time. I've been told flat-out for the last 15 years: "Don't count on Social Security to be there when you are ready to retire." Yet I must contribute every single week to a retirement program which supposedly won't be there when I retire. I'm simply curious why does one middle class group deserve more consideration than another?
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 01:38:12 PM
I lost 40% of my investment value during the "recession", anyone going to bail me out?
Nah, you are too much of a freeping troll ;)
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2010, 01:34:10 PM
The problem with "bailout" is that it's an RNC talking point, too. It's completely politicized at this point, and so means virtually nothing.
You are such an unbelievable hypocrite. You used the term "teabaggers" in referring to the tea partiers.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14957.msg153619#msg153619
But oh no, can't use the term "bailout" because that's a talking point.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 01:38:12 PM
I lost 40% of my investment value during the "recession", anyone going to bail me out?
What the hell do you think all that money going to the banks, AIG, and Goldman was? If we hadn't done that you'd be whining about being wiped out instead of losing "40%". And if you don't have most or all of it back by now, you're doing something terribly wrong.
On the topic at hand, it's ironic, but Fannie and Freddie are largely responsible for retirement plans taking CDO losses in the shorts. That's because they had the foresight to mainly only enter CDO deals in which they got a special super senior (above AAA) tranche. Fannie was especially good about this. Regular investors in the supposedly safe AAA tranches get wiped out before the GSEs lose a dime. Despite that, the GSEs have to report enormous losses, because most MBS-backed CDOs have little to no market value (even though the ones they have are still paying just fine) and they're provisioning aggressively for possible future losses.
As mentioned by others, these plans have lost quite a bit on the contribution side recently and have been chronically underfunded for years because the companies responsible for the contributions refuse to meet their obligations. Sort of like the federal government forces the USPS to overcontribute to make up for the government's underfunding.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2010, 01:53:54 PM
What the hell do you think all that money going to the banks, AIG, and Goldman was? If we hadn't done that you'd be whining about being wiped out instead of losing "40%". And if you don't have most or all of it back by now, you're doing something terribly wrong.
Care to source that? I am dying to know how you know about my portfolio.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 02:12:49 PM
Care to source that? I am dying to know how you know about my portfolio.
I know that my 401k, being mainly in treasuries and index funds (and 10% in some foreign funds) is well above where it was this time last year.
Or are you seriously asking how it is that preventing the entire banking industry from imploding might keep your investments from going to zero?
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 12:59:55 PM
That's more like it.
^^^Typical name calling from a freeper POS. :P
/snark
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2010, 02:16:25 PM
Or are you seriously asking how it is that preventing the entire banking industry from imploding might keep your investments from going to zero?
No, I just wanted you to source your position.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 01:50:19 PM
You are such an unbelievable hypocrite. You used the term "teabaggers" in referring to the tea partiers.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14957.msg153619#msg153619
But oh no, can't use the term "bailout" because that's a talking point.
Wow.
You know, I actually stopped calling y'all that because Conan didn't like it. Fair enough. I'm willing to play nice. But if you're gonna dig up an old thread to make a point that in actuality doesn't make sense . . . I may just have to start calling you guys what you WANTED to be called all along.
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 02:31:43 PM
No, I just wanted you to source your position.
We're not on the debate team, bud. Common knowledge qualifies here.
Since we're on the topic of banking now, I might mention that there's a good chance that the new Tory government in Britain may very well be about to bring down a world of economic hurt on their country. I haven't looked at their inflation numbers recently, but ours are pretty dismal. Less than one percent core inflation over the last year, despite a nearly unprecedented loosening of the money supply and a beefy spending binge by the federal government.
The Conservatives are talking about significant reductions in Government spending. Why they would voluntarily sign up for the deflation Greece is being forced to go through, I'll never figure out. Deflation hurts badly. Worse than anything short of Zimbabwean hyperinflation.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
Wow.
You know, I actually stopped calling y'all that because Conan didn't like it. Fair enough. I'm willing to play nice. But if you're gonna dig up an old thread to make a point that in actuality doesn't make sense . . . I may just have to start calling you guys what you WANTED to be called all along.
I appreciate the consideration, but hope when you say "y'all" you aren't inferring I've got anything to do with the Tea Party movement as I don't.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2010, 02:45:40 PM
I appreciate the consideration, but hope when you say "y'all" you aren't inferring I've got anything to do with the Tea Party movement as I don't.
No, I'm talking about G exclusively.
I did it to be a little more civil, but it's pretty obvious what civil gets you around here.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2010, 02:39:55 PM
But if you're gonna dig up an old thread to make a point that in actuality doesn't make sense .
What doesn't make sense; the fact that that you accuse me of reiterating talking points which is exactly what you do? O/T; Are you in favor of bailing out, rescuing, or whatever word will not offend your sensibilities union pension funds?
Quote from: guido911 on May 25, 2010, 08:16:37 PM
What doesn't make sense; the fact that that you accuse me of reiterating talking points which is exactly what you do? O/T; Are you in favor of bailing out, rescuing, or whatever word will not offend your sensibilities union pension funds?
Your insistence on calling them "union" pension funds is interesting. What difference does it make if it's employer run or union run?
The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp didn't guarantee anything (that I remember) from my Telex pension fund until Telex went out of business. Close down the Union and I agree, the PBGC should help the folks expecting benefits.
You people. . . Before the market impact of the recession, most of these funds were failing (only 6% of them showed a profit).
They've been grossly mismanaged by the Unions for years. Now in the spirit of Rahm's "Never let a crisis go to waste" they are attempting to fleece the government, just as they have fleeced their members for decades.
This is beyond hilarious. . . It's sad!
President Obama has put his foot down and said "no more bailouts." I am confident that he will stick to his word, just as he has in the past. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2010, 07:43:17 AM
You people. . . Before the market impact of the recession, most of these funds were failing
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:lkHaMBP1HbNDNM:http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4413/robertdjr.jpg)
"What do you mean "you people"?"
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2010, 09:39:55 AM
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:lkHaMBP1HbNDNM:http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4413/robertdjr.jpg)
"What do you mean "you people"?"
Slight Drift:
I'm surprised that Downey didn't get an Oscar for that performance...brilliant.
OK, now back to our regularly scheduled GOP hand-wringing.
Quote from: Townsend on May 26, 2010, 09:39:55 AM
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:lkHaMBP1HbNDNM:http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4413/robertdjr.jpg)
"What do you mean "you people"?"
Mega thread drift:
Back on topic, one of Fox's own (read that as any Washington legislator with an (R) next to his or her name) gives FNC a bit of a tongue-lashing regarding this subject:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/05/rep_steve_latourette_has_choic.html
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2010, 07:43:17 AM
You people. . . Before the market impact of the recession, most of these funds were failing (only 6% of them showed a profit).
You got a citation for that, buddy, or is that straight out of ideology-land?
Quote from: nathanm on May 26, 2010, 03:43:49 PM
You got a citation for that, buddy, or is that straight out of ideology-land?
Please try to be polite. . .and if you are going to comment on a thread, read the article that the thread makes note of.
"these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well."
An example for you. 2002 - 2005 when most Non-union managed 401Ks were booming.
(http://www.workerfreedom.org/userfiles/image/Slide3.JPG)
Who are the unions looking out for????
The rank & file pensions are funded by the employers, not the union itself. If the fund is underfunded, you should be questioning the employers, not the union.
Mismanagement and failure, on the part of the union, to protect the retirement money of it's workers. This is just for the SEIU, but many of the other unions look similar. During a time when almost any moron with an eTrade account could make a minimum of 10%, union pensions were loosing up to 20% of their value.
IT WAS THE UNION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE AND OVERSEE FUNDING FOR THEIR PENSION PLAN. THAT WAS THE PRIORITY OF THE PENSION MANAGERS.
(http://www.workerfreedom.org/userfiles/image/Slide5.JPG)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2010, 04:26:39 PM
Mismanagement and failure, on the part of the union, to protect the retirement money of it's workers. This is just for the SEIU, but many of the other unions look similar. During a time when almost any moron with an eTrade account could make a minimum of 10%, union pensions were loosing up to 20% of their value.
IT WAS THE UNION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE AND OVERSEE FUNDING FOR THEIR PENSION PLAN. THAT WAS THE PRIORITY OF THE PENSION MANAGERS.
(http://www.workerfreedom.org/userfiles/image/Slide5.JPG)
So that chart there, the scale is what? How well funded it is? Or is it investment return? I ask, because without that clarification it is beyond useless.
I am not going to debate on the "scale" of a chart that clearly shows time-span in one year increments.
Please feel free to stretch it or contract it in whatever way makes you feel better. :)
Pension managers have the same responsibilities as fund managers, in that they are responsible for insuring that the end product (the pension) is funded to the return amount promised. The idea is to create a return with interest.
In the case of pensions, when a manager favors one group of employees over another with funding management and higher return investment strategies, this is not ethical.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 26, 2010, 04:46:08 PM
Pension managers have the same responsibilities as fund managers, in that they are responsible for insuring that the end product (the pension) is funded to the return amount promised. The idea is to create a return with interest.
In the case of pensions, when a manager favors one group of employees over another with funding management and higher return investment strategies, this is not ethical.
Um, the slide you posted previously specifically states that all funds are invested in the same way. My point about the chart was simply that barring some sort of miraculous returns, that apparent performance could be easily explained by employers underfunding their pension obligations. The same thing would explain why the SEIU management's pension is fully funded (they get paid out of dues, not by the employer) and the rank and file's is not.
You're trying to turn this into some argument against unions when the fault most likely lies at the feet of the companies that refuse to meet their pension funding obligations.
Hilariously, the slides are cribbed from workerfreedom.org. I'll go ahead and tell you right now that it's not a site advocating communism.
Quote from: we vs us on May 26, 2010, 07:14:26 PM
Hilariously, the slides are cribbed from workerfreedom.org. I'll go ahead and tell you right now that it's not a site advocating communism.
Say it isn't so!
GASP!
I give up. You guys are right. Unions are awesome! They are of great benefit to our country and the workers they fiercely protect. They can do no wrong, and should be revered and honored.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 07:28:15 AM
I give up. You guys are right. Unions are awesome! They are of great benefit to our country and the workers they fiercely protect. They can do no wrong, and should be revered and honored.
I don't think anyone said any such thing. I DO know that unions are a favorite whipping boy of folks on the right, in a manner that far exaggerates their detrimental effect on the free market, so yeah, you'll get some pushback on that. I also know that they hold an important place in our economic history, and were one of the key drivers that lifted our industrial worker base into the middle class during the middle portion of the last century. They protect workers from the abuse of their employers, which used to be -- and is absolutely still -- a relevant role. Can unions overstep, overpromise to, or overpower their employers? Yep. All of that is possible. But unions are a crucial countervailing pressure to the powers of management (who, it should be noted, do their own overstepping all the time).
Are we talking about public unions or private unions?
Or is there a real difference?
Public unions are a nuisance, demand benefits that are unheard of in the private sector and are an overall drain on the system.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 27, 2010, 07:28:15 AM
I give up. You guys are right. Unions are awesome! They are of great benefit to our country and the workers they fiercely protect. They can do no wrong, and should be revered and honored.
I think what you're missing is that folks like myself think both unions and companies do bad things. Neither are paragons of virtue. In this case, companies have been habitually underfunding their pension obligations for years. Bad on them. The world is not black and white, both sides can do bad things sometimes.