Comments on: Courts: Maybe public pensions can be cut

By: Donkey

Donkey — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:00:23 +0000

In reply to SkippingDog. Using the RAGWUS to negotiate contracts for its feeders as justification for honest and fair outcome is no different than having the Nazi's over seeing the heath and welfare of the Jews. :)

By: Donkey

Donkey — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:55:55 +0000

In reply to Ulysses Uhaul. Ahaul, quit lying to yourself! A RAGWUS feeder is a sociopathic thief, and friend to no one! :)

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 19:19:23 +0000

Interesting that all of the anti-federalists and states righters here on CWD just love the 10th Amendment when it suits their political purposes. When it comes to Chapter 9 bankruptcies, it was a 10th Amendment argument that got the previous iteration of the statute thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Assuming Judge Klein’s dicta about impairing contracts protected under a state constitution is attempted by San Berdoo or some other town, it will be interesting to see if the wingnuts continue to support the 10th Amendment.

http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/08/igor-shleypak-detroit-bankruptcy.php

By: ricky65

ricky65 — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 03:32:25 +0000

In reply to NTHEOC.

I’m thinking you showed your true fears by just blowing off the article as nonsense and ending with a nervous ‘lol’ & ‘lmao’.
Maybe you should have added ‘wptg’.
‘Whistling past the graveyard’…

By: Ulysses Uhaul

Ulysses Uhaul — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 06:44:56 +0000

Lotta good people going to end up poor……betrayal.

CWD appears to bring out the worst in you doomers. Respect yourself. Remember public employees are your neighbors, friends, church members, protect you, your kids and your property…

By: NTHEOC

NTHEOC — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 00:13:23 +0000

The key event will be the next recession, when more may go bankrupt and face:a) eliminating key services, such as police and fire, that are the reason governments exist in the first place; b) raising taxes to unsustainable levels that drive out business and personal taxpayers; c) cutting pensions, despite what the California Constitution supposedly says; or d) some combination of the above.
When there’s no money, there’s no money.
————————-
Lol, best DOOMER rant in a while! You gotta love them, for some reason I sure do……..lmao.

By: Ted

Ted — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:24:02 +0000

Ronnie Bird–

In a rep democracy like, well, ah, the USA, parties are never “3rd parties under duress” like you suggest. They have reps in every single col bargaining vote.

Show me ANY legal authority from ANY jurisdiction to the contrary.

Your Spirit Guide,
Ted The Inevitable

By: Ronald Stein

Ronald Stein — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:21:27 +0000

The inmates are running the Asylum. The major problem is that most current public employees are guaranteed defined-benefit plans, under which their benefits are guaranteed no matter how well, or badly, the underlying pension investments perform.

Reforms could include, at a minimum, a shift to defined employee contributions plans, rather than defined benefit plans, for new hires, under which employee contribute a certain amount, usually with matching contributions from the taxpayers. The final pension payout then is not guaranteed, but depends on how well the investments perform. The taxpayers are not on the hook for poor investment performance.

Public sector contracts negotiated by public sector employees that hammer out a contract that forces under duress a third party, taxpayers, to cough up the necessary dough, doesn’t seem too pass the smell test. In fact, it more closely resembles racketeering. Any challenges to that “racket” would be heard before judges who have pension and benefit package they want to protect. Again, seems like a racketeering cover-up right before our public eyes.

Fiscal irresponsibility protects the jobs of bureaucrats who use their power in ways that harm those who work for a living.