If the comparison is so apt, why do conservatives keep saying that Greece must pay its debts, but that states like Illinois can't afford their pensions and should therefore abandon them?
Yes, that money owed is a solemn promise - just ask the pensioners of Detroit.
It would be my choice that both Greece and Illinois pay their obligations. Unfortunately, both have wildly overpromised what can be delivered and they do not have the means to keep these promises. Now they're both backed into austerity measures that are driving up taxes and driving away both citizens and businesses.
Who is this going to hurt? Overwhelmingly it will be the poor of Illinois (or Greece) who depend on the government for assistance that will no longer be available because of growing pension obligations.
Obama loves to talk about how domestic spending is at its lowest level ever; that's only because entitlement spending is sky high and we're still on pace to double the national debt. When the baby boomers start filling the hospitals, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Illinois did not wildly overpromise what could be delivered. Illinois wildly underfunded the pension system it was obligated to have been paying into all along.
Also, unlike the banks that loaned Greece its last round of billions, Illinois and the unions did not conspire to commit fraud.
There is Greece, the European banks, Illinois, and the Illinois pensioners. Three of these four entities benefited.
Tough noogies it may be, but describing the respective empty vaults in 2015 doesn’t answer the original question. Why is the bulk of conservative policy and opinion filled with anger and revulsion for Greece, but “what did they expect?” schadenfreude for the robbed Illinois workers?
You might want to check the electoral history of Illinois government and party control, before making any more rash judgments about who approved which deals, and who signed what into law.
Illinois did not wildly overpromise what could be delivered. Illinois wildly underfunded the pension system it was obligated to have been paying into all along.
And where was that money supposed to come from? From something else that would itself then have been wildly underfunded. In the end, the problem was indeed wild overpromising.
conservative policy and opinion filled with anger and revulsion for Greece, but “what did they expect?” schadenfreude for the robbed Illinois workers
How did you get this bizarre dichotomy in your head? The schadenfreude falls equally on both socialist paradises. Conservatives want both Greece and Illinois to face their debts. They can do that either by defunding programs, raising taxes, or some form of bankruptcy. In the case of Illinois, which is being sunk by future promises more than current debts, they also have the option of sticking it to their entitled public unionists. If they choose to go down that path, all I ask is that they let me go and make popcorn first.
Oh yes, there's one other possibility for Illinois. What they would like to do is to enjoy the benefits of their profligate spending, while sticking people outside their state with the tab. Believe me, any attempts by the Democrats to move us in that direction is when schadenfreude would indeed turn to "anger and revulsion".
Saying Illinois and Greece are analogous because they each owe money is risible. Let alone calling them "socialist paradises."
Later today, I have some shopping to do at that socialist paradise Radio Shack. I only have $100 in my bank account, but I'm going to charge $250 so that I can become yet another socialist paradise.
While I'm away, explain the following.
In California, public pensions are 78% funded. In New York, it’s 94%. In Texas, it’s 83%. In Florida, it’s 82%. Virginia, 72%, Missouri 77%, Oregon 87%, Pennsylvania 75%, Arizona 75%, Washington 95%, Georgia 85%... you get the idea.
Illinois’ pensions? 45% funded, easily the lowest of any state. In 2013, the state paid just 39.3% of its legal obligation.
Please explain how Illinois has had decades and decades of unique expenses that the other 49 states didn’t have. Bonus points for sticking with the socialist paradise angle, despite a government that was controlled by Republicans more often than Democrats while labor contracts were being approved, and while funds were being rerouted.
12 comments:
If the comparison is so apt, why do conservatives keep saying that Greece must pay its debts, but that states like Illinois can't afford their pensions and should therefore abandon them?
Um, maybe because money already spent is money owed, but plans for future spending are open to revision and negotiation?
Just a thought, offered with abandon.
Abandon that thought. Pensions are deferred compensation, aka money owed. Try again.
Yes, that money owed is a solemn promise - just ask the pensioners of Detroit.
It would be my choice that both Greece and Illinois pay their obligations. Unfortunately, both have wildly overpromised what can be delivered and they do not have the means to keep these promises. Now they're both backed into austerity measures that are driving up taxes and driving away both citizens and businesses.
Who is this going to hurt? Overwhelmingly it will be the poor of Illinois (or Greece) who depend on the government for assistance that will no longer be available because of growing pension obligations.
Obama loves to talk about how domestic spending is at its lowest level ever; that's only because entitlement spending is sky high and we're still on pace to double the national debt. When the baby boomers start filling the hospitals, well, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Illinois did not wildly overpromise what could be delivered. Illinois wildly underfunded the pension system it was obligated to have been paying into all along.
Also, unlike the banks that loaned Greece its last round of billions, Illinois and the unions did not conspire to commit fraud.
There is Greece, the European banks, Illinois, and the Illinois pensioners. Three of these four entities benefited.
Tough noogies it may be, but describing the respective empty vaults in 2015 doesn’t answer the original question. Why is the bulk of conservative policy and opinion filled with anger and revulsion for Greece, but “what did they expect?” schadenfreude for the robbed Illinois workers?
It's because of the delicious thrill of saying "I told you so."
Illinois is a land of Democratic and union politics, just like Detroit. Well, now they've made their featherbed, and they can lie in it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-outlook-local-economy-1221-biz-20141219-story.html
You might want to check the electoral history of Illinois government and party control, before making any more rash judgments about who approved which deals, and who signed what into law.
Illinois did not wildly overpromise what could be delivered. Illinois wildly underfunded the pension system it was obligated to have been paying into all along.
And where was that money supposed to come from? From something else that would itself then have been wildly underfunded. In the end, the problem was indeed wild overpromising.
conservative policy and opinion filled with anger and revulsion for Greece, but “what did they expect?” schadenfreude for the robbed Illinois workers
How did you get this bizarre dichotomy in your head? The schadenfreude falls equally on both socialist paradises. Conservatives want both Greece and Illinois to face their debts. They can do that either by defunding programs, raising taxes, or some form of bankruptcy. In the case of Illinois, which is being sunk by future promises more than current debts, they also have the option of sticking it to their entitled public unionists. If they choose to go down that path, all I ask is that they let me go and make popcorn first.
Oh yes, there's one other possibility for Illinois. What they would like to do is to enjoy the benefits of their profligate spending, while sticking people outside their state with the tab. Believe me, any attempts by the Democrats to move us in that direction is when schadenfreude would indeed turn to "anger and revulsion".
Saying Illinois and Greece are analogous because they each owe money is risible. Let alone calling them "socialist paradises."
Later today, I have some shopping to do at that socialist paradise Radio Shack. I only have $100 in my bank account, but I'm going to charge $250 so that I can become yet another socialist paradise.
While I'm away, explain the following.
In California, public pensions are 78% funded. In New York, it’s 94%. In Texas, it’s 83%. In Florida, it’s 82%. Virginia, 72%, Missouri 77%, Oregon 87%, Pennsylvania 75%, Arizona 75%, Washington 95%, Georgia 85%... you get the idea.
Illinois’ pensions? 45% funded, easily the lowest of any state. In 2013, the state paid just 39.3% of its legal obligation.
Please explain how Illinois has had decades and decades of unique expenses that the other 49 states didn’t have. Bonus points for sticking with the socialist paradise angle, despite a government that was controlled by Republicans more often than Democrats while labor contracts were being approved, and while funds were being rerouted.
The term "socialist paradise" was supposed to elicit a chuckle, not a research project.
Oh mama, love that conservative comedy. No wonder Jon Stewart had to get out of the business.
not a research project.
Sorry to ruin your day with facts. It's always sad to watch a preconception die screaming.
Post a Comment