Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
NEW THREAD PLEASE STATE WHO SHOULD PAY? HOW MUCH? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT OUT OF THEM? GIVE REAL ANSWERS? WE ARE FIGHTING IS NOT AN ANSWER!!!!!!
WHO SHOULD PAY AND HOW MUCH?
- Thread starter Banned for Life
- Start date
The Wall Street Bankers who managed the fund should pay. The GAO is currently conducting an investigation. There is a good chance that they will find a lack of fiduciary responsibility that borders on fraud. The following link sheds some light on this issue. You can watch the video or read the transcript. http://michael-hudson.com/2015/01/playing-the-pension-funds/ The commentator reveals how the fund managers invested into high risk dirivatives. If they showed a profit for the day, the proceeds went into their own accounts. If they showed a loss for the day, it was charged against our pension fund. It is estimated that the Wall Street fund managers lost over 16 billion dollars of CSPF capital during the 2007 - 08 financial crisis. The Federal Government bailed out these banks. I believe that they should in turn bail out or make restitution to the CSPF because of their fraudulent investment strategy. The Feds, at the end of the GAO investigation, should require the banks to reimburse the CSPF out of the bailout money that they have already recieved. By the way, Tom Nyhan has stated that an infusion of 16 billion dollars would take the fund out of critical status.
Great Post BaBaloo!!!
Will never happen. No outside money, restitution, bailout, or whatever you want to label it. No outside money will come in to save the fund. Its NOT gonna happen. You are being used by politicians for votes in an election year. November they wont know your name.
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
dear babaloo, Michael Hudson is an incredibly intelligent professor. he reiterated basically everything more knowledgeable posters have been saying all along. mpra is about keeping the pbgc solvent, it is not about making sure you get your full pension. the pension you earned,paid into was based on a fantasy return of 8% so you really didn't "earn" what you are still expecting. when the stock market crashed in 2008 the pension fund didn't lose "16 MILLION, where did you get that figure". The pension fund lost when it had to sell it's stock at the markets bottom to pay monthly pension checks. remember babaloo if you eat your seed you are going to starve. YOUR PENSION FUND, YOUR MONTHLY PENSION CHECK is based on an 8% rate of return. Well the market is flat and YOUR PENSION FUND AND YOUR MONTHLY PENSION CHECK are still based on an 8% rate of return. what do you do, you are desperate and you go to the back ally abortionist of the financial world, the unregulated world of the hedge fund managers. bad things happen to desperate people. at the very worst the hedge fund managers where skimming the cream off the top which is peanuts compared with the 2 billion dollars in assets that had to be sold every year to pay monthly pension checks. i'm sorry babaloo your post provided no real solution for full funding of the pension fund. keep looking though. you can never take away a mans hope.
.
He said 16 billion not 16 million by the way.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Wow! That was a very intellectual reply, and one wonders why so many are on your ignore list. Go figure
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Who knows, there is that possibility that they won't be forced to pay restitution. But make no mistake, the fund will be saved. It may not suit your particular needs or wants but mark my words, it will be saved.
Being used by politicians for votes couldn't be further from the truth. Sure, there are some that will allow themselves to be used for getting those politicians their votes. But there will be those that will be voting those same politicians out of office for the simple fact that they had to be pressured to do their job. For one to assume that all are being used is absurd to say the least. The majority of politicians, democrats and republicans alike, will lie, deceive and look after their own interests first and foremost.
As for those that believe that the government, wall street bankers, and the fund's administrator along with the trustees are looking out for what's in the worker's best interests, now they're the ones that are being used big time. They are the ones taking the words of known thieves and liars with no questions asked and willing to take the course of action recommended by those same thieves and liars to fix the situation, again with no questions asked. Those are the ones that are allowing them to put the fu in the fund, not the members who believe otherwise.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
This figure of your 8% return keeps coming up. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Now, who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund?
Since you now have all the answers to those questions, here's another one. Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose and that fantasy return of 8% you so adamantly like to repeat and under who's watch?
Now, the final one, who goes around spreading the word that the monthly pension check is based on an unrealistic 8% rate of return without revealing all the details? It seems to me that you have to rely on half truths to try and prove your point and half truths are very deceiving.
What is your proof that this will never happen? This is already underway!!!
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Yes, we are fighting is an answer because one of the things that was being fought for was an investigation to determine just who was at fault, who should pay and what is going to be done about it, which is happening at this very moment. And the verdict isn't in yet!
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
my mistake on the million, it was the 16 figure, on jan 1,2008 after ups put in 6 billion the pension fund was at 24 billion it did not lose 16 billion and go to 8 billion
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
it is referred as the discount rate, this is the rate the government makes pension funds use to determine the funding % of their funds. single employer pension funds are using about 4% now, which is basically the amount a well run corporation would pay to borrow money. public employee pension funds have their own accounting standards, basically whatever they want. the tax payer bails them out regularly under the guise of maintaining a high level of services. I am assuming you either did not listen to the Michael Hudson video or you did not understand what he was saying. NO U FOOL please try to educate yourself on these very critical issues.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Now just how does this answer my questions? If you can't answer my questions, just say you don't know. If you won't answer my questions, you know that stating those answers defeat the point that you are so desperately trying to make. The third option, you can lie which we all know how capable you are when it comes to that. Then you also have that fourth option, just throw out all that gibberish that you are so well known for that has nothing to do with those questions asked like you did here. So which is it going to be?
Now, how about answering these questions which will now be the second time I requested you to do so.
This figure of your 8% return keeps coming up. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Now, who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund?
Since you now have all the answers to those questions, here's another one. Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose and that fantasy return of 8% you so adamantly like to repeat and under who's watch?
Now, the final one, who goes around spreading the word that the monthly pension check is based on an unrealistic 8% rate of return without revealing all the details?
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
NO U FOOL. a tool you can use is the rule of 72. if you want to know how long it will take for your money to double take your expected rate of return and divide into 72. i'm going to give you an example on how much extra money needs to be put into a fund using 4% money against 8% money. I will base it on 36 years for simplicity. 72 divided by 8 means your money doubles in 9 years.so if you put in a dollar at 8% it would double 4 times in 36 years giving you 16 dollars. 72 divided 4 means your money doubles every 18 years. so in thirty six years at 4% your dollar double twice giving you only 4 dollars. as you can see you would have to increase your contributions buy a factor of 4 to get the same amount of money at 4%. a union leader trying to get your vote, he likes promising you a big pension at 8%. from a company perspective paying less is always better. an 8% discount rate historically would not be unreasonable if the money would be aloud to reinvest itself over a hundred year period. but do to the ever decreasing employer base we were forced to eat our seed. and we will surely starve.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I see that you have chosen the fourth option for the second time, gibberish that has nothing to do with those questions asked , so let's try again.
Now just how does this answer my questions? If you can't answer my questions, just say you don't know. If you won't answer my questions, you know that stating those answers defeat the point that you are so desperately trying to make. The third option, you can lie which we all know how capable you are when it comes to that. Then you also have that fourth option, just throw out all that gibberish that you are so well known for that has nothing to do with those questions asked like you did here. So which is it going to be?
Now, how about answering these questions which will now be the third time I requested you to do so.
This figure of your 8% return keeps coming up. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Now, who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund?
Since you now have all the answers to those questions, here's another one. Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose and that fantasy return of 8% you so adamantly like to repeat and under who's watch?
Now, the final one, who goes around spreading the word that the monthly pension check is based on an unrealistic 8% rate of return without revealing all the details?
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
read the transcript Michael Hudson uses 8.5%. NO U FOOL have you ever tried to be a productive member of society
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I see that you have chosen the fourth option for the third time, gibberish that has nothing to do with those questions asked , so let's try it again.
Now just how does this answer my questions? If you can't answer my questions, just say you don't know. If you won't answer my questions, you know that stating those answers defeat the point that you are so desperately trying to make. The third option, you can lie which we all know how capable you are when it comes to that. Then you also have that fourth option, just throw out all that gibberish that you are so well known for that has nothing to do with those questions asked like you did here for the third time now. So which is it going to be?
Now, how about answering these questions which will now be the fourth time I requested you to do so.
This figure of your 8% return keeps coming up. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Now, who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund?
Since you now have all the answers to those questions, here's another one. Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose and that fantasy return of 8% you so adamantly like to repeat and under who's watch?
Now, the final one, who goes around spreading the word that the monthly pension check is based on an unrealistic 8% rate of return without revealing all the details?
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
NO U FOOL, HAD TO GET AN ICE COLD HUDEPOHL TO MAKE DEALING WITH YOU TOLERABLE. do your nurses let you have a beer.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I see that you have chosen the fourth option for the fourth time, gibberish that has nothing to do with those questions asked , so let's try it again.
Now just how does this answer my questions? If you can't answer my questions, just say you don't know. If you won't answer my questions, you know that stating those answers defeat the point that you are so desperately trying to make. The third option, you can lie which we all know how capable you are when it comes to that. Then you also have that fourth option, just throw out all that gibberish that you are so well known for that has nothing to do with those questions asked like you did here for the third time now. So which is it going to be?
Now, how about answering these questions which will now be the fifth time I requested you to do so.
This figure of your 8% return keeps coming up. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Now, who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund?
Since you now have all the answers to those questions, here's another one. Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose and that fantasy return of 8% you so adamantly like to repeat and under who's watch?
Now, the final one, who goes around spreading the word that the monthly pension check is based on an unrealistic 8% rate of return without revealing all the details?