What's new

Yellow | Proposed pension payment cuts of 50 percent and deeper rank and file Teamster retirees in Akron

Freightmaster1

Freightmaster1

TB Legend
Credits
607
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/prop...-and-rile-teamster-retirees-in-akron-1.630460


xDpnAAc.jpg


Steve Kmet, Local 24 Akron, Retiree

jXqEKRM.jpg

Mike Walden, Local 24 Akron, Retiree
Trustee, Retired Teamsters Fellowship Club, Akron
Chairman, Northeast Ohio Committee to Protect Pensions

fSA9fXC.jpg

Retired Teamsters Fellowship Club, Akron, OH Meeting, October 7, 2015

:usa:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ESP
So what's your point? It hits everyone in CSPF, not just Akron retirees. Are you going to post pictures of those who will get zero if not passed?
 
Jimmy, why are you so convinced that the Kline-Miller/NCCMP plan is the only one that will work for CSPF? It appears that in every post on this issue you believe unless the MPRA of 2014 is enacted there won't be anything left in 10 years. You do know that other options were offered by AARP, Pension Rights Center and others instead of just cutting retiree pensions to save the PBGC.
 
Crystal said:
Jimmy, why are you so convinced that the Kline-Miller/NCCMP plan is the only one that will work for CSPF? It appears that in every post on this issue you believe unless the MPRA of 2014 is enacted there won't be anything left in 10 years. You do know that other options were offered by AARP, Pension Rights Center and others instead of just cutting retiree pensions to save the PBGC.
Click to expand...
It needs to more than triple the 19 billion it has just to break even. Short of Warren Buffet signing over his estate, we're screwed

All those suggestions you mention involve forcing others to pay more. Won't pass Congress.

Unfortunately, I live in Reality..

Actually, I'm surprised Congress didn't force all Teamster' Pensions into one. Then we'd really hear screaming...
 
Crystal, I know we see things differently. I'm not an economics expert, but here's my opinion why we need to take the cut:

If we're paying out 3.46 for every dollar we take in, were 30 Billion short right now. And we aren't the worst shape pension there is. Look at the threads on 707, they might get Zero as opposed to us getting half. Take that 30 billion that we are short and multiply it by 1400 in trouble funds nationwide, and there just isn't enough money that Congress could possibly appropriate to save us. And they won't. It's not the job of Congress to save us....
 
And that is just why we should keep it, spoils of war. Anybody in favor of giving it back should be sent to the front lines. We are too soft in this country, do you think for one minute that any other country would give it back?:tr10driving03:
 
jimmy st: 973377 said:
Crystal, I know we see things differently. I'm not an economics expert, but here's my opinion why we need to take the cut:

If we're paying out 3.46 for every dollar we take in, were 30 Billion short right now. And we aren't the worst shape pension there is. Look at the threads on 707, they might get Zero as opposed to us getting half. Take that 30 billion that we are short and multiply it by 1400 in trouble funds nationwide, and there just isn't enough money that Congress could possibly appropriate to save us. And they won't. It's not the job of Congress to save us....
Click to expand...
But..Congress hasnt kept their end of the bargain either.The PBCG is grossly underfunded to the tune of billions.Therefore by passing the deficit to the Pension Fund.Congress doesn't have to assure there are sufficient amount of funds in the PBCG.Therefore it does ask the taxpayers to bail out the CSPF but by the retirees who are taxpayers.So why not a bailout?
 
bigtruk_us said:
But..Congress hasnt kept their end of the bargain either.The PBCG is grossly underfunded to the tune of billions.Therefore by passing the deficit to the Pension Fund.Congress doesn't have to assure there are sufficient amount of funds in the PBCG.Therefore it does ask the taxpayers to bail out the CSPF but by the retirees who are taxpayers.So why not a bailout?
Click to expand...
Because there's NO money....
 
pilot87 said:
They didn't seem to have an issue with saving the Wall Street banks.......to the tune of trillions....

Guess that further shows the priorities of the members of Congress and who they are beholden to....Surely not any of us.....
Click to expand...
It shouldn't have been done. They did it because, when the fiasco happened, and Bush called the two nominees to Washington(since either Obama or McCain would be the next Prez) he asked what those two wanted done. McCain didn't have a clue, and Obam- ever the Marxist, said take over those industries. Congress came up with Too Big To Fail, because it saved jobs.

I wouldn't have done it. Let them fail or succeed on their own. Government's job is Defense and making sure the States play well together. And that's about all, according to the Constitution.
 
jimmy g said:
It shouldn't have been done. They did it because, when the fiasco happened, and Bush called the two nominees to Washington(since either Obama or McCain would be the next Prez) he asked what those two wanted done. McCain didn't have a clue, and Obam- ever the Marxist, said take over those industries. Congress came up with Too Big To Fail, because it saved jobs.

I wouldn't have done it. Let them fail or succeed on their own. Government's job is Defense and making sure the States play well together. And that's about all, according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, I agree.
I do not believe that the world would have been able to recover as quickly had running the course been the plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top