D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
Can you keep it civil guys? this is obviously a sensitive subject and there is no need to add inflammatory comments.
WHO SHOULD PAY AND HOW MUCH?
- Thread starter Banned for Life
- Start date
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
So far I have asked you these questions five times. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund? Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose with that return of 8% that you do nothing but repeat and under who's watch did this all take place?
And all that you could muster up was some gibberish about the discount rate and how the government makes pension funds use this rate to determine the funding % of their funds, rambling on about the Rule of 72, how Michael Hudson uses 8.5% in the transcript and now with this nonsense about nurses and beer.
If you can't answer questions because you simply just don't know or won't answer because you know that they will have negative repercussions on your part, all you have to do is say that you refuse to answer. It's as simple as that.
You shouldn't and can't expect a reasonable dialogue with anyone when you refuse to answer other's questions or the total avoidance of them like you are doing here. So in my opinion, this thread you started does nothing but make you out to be unreasonable and foolish.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
How can one argue with such an intellectual reply such as this.
D
Deleted member 5115
Guest
Agreed, that bullshit needs to stop.
I would like to add a few comments at this point. Many numbers have been thrown around over the last year and a half. Some are factual, others are not. I could spend the time to support the numbers that I have used, but I would rather not. Who knows the truth? I have been monitoring the CSPF since the time that Hoffa Jr. let UPS out of the fund. At that point I knew that it was a matter of time before the fund would be in financial trouble. You cannot continue to mantain a viable fund when you let 275,000 active paying members walk away. We can point fingers and lay blame but I believe this is a fact. The remaining retired and active members of the CSPF were cut adrift by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. So like it or not, we are all in this together. So each individual needed to plan accordingly. I, for one, retired five years ago at the age of 57 knowing that the amount of time that I could collect a full pension was probably limited. I wanted to get what I had rightfully earned and paid for. Does this make me a bad person? Does this make me a selfish individual? Actually this makes me a person who had planned for retirement based upon the promises that were made to me. And those promises were backed up by federal law. Unfortunately, these conditions no longer apply. So now I will have to adjust, just like eveyone else. There are some other facts that everyone should consider:
1. The CSPF applied for a benefit reduction under MEPRA.
2. Retired and active Teamsters got politically motivated to stop the cuts.
3. Members of Congress lobbied Treasury to reject the CSPF application.
4. Treasury rejected the application
5. The CSPF stated that it would not reapply for benefit reductions under MEPRA
That is where this issue currently stands. The fact is that politically motived Teamsters got results. That does not mean that this is over. It means that we have a chance to influence the eventual outcome. Here are some more facts:
1. The CSPF is estimated to run out of money in 10 years or less.
2. The Federal Government has oversight of the fund.
3. Wall Street banks, under government supervision, placed CSPF monies into risky investments.
4. The CSPF has lost 16 - 18 billion dollars due to Wall Street investment stratagies.
5. The Federal Government should be held liable for its oversight of the CSPF.
The Government Accounting Office is currently conducting an investigation into all of these matters. We will see where this all ends up. We could maybe all get full pensions, or nothing at all. The one thing I do know is that we have to stay involved. Both retired and active members all have skin in the game. Something will happen. If we continue to engage politically, we can and will influence the eventual outcome. In the meantime I am heading to the lake and going fishing. It is another thing that I planned for in retirement.
1. The CSPF applied for a benefit reduction under MEPRA.
2. Retired and active Teamsters got politically motivated to stop the cuts.
3. Members of Congress lobbied Treasury to reject the CSPF application.
4. Treasury rejected the application
5. The CSPF stated that it would not reapply for benefit reductions under MEPRA
That is where this issue currently stands. The fact is that politically motived Teamsters got results. That does not mean that this is over. It means that we have a chance to influence the eventual outcome. Here are some more facts:
1. The CSPF is estimated to run out of money in 10 years or less.
2. The Federal Government has oversight of the fund.
3. Wall Street banks, under government supervision, placed CSPF monies into risky investments.
4. The CSPF has lost 16 - 18 billion dollars due to Wall Street investment stratagies.
5. The Federal Government should be held liable for its oversight of the CSPF.
The Government Accounting Office is currently conducting an investigation into all of these matters. We will see where this all ends up. We could maybe all get full pensions, or nothing at all. The one thing I do know is that we have to stay involved. Both retired and active members all have skin in the game. Something will happen. If we continue to engage politically, we can and will influence the eventual outcome. In the meantime I am heading to the lake and going fishing. It is another thing that I planned for in retirement.
What is already underway? Your investigation? So what! I will say again, NO outside money will come in to make the fund solvent.
Well if there is not going to be any outside money... They will just get it from the actives. Thank you and keep paying in!!!
Now I think I am gonig to go fishing with BaBaLoo!!! Thanks again
Even though you chose to present all your statements as facts, the 3 quoted above are opinion.
3. "Risky investments" is a relative term. Some investments have more risk than others and there is also the risk of investing in funds that aren't likely to keep up with inflation.
4. Why the fund lost 16-18B dollars is due to several factors, not simply due to investment strategies.
5. Who should be held liable is debatable.
A dollar a week next contract then. Thats the attitude that gets active and contract voters pissed
And you wonder why I call you greedy. I hope they cut yours to the max allowed
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
NU
Hoffa didn't let ups out the ups drivers wanted out. ups paid the 6.1 billion dollar withdraw penalty. at 8% that would provide 480 million in income a year with no additional pension liabilities because they where transferred to their own pension fund. there where 45,000 cspf ups teamsters, where did you get 275,000. ups pays into twenty other teamster pension funds. babaloo, P.J., NO U FOOL instead of congratulating yourself for spreading propaganda. you need to start convincing the actives to stay with the greedy rats on the sinking ship!!!!!!
Answered your just like you post. Just keep paying in!!!
I just answered yrc-atm that way, because of all his posts are one liners and derogatory posts!!! Take a look at all his posts on here, they are all the same. Name calling and disrespectful. As long as he keeps acting like a little kid, then that is how I will treat him...The kid needs to grow up!!!
Last edited:
If they cut mine to the max, then you probably won't be getting anything!!! You better hope we win, that will be the only way you are going to get anything. You need to wake up kid and figure out that fighting is going to be your only chance for a pension.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
You are right about the number of around 45,000 UPS Teamsters in the CSPF but you are wrong about Hoffa Jr because he did let UPS out of the pension fund. Hoffa Jr negotiated the agreement which he boasted how it would greatly benefit the members at U.P.S. as well as Teamster members in other industries covered by pension and health and welfare funds. He was even criticized by many at that time for letting them out of the fund for the very same reasons that everyone is still complaining about, which the remaining retired and active members of the CSPF were cut adrift by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters like this poster said and hung out to dry. The pension issue shouldn't of even been on the table, just like in the YRC agreement. In case you don't know, UPS tried a similar pension grab in 1997 but Ron Carey wouldn't hear of it. The Teamsters even went on strike against UPS for 15 days which one issue was the company’s demand to be able to withdraw from the Central States plan. So don't even try saying that Hoffa Jr didn't let them out of the fund.
Now, here's Hoffa Jr letting the UPS out of the CSPF, which mind you, is the fund that's under the government's control, they appoint the fiduciaries which are the Wall Street bankers and the fund manager. The members had absolutely no voice and stripped of any course of action that they could possibly take when the government took over all control in 1982.Talk about putting the fox ( Wall Street bankers) in charge of the hen house. And guess what, the government is in charge of monitoring it too, which you would know if you didn't refuse to answer my questions. Which by the way, only destroys your integrity and credibility, thus destroying any chance of you having a reasonable and worthwhile dialogue. But that's on you, you are the one that looks foolish and unreasonable by refusing to answer other's questions in your own thread, not me.
Now that we got that out the way, let's get back to our unfinished business.
So far I have asked you these questions five times. Here comes number six. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund? Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose with that return of 8% that you do nothing but repeat and under who's watch did this all take place?
And all that you could muster up was some gibberish about the discount rate and how the government makes pension funds use this rate to determine the funding % of their funds, rambling on about the Rule of 72, how Michael Hudson uses 8.5% in the transcript and now with this nonsense about nurses and beer.
If you can't answer questions because you simply just don't know or won't answer because you know that they will have negative repercussions on your part, all you have to do is say that you refuse to answer. It's as simple as that.
You shouldn't and can't expect a reasonable dialogue with anyone when you refuse to answer other's questions or the total avoidance of them like you are doing here. So in my opinion, this thread you started does nothing but make you out to be unreasonable and foolish.
And here you are, having the cockiness to accuse others of spreading propaganda when you are the one who is being deceitful and disingenuous by posting misleading information by not revealing all the details to try and prove you own particular point of view. You proved that by your unwillingness and flat out refusal to answer my questions. After all, you know that those answers would put an end to everything that you are trying to get accomplished here. And don't forget, you are still a proven liar, that's something else that you will have to live with.
I was already slated to be cut in the plan that was put forward. You act as tho only the retirees were to be cut. It was everybody. And even those cuts werent deep enough. Without cuts the fund will go dry and yes THEN I will not get anything. So if we dont cut fine. Keep yours. The actives should be able to get out and stop contributing to something they will never get.
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
just got back from fishing, opened an ice cold SCHLITZ. NO U FOOL multi employer pension funds have always used an 8% discount rate. it worked when there where 12,000 contributing employers, and a 5 active to 1 retired ratio. the jig is up NO U FOOL, you out lived the Ponzi scheme. RON "TDU" CAREYS strike did more long term damage to UPS teamsters than any good. FED EX was able to buy. RPS which became fed ex ground. the viking trucking companies which became fed ex freight and they are just kicking the living sht out of the teamster companies. not to mention the 8000 ups teamster who retired before 2008. they are just like orphans, I bet they wished ups took over their pension in 1997. on 1-1-2017 the ups pension will be $3,400 and out at 30 years. i'm sure the ups teamsters are happy jimmy Hoffa let them out. LET us talk about R.P.S. NO U FOOL, HOW COME THE HARD CORE WE FOUGHT THE GOOD FIGHT SO YOU COULD LIVE BETTER CROWD let roadway start a company that uses private contractors. why didn't those club swing'n, kick'n company thugs asses, fight'n the good fight old school teamsters shut down THE BIG R over R.P.S. private contractors. I thought an old school teamster like you NO U FOOL could answer that
yrc-atm you are correct about the Actives Teamsters receiving Pension cut letters too. CSPF had to send them to all Teamsters by law. The Treasury Department stated that CSPF did not or could not make the cuts deep enough to save the fund. That is one of the reasons that the application was turned down. Most Retirees were going to be cut to the max, and could not be cut any more.
UPS Teamsters that retired after 2008 did not get cut, and as far as I know, not all UPS Teamsters that retired before 2008 took the cut either. Not Sure!!!
In my opinion 75-79, and those over 80 should not have been exempt from the cuts, and IMO this should not have been included in MPRA. MPRA is unconstitutional, and needs to be repealed.
I can tell you this, we are fighting for all Teamsters, Retirees, and the Actives alike. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.
nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
You talk about Hoffa Jr like he's the cream of the crop, I bet that you even respect and admire the man. I have news for you, he's nothing but a piece of crap which he did nothing but destroy what Hoffa Sr. built. After all, he's personally responsible for dividing all of Teamsters. And to have you here on this forum trying to pass yourself off as a 36 year Teamster is laughable and disheartening at the same time, you should be ashamed of yourself for actually thinking that you would be able to pull it off. Why do you want to talk about RPS? Is that the company you work for and the reason why you so desperately want to see the Teamsters get screwed?
No, let's not talk about RPS, let's talk about these questions that you are refusing to answer.
So far I have asked you these questions six times. Here comes number seven. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund? Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose with that return of 8% that you do nothing but repeat and under who's watch did this all take place?
And all that you could muster up was some gibberish about the discount rate and how the government makes pension funds use this rate to determine the funding % of their funds, rambling on about the Rule of 72, how Michael Hudson uses 8.5% in the transcript, nonsense about nurses and beer, Hoffa Jr letting ups out the pension fund and now wanting to talk about RPS.
So far you have been proven to be a liar and a person of deceit by telling half truths. And I'm getting very close to proving that you are a fraud too. I bet this thread isn't turning out the way you intended and thought it would, is it?
No, let's not talk about RPS, let's talk about these questions that you are refusing to answer.
So far I have asked you these questions six times. Here comes number seven. Who are the ones that based an 8% rate of return? Who are the fiduciaries of the CSPF? Who are the ones that appointed the fiduciaries and how long ago? Who were the ones who were to be overlooking the fund? Who is responsible for pension funds that were set up in a way that they were guaranteed to lose with that return of 8% that you do nothing but repeat and under who's watch did this all take place?
And all that you could muster up was some gibberish about the discount rate and how the government makes pension funds use this rate to determine the funding % of their funds, rambling on about the Rule of 72, how Michael Hudson uses 8.5% in the transcript, nonsense about nurses and beer, Hoffa Jr letting ups out the pension fund and now wanting to talk about RPS.
So far you have been proven to be a liar and a person of deceit by telling half truths. And I'm getting very close to proving that you are a fraud too. I bet this thread isn't turning out the way you intended and thought it would, is it?
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
NO U FULL I feel like (⊙▃⊙) or a PERVERT, because I went to your personal information page. it is hard to believe you are only 4 years older than I. we definitely see things differently. that does not mean we still cannot be civil to each other!
Banned for Life
Banned
- Credits
- 0
UPS teamsters with less than twenty years in cspf took a 69% pension cut. not a 40 or a 50 or a 60 percent cut. that after UPS paid a 6 billion dollar withdraw penalty. do you wonder why UPS protested