And those are huge “IFS” but should it make it to the Presidents desk, I would be shocked if he signs it before the election for a few reasons first he’s going to want the unions endorsement for his campaign before he does and second he’s not going to chance losing votes from those who oppose it.
Yellow | House Committee Advances Butch Lewis
- Thread starter Keepingon
- Start date
I thought the Union forgave that.
And isn’t there some stupid rule that when an employer is permitted to pay a reduced amount for a certain amount of time it actually becomes the amount they are required to pay from that point on ?
It may if the GOP sees some value in stealing some the vote for 2020 that is normally considered to be within the democrat base.
It will be coming out of your paycheck Union didn't want to touch the issue when I brought it up at meetings and when we went over the contract!
Freightmaster1
TB Legend
- Credits
- 605
Trump To Sign Union Pension Plan Fix By Dec. Predicts Ways & Means Chair, But Lead GOPer Not So Sure
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedknu...hair-but-lead-goper-not-so-sure/#63bfffc913d9
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedknu...hair-but-lead-goper-not-so-sure/#63bfffc913d9
I don't understand how you were able to come to that ASSUMPTION based on my kicking the can posts. Your memory is much better than mine. I don't remember ever posting that I liked TARP bailouts. I don't agree that Butch Lewis is a bailout. That appears to be a republican opinion. But it is my opinion that if congress continues to bail out the corporations and special interests then it about time they changed direction and "bailed out" the working stiff for a change.
So now you not only agree with Karl Marx, you post like his writings!!!!
The bill takes taxpayer funds and uses them to save pensions from failing. How can that be anything BUT a BAILOUT????? Since this is the same as TARP saving GM, it is logical that you agreed with TARP
Last edited:
If you say so. I don't know anything about Karl Marx and I never read his writings. But does that make me a communist or a bad person? You already know that HR 397 isn't going to help my fund. But I very much want to see the other MEPFs rehabilitated
I don't agree with your logic. I wasn't for TARP but I am for government helping out the middle class working man. Goverment helps the rich and the poor but what about us. Call me selfish if you want. 198 house members including 9 republicans consider HR 397 as a loan and not a bailout. They are a lot smarter than I am.
should we blame Trump or Global Warming?
Blame them for what? I don't blame Trump or global warming on this topic. I blame congress and partisan politics. Last year Orin Hatch and his committee couldn't come to an agreement so they "kicked the can" down the road. This year with the democrats in control the vote on HR 397 passed in the Ways and Means committee strictly along party lines. So I would have to assume if the republicans stilled controlled the committee it would have stalled again and failed if there were a vote..........I hope that answered your sarcastic question.
A democrat blowing more smoke up your ass.Trump To Sign Union Pension Plan Fix By Dec. Predicts Ways & Means Chair, But Lead GOPer Not So Sure
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedknu...hair-but-lead-goper-not-so-sure/#63bfffc913d9
Neal’s legislation would establish the Pension Rehabilitation Administration under the Treasury Department which would be able to make loans to troubled plans. If the pension plans were unable to pay back the debt, the agency could forgive a portion of the principal.
The liberals are already putting their escape hatch into the bill's language because they know these pension funds will not be able to repay their loans. That's why this legislation is a bailout and not a loan.
Part of the problem is organizing when is the Union going to get anyone to start paying into these pensions? Seems like a managed decline to me YRC at 25% contribution ABF contribution frozen at current rates looks like the only one paying full rate is UPS and some smaller companies. All the new ones they organize only go to 401k.
In 1789, we created our US Constitution. Power and Responsibility was recognized as being the Individual's, in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
From 1848-1895, Marx wrote of the struggle of Employee vs Employer. All based on Envy. We know from the 10 Commandments to not live our lives envious.
Marx wrote Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.[/B]
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
How is that any different than your quote????
Cryatal said:
Marxism has 10 Tenets, or Guidelines. They refuse Individual Control, and put Central Government in charge of 'Ruling'. With the 16th and 17th Amendments to our Constitution, (1913-1916) we abandoned Individualism, and switched from a Constitutional Republic, to a Quasi-Socialist Nation. Our Government doesnt empower States to Govern, we now Empower Central Control, via Regulations and Funding.
In 2008, the George Soros funded Tides Foundation wrote the suggestion for TARP, presented by Barack Obama to Prez GW Bush and then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen. Prez Bush signed the law, saying "We must do something UnCapitalistic, to save Capitalism."
TARP used Taxpayer $ and created a Government Entity to loan money to AIG, GM, Chrysler, and failing toxic enterprises. We ALL called it a Bailout- even though it was a loan, and mostly paid back. I opposed that, and thought it would be better to let them fail.
Today, you wish for Government to once again use Taxpayer money to create a Government entity to loan money to toxic enterprises, but this time they are Pensions. Enterprises that the proposed bill recognized will probably NOT be paid back. Yet, because you like "workers", and detest "Corporations", you choose to say this Is Not a Bailout. That is Nonsensical. The two Bailouts are Identical.......
This law would help me, but I oppose it on Principle that it yet again, puts Central Government in charge. I DO however, wish that Congress would add in an Amendment that 1: Outlaws Re-employment Rules, and 2: Funds taking these loans can no longer take contributions, but must switch to a different type of retirement instrument, giving individuals control of their money.... otherwise, this issue will reappear in 30 years AGAIN!
Last edited:
Hatch had a practical solution to double the PBGC amounts and give bailout $$$$ the PBGC. Everyone would basically get about 70 cents on the dollar. Dems wouldn't agree, as those were cuts to full retirement pay. So, instead of getting 70 cents on the dollar, we're watching the fund go broke.
Why can't our tax dollars help American tax payers first??
https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd
Burundi, 69 million US dollars in 2018.
https://explorer.usaid.gov/cd
Burundi, 69 million US dollars in 2018.
Last edited:
I would like to read Hatch's solution but I can't find it. Will you give me the link where you got this information? Would you be in favor of a "bailout" to the PBGC?
I didn’t read it. I heard it on radio reports. There were articles, but I don’t know how to find them in a hurry. I’ll try to look them up.
Yes- I’d be all for bailing out the PBGC, as a backstop compromise. Still against my Constitutional Beliefs, but I’d be willing to meet compromise in the middle. I’m not a TOTAL jerk....
Everyone should get something- but I fail to see where it’s the Government’s job to make anyone whole in a failing private enterprise.
Last edited:
I’m not sure who to actually cite as credit for this, but this is the solution I heard last Nov. The committee failed to agree on it:
The draft proposal rejected the idea of a federal loan program, which did not gain political traction with the disparate group. Instead, it offers several measures to help struggling plans protect retiree benefits, including increasing the PBGC minimum guarantee level to $70 per month per year of service, and at least $3,000 per year.
It even undoes benefit cuts already authorized by the Treasury Department under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014, but plans within five years of insolvency would cut to the minimum benefit level and then be terminated.
The PBGC would gain more authority and resources to take financial responsibility for struggling plans. The draft proposal calls for a 30-year promise of $3 billion in federal funding per year to allow it to do more partitioning, a new variable rate premium for plan sponsors, a new "stakeholder" premium to be paid by retirees in struggling plans and a new exit premium for employers.
https://www.pionline.com/article/20...ns-see-help-ahead-at-expense-of-healthy-funds
In example: my CSPF promised payout is $2455 @ month right now. And expected to fail within 4-5 years. Under that above plan, I’d get $1470@month from the PBGC for 30 years for my credited 21 years of service. (Last year, when the CSPF was 6years of insolvency) And, already cut pensions would go back to the same $70 @ month times years of service. I’d take it!!!! but it failed....