BF2S Forums you're a moocher

11 Bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Lowing it's very un-conservative of you to support farm subsidies, I'm rather surprised. I thought you're all for the 'people have to take care of themselves' stuff?

I am, however with farming (hard work mind you) you are at the mercy of the things totally beyond your control.

Farmers feed the nation. I draw a big difference between subsidizing personal failure, and subsidizing the nations bread basket. Don't you?

good call.  but, lots of farmers just grow corn for processed shit food  $$$$$$$.  they should lose their handouts, but they dont.

Cybargs wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am, however with farming (hard work mind you) you are at the mercy of the things totally beyond your control.

Farmers feed the nation. I draw a big difference between subsidizing personal failure, and subsidizing the nations bread basket. Don't you?

good call.  but, lots of farmers just grow corn for processed shit food  $$$$$$$.  they should lose their handouts, but they dont.

Corporations actually control the farming industry. mom and pop farms are almost dead.

lowing wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

good call.  but, lots of farmers just grow corn for processed shit food  $$$$$$$.  they should lose their handouts, but they dont.

Corporations actually control the farming industry. mom and pop farms are almost dead.

regardless as to how big or small the farm is or who owns it, it still takes work to farm and they still employ people, and they are still at the mercy of conditions and situations beyond their control....................and we still gotta eat.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Can't say as I did, too long. I am betting you didn't read it either.

oh...  why do I even try... 

Look, lowing, you are aware that we've been subsidizing agriculture unnecessarily for about 70 years now, right?  These were policies originally put into place to help small farmers, but now that agriculture is mostly corporate, it doesn't need any tax money or incentives for more profit.

ADM is the epitome of why these policies need to change, because they cost you and me as taxpayers in the form of pork.

Hmmmmm so you want farms to go for pure profit huh? That would mean pure cash crops, and not necessarily what the nation needs to eat.

Maybe ethenol corn

It might also mean a farmer could and probably would sell his crop to the highest bidder, and that bidder may not be in the US. Yeah go ahead, take away all incentive from corporate farming. Watch what happens.

Also look to see farms sell out to subdivision developers. If yo don't wanna pay for their efforts, why not cash out the land and live rich? Fucking you and I. I sure as hell would

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

par for the course tbh.

Jesus Christ! This kid is like a hyper dog bouncing around you nipping at your pant legs. I thought they banned your ass, That was short lived.

blah blah blah.

Back on topic, you still haven't answered my question as to why you think that someone who has worked for years and paid taxes, and then finds themselves unemployed and unemployable in the current market through no fault of their own should be considered a 'moocher', since as far as I'm conecerned if you pay taxes then you are entitled to support. And I use entitlement in the normal sense of the word as opposed to your weird sense of someone wanting something for free.

ATG wrote:

lowing wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

blah blah blah.

Back on topic, you still haven't answered my question as to why you think that someone who has worked for years and paid taxes, and then finds themselves unemployed and unemployable in the current market through no fault of their own should be considered a 'moocher', since as far as I'm conecerned if you pay taxes then you are entitled to support. And I use entitlement in the normal sense of the word as opposed to your weird sense of someone wanting something for free.

You pay taxes at the end of every year for the year that just past. You already paid for your services for the year that past.

In the new year, you are recieving and at the end of the year NOT paying taxes. You are now a moocher. Is it really that hard?

Our constitution does not entitle you to someone elses efforts in life.Sorry

Lowing, your train of thought here is embarrassing.

Last edited by lowing (2010-03-18 07:23:51)

Pension Plans and Government Salaries To Blame

According to the report, pension plans and government salaries are at the heart of the matter. Here are a few select details.

Detailed Findings and Observations

    1. The City incurred operating losses (“Change In Net Assets”) totaling approximately $1.5 billion for the five fiscal years ended 6/30/08--- per the latest (fiscal year 2008) publicly available audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), page 199:

    In Thousands
    a. (312,790)
    b. (531,465)
    c. (131,893)
    d. (221,452)
    e. (281,556)
    TOTAL (1,479,156) ---or--- $1.5 BILLION

    2. The City’s deficiency in unrestricted assets [“Unrestricted (deficit)”] was $1.2 BILLION ($1,174,429 thousands) at June 30, 2008--- per 2008 CAFR, page 15. In other words, the City’s unrestricted assets were approximately $1.2 billion less than the already recorded liabilities that they will be required to satisfy.

    3. The $1.2 billion deficiency in unrestricted assets as of June 30, 2008 (which was created essentially during fiscal years 2004-2008-see item 1) was basically financed, per page 15 of the 2008 CAFR, by:
    (a) the $347,728,000 collateralized note payable to the municipal employees’
    pension trust;
    (b) the $643,413,000 combined accrued liabilities to the employees’ pension
    trusts (municipal-$285,462,000, police officers’-$318,567,000, and firefighters’-$39,384,000);
    (c) the $219,755,000 pension obligation bonds payable;
    (d) the $272,941,000 accrued liability for other post employment benefits-----less, per pages 17 and 74 of the 2003 CAFR,
    (d) the $54,395,000 net accrued liabilities to the employees’ pension trusts at June 30, 2003 (municipal-$92,386,000, police officers’-$19,221,000, and firefighters’-asset of $57,212,000).

    4. Thus, as of June 30, 2008, the City’s elected officials essentially had transferred financial ownership of the City from the taxpayers to the City’s employees, about 43.7% of who do not live in the City, according to documentation we have received from the City’s human resources department. Very troubling, 63.3% of first responders (police officers and firefighters) do not live in the City, versus just 30.0% of civilian employees, according to the City’s human resources department.

    5. The City’s deficiency in unrestricted assets is so severe that in their yet to be completed audit for fiscal year 2009 the City’s independent auditors apparently will have to address the audit reporting issue as to whether the City was a “going concern” as of June 30, 2009.

    6. Apparently the City has no idea yet as to what its operating loss (“change in net assets”) was for the fiscal year just ended June 30, 2009 or what its deficiency in unrestricted assets was at June 30, 2009, and has no idea as to what is in store fiscally for fiscal year 2010. That is because the City does not keep its books on the full accrual basis of accounting (fully accruing its assets and liabilities) but once a year, via the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). And the CAFR cannot be completed until the (nearly always very substantial) annual audit adjustments are booked.

    ....

    17. For example, Exhibit B demonstrates how it was possible for the City to actually show an audited surplus of $19,891,000 from operations in the general fund (which is the focus of the annual budget and the MFOR) for fiscal year 2008 when, in reality, the City had an audited Citywide operations deficit of $281,556,000 for fiscal year 2008.

    18. Exhibit B is difficult to comprehend for a person not trained in governmental accounting, even for a CPA. But the two most significant reasons for the difference between the $19,891,000 general fund surplus from 2008 operations and the $281,556,000 deficit from 2008 Citywide operations are: (a) the ever-growing accrued liabilities to employees for pension plans and other post retirement benefits; and (b) the commenced practice of financing current pension plan expenses with backend loaded pension obligation long-term bonds.

    19. Once one understands Exhibit B, or at least items 18(a) and 18(b), it becomes obvious that the City’s fiscal 2010 general fund budget is an illusion, for two reasons. First, it is calculated on the modified accrual basis of accounting (essentially cash basis) and therefore ignores the ever-growing and enormous accrued liabilities for employee pensions and other post retirement benefits. Secondly, it is dependent upon continued payment of some of the pension expenses with issuance of long-term backend loaded pension obligation bonds.

    23. At June 30, 2008 (date of the City’s last audited financial statements), the City’s total Citywide debt per capita of $5,338 was over twice the $2,528 debt per capita of the now bankrupt State of California.

Inquiring minds may wish to download the entire Lemer/Farb/Roberts assessment of City of Houston Finances document from Scribd.

I agree with the findings of Bob Lemer, Aubrey M. Farb, and Tom Roberts. Any attempts to balance this on the backs of taxpayers is not viable. Houston should declare bankruptcy and seek to null and void the contracts of city workers including police and fireman.

California Is Bankrupt Too

Interesting, I note in point 23 that the authors of this report have concluded California is bankrupt. Of course I agree with that assessment as well. Unfortunately there is no provisions for states to declare bankruptcy.

What About Oregon?

Inquiring minds are reading Climbing PERS expenses face Oregon pension board, agency budget writers.

    The cost of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System is about to skyrocket to budget-busting levels.

    As a result of PERS' $17 billion investment loss in 2008, every state agency, municipality and school district that participates in the system is staring at an average 50 percent increase in the base rates PERS charges to fund their employees' retirement benefits in 2011 and 2012.

    That's not a doomsday scenario. Unless the pension fund's board changes its rate-setting rules, or its investment portfolio generates a 26 percent return in 2009, these rate increases are guaranteed. What does that mean to you? Fewer teachers, cops and firefighters. Less of every service that government provides. Higher fees and taxes. Perhaps all of the above.

    The base rate that public agencies pay to support employees' retirement benefits could double in the next five years, according to the PERS actuary, Mercer Inc. If rates reach that level, the retirement system will gobble one quarter of every tax dollar that goes into a public agency to support payrolls.

    Oregon isn't alone.

    Public pensions nationwide are in crisis mode, and state Treasurer Ben Westlund points out that Oregon's pension system is still better funded than most. PERS officials also note that a major recovery in the stock market could alleviate, or even eliminate, the pain. Indeed, the system's investment portfolio has already bounced back 14 percent this year.

    But here's the rub: Even if the pension system's investments return an average 10.5 percent annually for the next three years - their historical average - PERS rates will still increase to 21 percent of payroll in July 2013, according to Mercer's modeling.

    If, in a slower growth scenario, investment returns are closer to their 10-year average of 4.5 percent, all bets are off. PERS' executive director, Paul Cleary, recently told the citizens board that oversees investment of the $50 billion pension fund that if 4.5 percent is the new normal, "our business model doesn't work."

Pension System Busted Country Wide

It is highly likely that nearly every pension plan in the country is busted. The solution is for every city and municipality in a predicament to "pull a Vallejo" and declare bankruptcy. Please see Judge Rules Vallejo Can Void Union Contracts for details.

Deficiencies cannot be met on the backs of taxpayers. Enough is enough. It's time to end every massively underfunded public defined benefit plan in the country, by force if necessary (bankruptcy), unless unions agree to major concessions that would make the plans viable without raising taxes one cent.

ATG wrote:

Sorry bud, I have a policy to not argue ridiculous points.

They are all moochers. America is facing death by mooching, and it is parasite government workers who are doing it.

Look at any city in America that is in financial trouble; government workers have given themselves such rich benefits that the cities can't provide basic services. Unions have mooched to the point that our country is going broke.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. … o-are.html

Pension Plans and Government Salaries To Blame

According to the report, pension plans and government salaries are at the heart of the matter. Here are a few select details.

Detailed Findings and Observations

    1. The City incurred operating losses (“Change In Net Assets”) totaling approximately $1.5 billion for the five fiscal years ended 6/30/08--- per the latest (fiscal year 2008) publicly available audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), page 199:

    In Thousands
    a. (312,790)
    b. (531,465)
    c. (131,893)
    d. (221,452)
    e. (281,556)
    TOTAL (1,479,156) ---or--- $1.5 BILLION

    2. The City’s deficiency in unrestricted assets [“Unrestricted (deficit)”] was $1.2 BILLION ($1,174,429 thousands) at June 30, 2008--- per 2008 CAFR, page 15. In other words, the City’s unrestricted assets were approximately $1.2 billion less than the already recorded liabilities that they will be required to satisfy.

    3. The $1.2 billion deficiency in unrestricted assets as of June 30, 2008 (which was created essentially during fiscal years 2004-2008-see item 1) was basically financed, per page 15 of the 2008 CAFR, by:
    (a) the $347,728,000 collateralized note payable to the municipal employees’
    pension trust;
    (b) the $643,413,000 combined accrued liabilities to the employees’ pension
    trusts (municipal-$285,462,000, police officers’-$318,567,000, and firefighters’-$39,384,000);
    (c) the $219,755,000 pension obligation bonds payable;
    (d) the $272,941,000 accrued liability for other post employment benefits-----less, per pages 17 and 74 of the 2003 CAFR,
    (d) the $54,395,000 net accrued liabilities to the employees’ pension trusts at June 30, 2003 (municipal-$92,386,000, police officers’-$19,221,000, and firefighters’-asset of $57,212,000).

    4. Thus, as of June 30, 2008, the City’s elected officials essentially had transferred financial ownership of the City from the taxpayers to the City’s employees, about 43.7% of who do not live in the City, according to documentation we have received from the City’s human resources department. Very troubling, 63.3% of first responders (police officers and firefighters) do not live in the City, versus just 30.0% of civilian employees, according to the City’s human resources department.

    5. The City’s deficiency in unrestricted assets is so severe that in their yet to be completed audit for fiscal year 2009 the City’s independent auditors apparently will have to address the audit reporting issue as to whether the City was a “going concern” as of June 30, 2009.

    6. Apparently the City has no idea yet as to what its operating loss (“change in net assets”) was for the fiscal year just ended June 30, 2009 or what its deficiency in unrestricted assets was at June 30, 2009, and has no idea as to what is in store fiscally for fiscal year 2010. That is because the City does not keep its books on the full accrual basis of accounting (fully accruing its assets and liabilities) but once a year, via the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). And the CAFR cannot be completed until the (nearly always very substantial) annual audit adjustments are booked.

    ....

    17. For example, Exhibit B demonstrates how it was possible for the City to actually show an audited surplus of $19,891,000 from operations in the general fund (which is the focus of the annual budget and the MFOR) for fiscal year 2008 when, in reality, the City had an audited Citywide operations deficit of $281,556,000 for fiscal year 2008.

    18. Exhibit B is difficult to comprehend for a person not trained in governmental accounting, even for a CPA. But the two most significant reasons for the difference between the $19,891,000 general fund surplus from 2008 operations and the $281,556,000 deficit from 2008 Citywide operations are: (a) the ever-growing accrued liabilities to employees for pension plans and other post retirement benefits; and (b) the commenced practice of financing current pension plan expenses with backend loaded pension obligation long-term bonds.

    19. Once one understands Exhibit B, or at least items 18(a) and 18(b), it becomes obvious that the City’s fiscal 2010 general fund budget is an illusion, for two reasons. First, it is calculated on the modified accrual basis of accounting (essentially cash basis) and therefore ignores the ever-growing and enormous accrued liabilities for employee pensions and other post retirement benefits. Secondly, it is dependent upon continued payment of some of the pension expenses with issuance of long-term backend loaded pension obligation bonds.

    23. At June 30, 2008 (date of the City’s last audited financial statements), the City’s total Citywide debt per capita of $5,338 was over twice the $2,528 debt per capita of the now bankrupt State of California.

Inquiring minds may wish to download the entire Lemer/Farb/Roberts assessment of City of Houston Finances document from Scribd.

I agree with the findings of Bob Lemer, Aubrey M. Farb, and Tom Roberts. Any attempts to balance this on the backs of taxpayers is not viable. Houston should declare bankruptcy and seek to null and void the contracts of city workers including police and fireman.

California Is Bankrupt Too

Interesting, I note in point 23 that the authors of this report have concluded California is bankrupt. Of course I agree with that assessment as well. Unfortunately there is no provisions for states to declare bankruptcy.

What About Oregon?

Inquiring minds are reading Climbing PERS expenses face Oregon pension board, agency budget writers.

    The cost of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement System is about to skyrocket to budget-busting levels.

    As a result of PERS' $17 billion investment loss in 2008, every state agency, municipality and school district that participates in the system is staring at an average 50 percent increase in the base rates PERS charges to fund their employees' retirement benefits in 2011 and 2012.

    That's not a doomsday scenario. Unless the pension fund's board changes its rate-setting rules, or its investment portfolio generates a 26 percent return in 2009, these rate increases are guaranteed. What does that mean to you? Fewer teachers, cops and firefighters. Less of every service that government provides. Higher fees and taxes. Perhaps all of the above.

    The base rate that public agencies pay to support employees' retirement benefits could double in the next five years, according to the PERS actuary, Mercer Inc. If rates reach that level, the retirement system will gobble one quarter of every tax dollar that goes into a public agency to support payrolls.

    Oregon isn't alone.

    Public pensions nationwide are in crisis mode, and state Treasurer Ben Westlund points out that Oregon's pension system is still better funded than most. PERS officials also note that a major recovery in the stock market could alleviate, or even eliminate, the pain. Indeed, the system's investment portfolio has already bounced back 14 percent this year.

    But here's the rub: Even if the pension system's investments return an average 10.5 percent annually for the next three years - their historical average - PERS rates will still increase to 21 percent of payroll in July 2013, according to Mercer's modeling.

    If, in a slower growth scenario, investment returns are closer to their 10-year average of 4.5 percent, all bets are off. PERS' executive director, Paul Cleary, recently told the citizens board that oversees investment of the $50 billion pension fund that if 4.5 percent is the new normal, "our business model doesn't work."

Pension System Busted Country Wide

It is highly likely that nearly every pension plan in the country is busted. The solution is for every city and municipality in a predicament to "pull a Vallejo" and declare bankruptcy. Please see Judge Rules Vallejo Can Void Union Contracts for details.

Deficiencies cannot be met on the backs of taxpayers. Enough is enough. It's time to end every massively underfunded public defined benefit plan in the country, by force if necessary (bankruptcy), unless unions agree to major concessions that would make the plans viable without raising taxes one cent.

ATG wrote:

Dude, the average worker isn't the problem.

Its people mooching tax dollars and calling themselves public servants.

It's private companies doing gov'ment work for prevailing wage ( costing the tax payer three times what it should ).



But, they do have you well trained. They have you trained to impune those who have paid into a system that need help.

Your failure is that you are not differentiating between career welfare ghetto queens and people who are in need because of the harvesting of wealth that is going on right now, I mean, the recession, I mean the carnage that was caused by hack politicians and SOULESS BANKERS who have fucked up the economy beyond the point where a person can fix it through hard work, like the past. They are all just moochers.



DUMB!

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

If you got fired you have unemployment insurance. Period.

Taxes should not include redistibuting my wealth to others who YOU decide need it more than I do.
I will make my own charitable donations thank you very much I do not need my money stolen from me to give to others as you see fit.
Be generous with your own money, and let me decide what to do with mine.

a) If you get fired you don't have automatic unemployment payments. Maybe you got fired for stealing or some shit. Good luck gettig insurance payment then i.e. if it's your own fault you got sacked. They also don't last for ever do they?
b) you were talking about the annual cycle of taxes and said "If you do not pay taxes by the end of the new year, you are not paid up hence you recieved something for nothing and thus a fuckin mooch". So, you're saying that if you haven't worked enough to pay taxes by the end of the year then you're a mooch. Again, it makes no sense bringing the annual cycle of tax payments into this.
c) Taxes include redistributing wealth, basically NONE of which YOU decide where it goes. It's not YOUR wealth it's the country's/govt's at that point. So again IT'S NOT PERSONAL. plus, it's only fuckin money.
d) you can make charitable donations all you like, but the fact is that your tax dollars automatically go to certain 'causes' that you might not think worthwhile. Tax dollars propped up the banks when they fucked up. In the UK at least te taxpayer is owed billions still. But tough shit if you didn't want to pay for that, because the govt decides and you have ZERO say in where that money goes. You can't decide to do anything with your tax money except pay it.