Obama to loot federal pensions

**oladub** · May-16-11, 08:03 PM

The Obama administration's financial cupboards are bare. It needs more money , money, money to spend, spend, spend. Whee! The administration has discovered a new way to spend money even if the deficit ceiling is not raised. It plans to raid federal workers' pension funds. Even Governor Walker hasn't thought of doing that to State employees. The Obama administration, in the Walker mode, has proposed that federal employees start picking up a larger percentage of their pension payments. The borrowing of federal employee pension funds is just a temporary proposal of course. I wonder if the Administration will ask Congress to support this, since only Congress is given the power to borrow money, or if it will just attack worker pensions like it attacked Libya.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

**ejames01** · May-16-11, 08:07 PM

Borrow not loot.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-16-11, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

The Obama administration's financial cupboards are bare. It needs more money , money, money to spend, spend, spend. Whee! The administration has discovered a new way to spend money even if the deficit ceiling is not raised. It plans to raid federal workers' pension funds.

Yeah, fuck those retired government employees! Why should they get the pensions they were promised for their years of service?

I mean, Speaker Boehner, with his insistence on keeping all of the Bush tax cuts, yet not raising the debt ceiling, certainly has a foolproof plan to keep the government from defaulting on its obligations, yes?

Here's an idea: cut spending on Congressional salaries, including those of staff. Cut funding for military bases located in conservative Southern states. Cut all appropriations for infrastructure projects in Republican congressional districts. That should buy us a little breathing room, no?

**oladub** · May-17-11, 10:54 AM

I stand corrected. Governor Walker is also looting workers' pension funds. I wonder who thought of this idea first, Obama or Walker? Here's the article to similarly give discredit where discredit is due. Walker’s Plot to Plunder Pensions

ejames, Would you settle for 'tap' instead of 'borrow' to describe President Obama's involuntarily borrowing of workers' pensions? 'Tap' is the verb used in the article. It actually is pretty good when one thinks about tapping veins or mineral deposits. President Obama just wants to involuntarily borrow, or tap, federal workers' pension funds.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-17-11, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

The Obama administration's financial cupboards are bare. It needs more money , money, money to spend, spend, spend. Whee! The administration has discovered a new way to spend money even if the deficit ceiling is not raised. It plans to raid federal workers' pension funds. Even Governor Walker hasn't thought of doing that to State employees. The Obama administration, in the Walker mode, has proposed that federal employees start picking up a larger percentage of their pension payments. The borrowing of federal employee pension funds is just a temporary proposal of course. I wonder if the Administration will ask Congress to support this, since only Congress is given the power to borrow money, or if it will just attack worker pensions like it attacked Libya.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

I don't endorse reductions of pensions, social security, medicare or medicaid. But you have to look at how we got here, contrary to your simplistic, right-wing scenario: two wars. Started by whom? Paid for off budget. By whom? World markets meltdown. By whom? As much as I dislike NO!Bama for his greasy slide to the right, you can't simply blame him for this mess. In fact, you can barely blame NO!Bama at all. He didn't start this sh*t. As ineffective as NO!Bama is he got stuck with the mess.

**Ray1936** · May-17-11, 03:13 PM

It doesn't matter. The world is ending May 21. Spend now, you can't take it with you.

**oladub** · May-17-11, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

I don't endorse reductions of pensions, social security, medicare or medicaid. But you have to look at how we got here, contrary to your simplistic, right-wing scenario: two wars. Started by whom? Paid for off budget. By whom? World markets meltdown. By whom? As much as I dislike NO!Bama for his greasy slide to the right, you can't simply blame him for this mess. In fact, you can barely blame NO!Bama at all. He didn't start this sh*t. As ineffective as NO!Bama is he got stuck with the mess.

I think that President Bush was a worse President than even Obama if that makes you feel better. You are correct although I don't consider the Washington Post article I offered as a " simplistic, right-wing scenario". Many of our problems were created under President George W. Bush and his Democratic and Republican accomplices. In one of the houses, for instance, Democrats voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout by a higher percentage than Republicans. Senator Obama always supported Bush with more funding every time Bush extended the Iraq war and Obama left the campaign trail to lobby others in Congress to support the Wall Street bailout. Bush deserves much of this blame although the markets really got bubbly under Clinton. The expansion of the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as acts of war conducted in Yemen and Libya were post Bush.

However, at issue, is the tapping of federal workers' pension funds which seems to be something cooked up by the Obama administration according to the Washington Post. If Congress votes to do this then we can blame Republicans too. If Obama usurps the Constitution and does this by executive order then it is difficult to blame Bush. Alternatives are to raise taxes and cut spending.

**old guy** · May-17-11, 04:34 PM

So, at the point we're at right now, we can raise the debt limit, default on loan payments, or find some money somewhere. Even if we fix the economy or start using logic in our spending practices it won't help us today or tomorrow. They're playing a game of chicken.

Twenty years ago, my wife slid off the road in our car during an ice storm and totaled the car. It was financed through Ford Credit and insured by a major insurance company. They agreed to pay for the car within three days, but while they were working out the details we were using a rental car.

Ford refused to give the title to the insurance company until they received a check. The insurance company refused to give the check to Ford until they got the title. They had 30 days by law to resolve the matter. On day 29 they came to an agreement and the problem was resolved. We were stuck in the middle and ended up picking up the bill for 29 days on the rental car.

We went to court because they had originally said they'd pay for the rental. In a pre court discussion, the judge told us we were right but we'd never win the case. He advised us to pay and we did.

It's the same old shit. The big guys argue for the sake of arguing and the little guys get screwed for no good reason.

**Lferg** · May-17-11, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ray1936

It doesn't matter. The world is ending May 21. Spend now, you can't take it with you.

Your post always crack me up.

**Ray1936** · May-17-11, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lferg

Your post always crack me up.

Thanks. Unfortunately, my wife thinks I'm an idiot. Sometimes I think she's right.

**lpg** · May-17-11, 08:15 PM

Was the Social Security Trust Fund looted or borrowed from ??? If you have no intention or means to repay the money, I think looted sums it up.

**East Detroit** · May-17-11, 08:45 PM

Everything that _______ from the _______ party does is bad.

Everything that _______ from the other party does is good.

Jesus, buncha one-trick ponies. Can people really be that one-dimensional?

**wolverine** · May-17-11, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

I don't endorse reductions of pensions, social security, medicare or medicaid. But you have to look at how we got here, contrary to your simplistic, right-wing scenario: two wars. Started by whom? Paid for off budget. By whom? World markets meltdown. By whom? As much as I dislike NO!Bama for his greasy slide to the right, you can't simply blame him for this mess. In fact, you can barely blame NO!Bama at all. He didn't start this sh*t. As ineffective as NO!Bama is he got stuck with the mess.

Agree. And this mess goes far back, very far back.

**RaumVogel** · May-18-11, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by East Detroit

Everything that _______ from the _______ party does is bad.

Everything that _______ from the other party does is good.

Jesus, buncha one-trick ponies. Can people really be that one-dimensional?

Yes. For the entire existence of this country, there have been 2 choices. Every so often a "third party" pops up when "polls" indicate that there is dis-appointment in BOTH parties.The problem is that everyone now accepts that the third party doesn't have a chance in hell against the unlimited funding of the 2 established parties. So we get "Vote for our side, or you are one of the bad guys".

**1KielsonDrive** · May-18-11, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I think that President Bush was a worse President than even Obama if that makes you feel better. You are correct although I don't consider the Washington Post article I offered as a " simplistic, right-wing scenario". Many of our problems were created under President George W. Bush and his Democratic and Republican accomplices. In one of the houses, for instance, Democrats voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout by a higher percentage than Republicans. Senator Obama always supported Bush with more funding every time Bush extended the Iraq war and Obama left the campaign trail to lobby others in Congress to support the Wall Street bailout. Bush deserves much of this blame although the markets really got bubbly under Clinton. The expansion of the war in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as acts of war conducted in Yemen and Libya were post Bush.

However, at issue, is the tapping of federal workers' pension funds which seems to be something cooked up by the Obama administration according to the Washington Post. If Congress votes to do this then we can blame Republicans too. If Obama usurps the Constitution and does this by executive order then it is difficult to blame Bush. Alternatives are to raise taxes and cut spending.

You make many good points. I just didn't like the sound of NO!Bama being blamed entirely for this mess. NO!Bama's carrying their water well enough at this time, but he didn't fill the buckets. As you might tell, I agree that the demicans and republicrats are almost equally to blame. We have a ONE party system. And all you need to prove that is to look at where the billions of dollars of campaign slush funds comes from. It ain't from you and I. And it's almost all legal - because the politicians say so. They make the laws.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-18-11, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by lpg

Was the Social Security Trust Fund looted or borrowed from ??? If you have no intention or means to repay the money, I think looted sums it up.

So right. Our money was taken by politicians and isn't being repaid. In fact, they're now trying to tear up the IOU's. We need to take their asses to task. Remove their pay, benefits and ability to work for corporations, educational institutes, think tanks, and any place other than assembly lines and fast food joints. The tea baggerloonies are the latest manifestation of polticians doing only what's best for themselves after entering office.

**1KielsonDrive** · May-18-11, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by East Detroit

Everything that _______ from the _______ party does is bad.

Everything that _______ from the other party does is good.

Jesus, buncha one-trick ponies. Can people really be that one-dimensional?

Unfortunately for them and all of us - YES!

**old guy** · May-18-11, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

We need to take their asses to task.

Yes we do. And sooner is better than later. That's the key. As long as they feel they can conduct business as usual, they will.

**Papasito** · May-19-11, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by ejames01

Borrow not loot.

The Government takes but does not pay back.
They only pay interest on the money they borrow.
Once they take it, it's gone.

**Zacha341** · May-22-11, 08:53 AM

Thanks for this! Two-dimensional at best... This is one of many political rubrics keeping the masses manageable and satisfied that they are the correct side. Not realizing that policies and actions intersect and overlap between both parties.

Originally Posted by East Detroit

Everything that _______ from the _______ party does is bad.

Everything that _______ from the other party does is good.

Jesus, buncha one-trick ponies. Can people really be that one-dimensional?

**Detroitej72** · May-23-11, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

Senator Obama always supported Bush with more funding every time Bush extended the Iraq war and Obama left the campaign trail to lobby others in Congress to support the Wall Street bailout..

Wrong. It was conservative poster boy, John McCain, who suspended his campaign, and made a dog and pony show, saying he "had to get back to Washington to fix this mess".

Now, all Republicans should be rejoicing, as President Obama is continuing the strategy of his last 4 predecessors, of being a right of center leader.

**oladub** · May-23-11, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Wrong. It was conservative poster boy, John McCain, who suspended his campaign, and made a dog and pony show, saying he "had to get back to Washington to fix this mess".

Now, all Republicans should be rejoicing, as President Obama is continuing the strategy of his last 4 predecessors, of being a right of center leader.

Both John McCain and Obama left the campaign trail to exhort their respective colleagues to support the Wall Street bailout. The neocons should be rejoicing but not libertarian or constitutional Republicans.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-23-11, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Both John McCain and Obama left the campaign trail to exhort their respective colleagues to support the Wall Street bailout. The neocons should be rejoicing but not libertarian or constitutional Republicans.

Ha! You mean, the same "constitutional Republicans" that want to return us to the Articles of Confederation?

You crack me up, oladub.

**oladub** · May-23-11, 07:51 PM

No GP, Constitution means 'constitution' rather than articles of confederation. Words mean things. Detroitej72 claimed it was John McCain rather than Obama who left the campaign trail to lobby for Goldman Sachs. That was wrong since both left the campaign trail to pimp their bankrollers. Sen. McCain is a neocon. Sen. Obama was a liberal. Both neocons and liberals believe in ever expanding federal government. Libertarians and constitutionalists do not.

To get back on topic, It was President Obama, rather than Senator McCain, who unconstitutionally 'tapped' federal workers' pensions according to the Washington Post article. You might explain to us why President Obama, rather than Congress, is 'borrowing' workers' pensions to facilitate increased federal spending without their permission. I must have missed something in civics class. Where did the President get the delegated power to do so since Congress hasn't officially declared an enabling act? Maybe your explanation will help everyone understand where he also got the power to conduct a war against the government of Libya.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-23-11, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

No GP, Constitution means 'constitution' rather than articles of confederation. Words mean things.

If I'm not mistaken, you personally believe in a limited federal government and sovereignty of the states, with very little federal regulation or oversight. How is that NOT representative of the government that existed under the Articles of Confederation?

Perhaps you'd like to explain why the constitutional convention was called in 1787 [[a mere six years after the Articles of Confederation were ratified), and why such a confederation government is desirable when it only lasted for 8 years the first time it was attempted.