Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 03, 2019

A record-high property tax increase. A new tax on water and sewer service. A higher 911 emergency fee on telephone lines. Former Mayor Rahm Emanuel's series of tax hikes was painful, but he promised the extra money was part of a plan to get the woefully underfunded city worker pension funds on a "path to solvency."

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It rarely does ... regardless of what critics claim, they always find a new way to spend it.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

--underfunded city worker pension fund

Haha. Underfunded is a euphemism for overly generous benefits bought with union campaign donations.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-10-03 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Not a shock to those of us who understand Real Math (tm).

#2 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-10-03 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The poor greeting screwed over with stupendous vigor and repeatedly!

You can bet those overages did not benifit them.

But their taxes are required to pay it off.

Now Chicago will become Detroit II, without any truth about their current condition.

OUTSTANDING!

#3 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-10-03 02:38 PM | Reply

speaking of Real Math

how is that Laffer Curve working out

and can the US Taxpayer get their medal back?

#4 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-10-03 02:47 PM | Reply

AndreaHackris put up a BS hacktastic headline.

This is from the article ...

There are three main reasons the gap widened by nearly $7 billion.

By far the biggest is that the people who run the four retirement funds changed their economic assumptions. They reduced the amount they expect to earn by investing the money already on hand, and they increased how long they expect retirees will live and collect benefits.

Second, Emanuel's plan put off the largest increases in pension contributions to get the system back on track until after he left office.

That meant even though the city was collecting as much as $822 million a year in new taxes for pensions as employees were kicking in more, it still wasn't enough to cover the cost of retirement benefits going out.

Emanuel said raising taxes any higher at that time could have hurt the city's economy.

And third, pension fund investments didn't meet their expected rate of return in recent years.


These big cities like Chicago never had these problems until Wall Street Hedge Fund ------------ convinced state legislatures to scrap old traditional SAFE pensions for riskier hybrid style pensions that offer the promise of higher returns but are susceptible to downturns in the economy.

So when things like the Great Recession happened in 2007 thru 2009, these pensions become next to worthless, yet state laws still require these pensions to be paid out -- resulting in the burden of doing so passed onto taxpayers thru higher taxes.

Situations like this never used to happen ...

but Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagle, something that Republicans could never manage do but cheered on and approved of otherwise.

And Bernie wants Glass-Steagle reinstated because Bernie is all about normal FDR style policies.

#5 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-10-03 03:20 PM | Reply

Raising taxes still didn't help Chicago

Sure it did. The shortfall would be even larger without the increase.

Dumb headline from a dumb person.

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-03 04:14 PM | Reply

"These big cities like Chicago never had these problems until Wall Street Hedge Fund "

Sorry, you are out of your depth here. Pension fund investment rules have not changed and are all guided by very conservative asset allocation models. Even if you want to blame private equity, etc - that is a very, very small portion of their portfolios.

"------------ convinced state legislatures to scrap old traditional SAFE pensions for riskier hybrid style pensions that offer the promise of higher returns but are susceptible to downturns in the economy."

This is just plain incorrect. Let's use CalPERS - California's pension fund - as a proxy as I know much more about their operations. The pension funds MUST invest in risky assets as a risk free return of 2-3% annually is not sufficient to pay for the future obligations. Unlike Social Security, these pension funds have very large amounts of assets invested and that capital appreciation is what goes a long way to paying the obligations as opposed to simply taking money from young employees to pay retirees (like SS does once the trust fund is exhausted).

"So when things like the Great Recession happened in 2007 thru 2009, these pensions become next to worthless"

Not even close to being true. Most lost 20-25% of their value as ALL asset classes were re-priced downwards but they were never close to being wiped out completely. However, even with the downturn, most as still yielding 8%+ over their lifetimes.

"yet state laws still require these pensions to be paid out"

True, they need massive restructuring as they drive cities into bankruptcy by promising increased payouts for government worker unions without increasing required contributions - Vallejo, Stockton, San Bernadino, etc in CA alone. However, the problem has nothing to due with underperformance of the pension fund's investing activities - it is a problem caused by promised benefits in exchange for votes.

"resulting in the burden of doing so passed onto taxpayers thru higher taxes."

yes, the taxpayers get soaked - but pension fund holder collect 100 cents on the dollar.

#7 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-03 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sure it did. The shortfall would be even larger without the increase.
Dumb headline from a dumb person.
#6 | POSTED BY JOE

LOL wasn't how it was sold ... who is the sucker ?

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:11 AM | Reply

"Raising taxes still didn't help Chicago"

Republican Math strikes again.

Just to see if you understand the equation, Mackris: would the situation be better or worse if taxes hadn't been increased?

"who is the sucker?"

Anyone stupid enough to fall for your headline lie.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:15 AM | Reply

The shortfall would be even larger without the increase.

Is there any amount of taxation where there wouldn't be "shortfall"?

Again if the city government collects it, it will be wasted.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:15 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Just to see if you understand the equation, Mackris: would the situation be better or worse if taxes hadn't been increased?

You don't under stand the equation, would it ever be enough?

NOPE.

Anyone stupid enough to fall for your headline lie.
#9 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No lie it was sold to fix the issue ... Never even go close.

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:16 AM | Reply

"Is there any amount of taxation where there wouldn't be "shortfall"?'

Sure.

Study the budgets--and tax code--Bill Clinton left for his successor.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:17 AM | Reply

Sure.

Go ahead name it ...

Study the budgets--and tax code--Bill Clinton left for his successor.
#12 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

LOL Clinton used SS funds .... as I stated from Clintons own budget ...

Go home ...

#13 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:18 AM | Reply

"No lie it was sold to fix the issue"

Would the current situation be worse or better without the tax increase? ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION.

I'm trying to pretend you're not totally ignorant when it comes to numbers. Help me out here.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:18 AM | Reply

" as I stated from Clintons own budget ..."

Bwhahahaha! You posted a definition of government borrowing.

Did you really think that addressed the issue??? REALLY? You weren't joking?!?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:20 AM | Reply

"LOL Clinton used SS funds ."

Not in his last year, nor in the budgets he left for Dubya. You're a liar.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:22 AM | Reply

The Clinton administration's 2000 budget proposal

not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.
www.govinfo.gov

keep studying...

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:22 AM | Reply

Heres some more for you DNCDan .....

CBO Projections 1998

Surplus in Social Security $100 $1,645
Deficit in Rest of Budget $-92 $-966
Unified Budget Surplus $8 $679
www.cbpp.org

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-04 12:27 AM | Reply

As far as I've seen, Danforth subscribes to static-scoring as it pertains to changes in tax-rates.

For those who aren't familiar with the term, what it means is that changes in the tax code will have ZERO effect on economic behavior.

Here's a quick tip - He will get all indignant that I am falsely assigning a position to him (set aside the irony of that for now) yet he routinely - and religiously - cites the static-scoring of the most recent tax-changes.

Don't worry - he'll gaslight the ---- out of this post. It's what he does.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:28 AM | Reply

"Instead, they are claims on the Treasury"

You're describing Social Security, you blithering idiot.

Just my luck: you're too ------- stupid to know how ------- stupid you are.

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:31 AM | Reply

"As far as I've seen, Danforth subscribes to static-scoring as it pertains to changes in tax-rates"

That's because the macro equation has dials.

Do you understand that? Do you understand how disincentivizing reinvestment disincentivizes reinvestment?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:32 AM | Reply

#17
#18

Neither of your posts mean a damn thing regarding your claim.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:34 AM | Reply

"what it means is that changes in the tax code will have ZERO effect on economic behavior."

WTF are you babbling about? I've always argued the exact opposite.

How drunk are you?

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:35 AM | Reply

#23 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Well if ain't economically-illiterate Doucheforth coming out of hiding to spread his stupidity yet again on another thread. Tell us Doucheforth, should the Chicago pension put their money into gold like you advocated for the social security trust fund?

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 12:40 AM | Reply

"should the Chicago pension put their money into gold..."

Talk to Mackris; he just posted info about Social Security that said taxes have to be raised to pay those obligations.

"...like you advocated for the social security trust fund"

I didn't; I said in the real world, if most entities said they were going to back their notes with...well...their notes, borrowers should beware.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:45 AM | Reply

" to spread his stupidity yet again on another thread. "

That reminds me: tell us again how Trump is going to get 25% of the black vote.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:46 AM | Reply

That reminds me: tell us again how Trump is going to get 25% of the black vote.
#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Unless Clinton can steal the nomination from Lyin' Liz, it looks like Warren will be your nominee and my 25% estimate will be low.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 12:50 AM | Reply

"my 25% estimate will be low."

You're an even bigger idiot than you used to be.

Remember when you claimed 4% growth was the new normal? Fun times.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 12:52 AM | Reply

"my 25% estimate will be low."

You're an even bigger idiot than you used to be.

Remember when you claimed 4% growth was the new normal? Fun times.

#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Remember when you lovingly cited sub-3% growth as the new normal under Obama?

Yeah, we all remember that too.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 12:58 AM | Reply

Remember when you claimed 4% growth was the new normal? Fun times.
#28 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Please link to me ever stating that liar.

As to Obama, Obama stated 2% growth is the new normal, not 'sub-3%'. I wasn't on this board during Obama's reign of economic stupidity but I imagine you were here cheering him on.

#30 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 01:02 AM | Reply

"Remember when you lovingly cited sub-3% growth as the new normal under Obama? "

Yeah...those were the pre-trillion dollar annual debt days. Fun times.

Remember when you used to complain about debt? Oh, wait...that was just earlier today.

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 01:02 AM | Reply

"Please link to me ever stating that"

You were giddy when the 4% number came out, and told the rest of us to suck it.

"I wasn't on this board during Obama's reign of economic stupidity but I imagine you were here cheering him on."

Saving us from Dubya's Disaster and handing off an economy with low inflation and full employment? Who wouldn't cheer that on?

But let's be serious: Obama beat all the benchmarks Romney promised, and Republican morons STILL called that bad. You don't care what the economy looked like when Dubya got it, vs when he handed it off; nor do you care how different it was when Obama handed it off vs when he got it. You're too partisan to care about the actual underlying facts, because it makes your team look bad.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-10-04 01:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You were giddy when the 4% number came out, and told the rest of us to suck it."

I am giddy when Trump has good growth numbers because that is good for AMERICA....well, all Americans except the DNC hoping for a recession to regain power.

"Saving us from Dubya's Disaster and handing off an economy with low inflation and full employment?"

Savings us how? By doubling the debt making "too big to fail" even bigger? His policies hampered growth which it is why is had been a historically slow return.

"But let's be serious: Obama beat all the benchmarks Romney promised"

Romney is a moron. Please link to anything positive I ever said related to that douche.

"You don't care what the economy looked like when Dubya got it, vs when he handed it off;"

Dubya was a disaster on every front, like Obama without the increased racial animosity.

I will be waiting on this links liar.

#33 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 01:16 AM | Reply

Ira,

You should show DNC Dan the Fed rates during Obama's 8 years and then during Trump's years.

That's a real fun exercise in Republican math (TM) that Danforth will lash out at.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 01:48 AM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

In my dealings with him, I don't think he understand what the fed funds rate is or why it matters. He legit told me that the government debt held by the social security trust fund should be converted into gold.

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 01:58 AM | Reply

Ira,

Danforth fully well knows what the Fed rate is and why it matters.

He will dance around it in his Donkey Suit because that's what he does.

Seriously - push him on it - the deflections and evasions will come at a staggering-pace.

Just do it for fun - just to test what I am saying.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-04 02:08 AM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I have done the round and round with him many times already - my conclusion is that he is just a liar or stupid (or the dangerous combination of both). When I caught him in a a direct lie - that George Bush 'stole' money from the SS Trust Fund to fund tax cuts - as disputed by the SS administration and every reputable source available - he kept repeating the lie how he remembers living through it. It was sad - the very picture of 'I see your data but it just doesn't FEEL right!' defense. I actually felt bad for him at the end. He also has no clue as to what the SS trust fund is - or that SS' trust fund was built up specifically for the baby-boomer bubble and SS is meant to run on a money in = money out basis with no invested assets (as it will be come 2032 when the trust fund is gone and SS is insolvent).

I think his argument moved to "If we just put 20% more money into in, the system is 'fine'", not realizing the SS ran into problems due to promising too many benefits to buy AARP votes and actuarial mis-calculations on expected lifespans.

That thread really tells you all you need to know about a keyboard-"intellectual" that couldn't locate his own ass with two hands - he has truly earned the name Doucheforth.

#37 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-04 03:55 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort