they call it "Create Jobs..."

[skate]

what the....?


Sen. Casey is gathering support for his "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act," a bailout for union-run retirement plans. Similar to House legislation from North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy and Ohio Republican Patrick Tiberi, the bill would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, i.e., to taxpayers...

Oh yeh, they extended benifits for unemp., on Fri.

This is the way they gather votes, it'll continue thru Nov.,, yepper.:lol:

[mostpost]

what the....?


Sen. Casey is gathering support for his "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act," a bailout for union-run retirement plans. Similar to House legislation from North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy and Ohio Republican Patrick Tiberi, the bill would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, i.e., to taxpayers...

Oh yeh, they extended benifits for unemp., on Fri.

This is the way they gather votes, it'll continue thru Nov.,, yepper.:lol:
Didn't we discuss this on another thread? And didn't I explain that the PBGC is not funded by taxpayer dollars? It's funded by insurance premiums and contributions from businesses and from the retirement plans themselves. In other words hundreds (thousands?) of groups contribute to the fund so that if one or more of them experiences trouble some of that money can be used to help them out. UNTIL THEY ARE BACK ON THEIR FEET.
Just like if you and I were in the same insurance pool, and you broke your leg. Some of the money that we, and others contributed would be used for your recovery. "Taxpayers" have nothing to do with it.

[skate]

:lol: oh yeh ok, now i get it.

though you didnt discuse with me your same response.

Now, Do they have something in the bill that says "WE Already have this covered"?
it seems like they didnt know about your statement.

Then, can you tell me, please, why would they say "creats jobs" and and and "save benifits" if they have not one thing to do with job creation or if the benifits are there they surely dont need to save them by adding more money, ya think???.

But hey , i'll admit, im not sure about myself.

they might just as well say what you said, "hey we have it covered"...like-a- daaa!

funny yet, how many pages will it take to cover what's covered already?:confused:

Oh, i didnt say taxpayers had anything to do with IT, but since you brought it up "they DO".

[mostpost]

As I posted in the other thread.
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 3936
To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow time for pensions to fund
benefit obligations in light of economic circumstances in the financial
markets of 2008, and for other purposes.
ERISA 1974 established the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. This law changes (extends) the time frame in which a pension plan must cover its members. It does so to allow a pension plan more flexibility before it has to become insolvent. That should mean less possibility that the PBGC has to step in, not more.

[skate]

Ok thanks.


i was looking for a date, as in, when did they add/say your post?

Before or after this move by Casey?

Is Casey changing the law ? Or was your post referring to AFTER Casey's Move?

If the Casey law goes into effect, it will change your 3936, no?

[mostpost]

Here is a Republican congressman who agrees with my take on this, and says so on the floor of congress. The pertinent part begins just past the two minute mark.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677...ermann#37346342
This was also in the other thread.

[mostpost]

Ok thanks.


i was looking for a date, as in, when did they add/say your post?

Before or after this move by Casey?

Is Casey changing the law ? Or was your post referring to AFTER Casey's Move?

If the Casey law goes into effect, it will change your 3936, no?
According to what I hear, they are similar bills. The house will pass their version. The Senate will pass Casey's version. (IF THEY PASS) Then the differences will be ironed out. No one can really say exactly what the final version will look like.

[skate]

yeh ok, appreciate that, but i got an error 404 or something close.

But i get your gist.

What was the pertinent part , in a few words?

[JustRalph]

I am sure the insurance groups and businesses pay into the fund with Monopoly money they print themselves huh?

I wonder where they get their money ? :rolleyes:

[skate]

xactly.


this is virtual

[mostpost]

yeh ok, appreciate that, but i got an error 404 or something close.

But i get your gist.

What was the pertinent part , in a few words?
The link doesn't work for me either. Try this. Go to the tread titled. "Anyone up for a bailout of union pensions" Post #39. The same link is there and working.

[mostpost]

I am sure the insurance groups and businesses pay into the fund with Monopoly money they print themselves huh?

I wonder where they get their money ? :rolleyes:
This really, really bugs me. This whole idea that businesses shouldn't pay their share because they would use the money they get from their customers to make the payments. How about this idea. Workers should not have to pay taxes because they are using money they get from their employers.
When businesses and insurance groups pay into this fund it is a part of the cost of doing business.