I won’t argue with you in principle. The devil’s in the details.

We “secured” people’s old age retirements previously. It’s called “Social Security”. When ivory tower economists accuse Americans of not saving they very conveniently overlook social security withholding taxes.

And the academic/legal/political/bureaucratic class proved to be the most dishonest fiduciaries possible. They possess “sovereign immunity” that shields them from being jailed like Madoff for running a vast Ponzi scheme with the People’s retirement savings.

I am therefore close-minded to any solutions that would provide further funds to the same failed fiduciaries. There is no reason to think that giving them a further increment would cause them to change. It’s more likely to subsidize and reinforce their existing behavior. Just as we’ve seen with all other forms of easy credit and “bailout” lately.

“You’re really good with your first trick when you stick to it and don’t stray into tedious partisanship.

However, the post was 3x longer than it should have been for the Blogosphere Commentariat. Extreme selectivity is needed.”

I realize that blog entries are longer than almost everyone out there, but articles tend to get lost after a while, so I like to paste them for future reference. But I will try to be more selective.

As far as pensions are concerned, we need another G20 focusing solely on the global pension crisis.

My thoughts are that we need to secure retirement income for all, not just public servants. This is not going to be easy, but the current system isn’t working, leaving far too many people to fend for themselves.

cheers,

Leo

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123793340762430957.html

We’re in a balance sheet recession. The individual is repairing their balance sheet with increased savings. The government is destroying their balance sheet with increased debt.

It seems that this a political crisis more than a financial crisis. The political will does not exist to restructure the debt be it corporate bondholders, mortgage holders or pensioners and/or enact the reforms necessary to put debt junkies (on all scales) into rehab.

Is the trajectory default, currency collapse, French Revolution and/or something else?

Sad and dispiriting. As always, to all those who comment, before posting something that implies you know everything there is to know about a subject, it might be useful to step back and question whether or not you do in fact know everything there is to know about that subject. Anecdotes and vast overgeneralizations are sometimes useful, yes, but it is rare and it is only in context and with proper acknowledgment of their limited value.

Maybe another Bonus Army confrontation is in our near future:

On 28 July, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.

After the cavalry charge, infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, entered the Bonus Army camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, to their largest camp; President Hoover ordered the Army assault stopped, however, Gen. MacArthur—feeling this free-speech exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. Government—ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed — including William Hushka and Eric Carlson; a veteran’s wife miscarried; and many other veterans were hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

Oh well, the Ayn Rand types would love it.

No, you are missing the point. My point is that pension reform is not likely to the extent that any attempt at pension reform is considered an unregretful attack on heroic firefighters, selfless first responders, etc. This political ruse has worked well to deter reform. My further point was that pensions are being given to those who have failed to labor in any meaningful way for these pensions. As for my story, its a typical example of pension abuse. It is but one of many examples.

Your failed attempt at irreverence reveals nothing but your ignorance of your irrelevance.

But the Lucifer moniker…oohhh so edgy. Satanic commentary…ooohh scary. Now all you need is a little devil emoticon to insert inside your posts and you’ll really be pushing those buttons!

And TruthtoPensionAbusers responds:

“This is called waving the bloody shirt. This is the favorite device of state and federal workers who try to claim collective credit for the hard work of a tiny minority within that group.”

And that response is called “hopelessly missing the point”. It’s not about whether you like policemen and firemen. It’s about pension administration.

[Although, after reading about the issues you clearly have with your secretary's husband...an inane anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand...I can't say I blame you for being angry with your teachers.]

Yeah…my post was “snarky” as many like to say.

Sometimes, though, snark is deserved.

I believe it too. Rather, I believe you are paid by a public university. The American university is the last bastion on Earth of utterly discredited and failed Marxism, as shown by this statement of yours:

I’m all in favor of low wages and no pension fund. If the fed pick up the mandate to guarantee a secure retirement for all Americans, _not_ based on how much money they made while working, or where they worked.

Ruthless, merciless downsizing of the corrupt educational con game is called for. Charles Murray is right.

You’re really good with your first trick when you stick to it and don’t stray into tedious partisanship.

However, the post was 3x longer than it should have been for the Blogosphere Commentariat. Extreme selectivity is needed.

You can improve in the future by cutting ‘n pasting less source text. A few sentences and a link to the source is sufficient. Entire paragraphs are both too long for the blog format while not being long enough to reproduce the entire article.