Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump administration sues California over federal land sales

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    California is broke.
    They have an enormous unfunded pension debt.


    These falling dominoes have taken CalPERS from a surplus of $33 billion in 1999 to a pension debt of more than $138 billion in just 17 years. CalSTRS also had a surplus in 1999. The debt numbers got worse in 2017, but won’t be published officially until next year

    http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/califo...192645574.html



    If california had really gotten out of the woods, they would have figured out a way to fund pension debt rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

    California is a wealthy state, but the failure to address the pension problem is going to haunt it.
    It does not work the way you present it. The issue is similar to when people try to argue that social security is broke. This is good rhetoric for those who want to privatize it, but the truth is different. In any case, there is a reason the US bonds are still attractive despite these supposedly overwhelming liablities. Market KNOWS when a country or a state is in trouble...

    Now see what is happening with California's bonds...

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#53d37b6650ad

    Consider California. America’s wealthiest state in terms of GDP has been improving its budget over the last half-decade, so the interest rate the state has to pay on the bonds it issues has gone down dramatically. Right now the average California municipal bond yields just 1.7%—that’s less than a US Treasury bond and the rate of inflation!
    In other words, the markets evaluate California debt as posing lower risk that the US debt...
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      It does not work the way you present it. The issue is similar to when people try to argue that social security is broke. This is good rhetoric for those who want to privatize it, but the truth is different. In any case, there is a reason the US bonds are still attractive despite these supposedly overwhelming liablities. Market KNOWS when a country or a state is in trouble...

      Now see what is happening with California's bonds...

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#53d37b6650ad



      In other words, the markets evaluate California debt as posing lower risk that the US debt...


      I'm sorry, but it does work that way. Pension debt is still a debt even if state governments figure out how to hide it from their budgets.

      Unless you are saying that the pension debt doesn't really exist. That would be interesting and the City of Sacramento would probably like to have known that before it declared bankruptcy due to pension debt.

      I am not questioning whether california is rich or if it has made improvements on its budget, but any analysis of its finances that ignores the unfunded pension debt is unreliable.


      By the way,the value of california's bonds do not establish the pension debt need not be paid.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #18
        Maybe the Feds should just post No Trespassing signs on all federally owned land in California.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
          I'm sorry, but it does work that way. Pension debt is still a debt even if state governments figure out how to hide it from their budgets.

          Unless you are saying that the pension debt doesn't really exist. That would be interesting and the City of Sacramento would probably like to have known that before it declared bankruptcy due to pension debt.

          I am not questioning whether california is rich or if it has made improvements on its budget, but any analysis of its finances that ignores the unfunded pension debt is unreliable.


          By the way,the value of california's bonds do not establish the pension debt need not be paid.
          I am sorry, but I take the estimation of experts regarding California's RISK of defaulting (and this is very well linked with all the liabilties of the state) over your claims. And right now, the market evaluates that this risk is less than the one of the federal government, I also say that the calculation of debt is based on accounting practices which are often misleading. See for example the debate with the social security debt in which economists actually disagree about the level and severity of the liabilities.
          I understand that conservatives love to attack California and the pension (and social security) system. it is like a habit because California is considered leftist and pension and government programs are "socialism." But I do not care about your agenda. I care about facts, and I presented them to you. Markets do not lie and do not buy bonds at low yields just because they want to reward the "socialist" California. So, stop spreading fake news...
          Last edited by pamak; 03 Apr 18, 10:51.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
            No. If the Feds sell land to a private party, states have no say whatsoever.

            This has been tried before in the 90s during the post-Cold War base closures and disposals.
            So the feds could sell off all of the the National Forest and states have no recourse

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
              California is broke.
              They have an enormous unfunded pension debt.


              These falling dominoes have taken CalPERS from a surplus of $33 billion in 1999 to a pension debt of more than $138 billion in just 17 years. CalSTRS also had a surplus in 1999. The debt numbers got worse in 2017, but won’t be published officially until next year

              http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/califo...192645574.html



              If california had really gotten out of the woods, they would have figured out a way to fund pension debt rather than pretend it doesn't exist.

              California is a wealthy state, but the failure to address the pension problem is going to haunt it.
              That is a very interesting wild card for the near future: if the Caliban doesn't get a grip on its pension issue, you are going to see a extremely strong voting demographic become extremely upset in that state.

              The DNC has operating under the assumption that it owns the Caliban and NY, but if they can't fix those debt issues you could see an effect similar to the Rust Belt in 2016: voters changing sides out of a growing desperation.
              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by craven View Post
                So the feds could sell off all of the the National Forest and states have no recourse
                In general, yes. There may be some specific exceptions to certain individual parcels.

                It would cut a lot of bureaucrat overhead, and probably pay off the national debt.

                Back in the 60s and 70s they sold off a lot of the Federal Grasslands in ND and MT, and in the 90s they sold off a lot of military installations, many of which were very large.

                Of course, the states could bid on the land.

                They talked about privatizing Federal Parks a few years ago, and the USPS is still on the chopping block.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  In general, yes. There may be some specific exceptions to certain individual parcels.

                  It would cut a lot of bureaucrat overhead, and probably pay off the national debt.

                  Back in the 60s and 70s they sold off a lot of the Federal Grasslands in ND and MT, and in the 90s they sold off a lot of military installations, many of which were very large.

                  Of course, the states could bid on the land.

                  They talked about privatizing Federal Parks a few years ago, and the USPS is still on the chopping block.
                  so you are good with no more camping and hunting

                  land would get houses put on it.

                  and of course there be no reasons to have guns since you could not hunt

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    I am sorry, but I take the estimation of experts regarding California's RISK of defaulting (and this is very well linked with all the liabilties of the state) over your claims. And right now, the market evaluates that this risk is less than the one of the federal government, I also say that the calculation of debt is based on accounting practices which are often misleading. See for example the debate with the social security debt in which economists actually disagree about the level and severity of the liabilities.
                    I understand that conservatives love to attack California and the pension (and social security) system. it is like a habit because California is considered leftist and pension and government programs are "socialism." But I do not care about your agenda. I care about facts, and I presented them to you. Markets do not lie and do not buy bonds at low yields just because they want to reward the "socialist" California. So, stop spreading fake news...


                    I didn't attack california.
                    I quoted language from a major newspaper in California discussing the $138 billion pension shortfall.
                    Neither I, not any conservatives are relevant to the simple mathematical issue. I didn't attack Liberals because at least in Illinois, both parties are responsible for the pension bomb.

                    The fact that bonds are selling well merely suggests that investors don't see a collapse in the near future. No matter how much you want to change the subject to other things, California has a $138 billion pension problem.

                    That is a problem for california's finances no matter how you look at it. (See Sacramento)

                    Sacramento dealt with their pension obligations by declaring bankruptcy. The State of Illinois and Chicago tried to deal with their inability to pay pensions by trying to change the deal. They lost that effort in court in humiliating fashion.


                    My point, which you have ignored, is that California has a $138 billion pension obligation and that any analysis of the finances of the State that ignores this simple fact, is inaccurate.

                    Now tell me where any of that is wrong.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      That is a very interesting wild card for the near future: if the Caliban doesn't get a grip on its pension issue, you are going to see a extremely strong voting demographic become extremely upset in that state.

                      The DNC has operating under the assumption that it owns the Caliban and NY, but if they can't fix those debt issues you could see an effect similar to the Rust Belt in 2016: voters changing sides out of a growing desperation.
                      Illinois dealt with its unfunded pension obligations by trying to renege on the deal and screw the teachers who had paid into the pensions system their whole careers.
                      The teacher's unions sued and won.
                      Despite the fact that the ruling democrats tried to screw the teachers in this fashion the teacher's unions still supported those same politicians.

                      You might be right, but I have my doubts.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                        I didn't attack california.
                        I quoted language from a major newspaper in California discussing the $138 billion pension shortfall.
                        Neither I, not any conservatives are relevant to the simple mathematical issue. I didn't attack Liberals because at least in Illinois, both parties are responsible for the pension bomb.

                        The fact that bonds are selling well merely suggests that investors don't see a collapse in the near future. No matter how much you want to change the subject to other things, California has a $138 billion pension problem.

                        That is a problem for california's finances no matter how you look at it. (See Sacramento)

                        Sacramento dealt with their pension obligations by declaring bankruptcy. The State of Illinois and Chicago tried to deal with their inability to pay pensions by trying to change the deal. They lost that effort in court in humiliating fashion.


                        My point, which you have ignored, is that California has a $138 billion pension obligation and that any analysis of the finances of the State that ignores this simple fact, is inaccurate.

                        Now tell me where any of that is wrong.
                        I am not debating the number. I am debating the consequence and implications you try to promote based on this number by saying that CA is broke. And I say that this is hyperventilation. This is why I brought the similar issue of unfunded Social Security The thing with these unfunded liabilities is that they are projected over many decades, and this is why you see some big numbers. However, relative small adjustments over many decades can address the issue. This is why it is not that easy to make assessments based on some big numbers in an article about unfunded liabilities. And this is why I prefer to see the market reactions than newspaper articles. And in the end, if California for example has to increase personal contributions in the future to address the issue, it is still better to aim high and fall somewhat short and make proper adjustments than follow the conservative path of eliminating everything from the beginning.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          I am not debating the number. I am debating the consequence and implications you try to promote based on this number by saying that CA is broke. And I say that this is hyperventilation. This is why I brought the similar issue of unfunded Social Security The thing with these unfunded liabilities is that they are projected over many decades, and this is why you see some big numbers. However, relative small adjustments over many decades can address the issue. This is why it is not that easy to make assessments based on some big numbers in an article about unfunded liabilities. And this is why I prefer to see the market reactions than newspaper articles. And in the end, if California for example has to increase personal contributions in the future to address the issue, it is still better to aim high and fall somewhat short and make proper adjustments than follow the conservative path of eliminating everything from the beginning.

                          Yes, they can always raise taxes to pay current debts.
                          That admits that excluding the pension debt presents and inaccurate picture.

                          Your repeated reference to social security doesn't work because the Feds can always print more money. California can only raise taxes or take on debt.
                          Which they will have to do.

                          Feel free to keep ignoring the $138 billion in pension debt, but trying to change the subject doesn't make that fact go away.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by craven View Post
                            so you are good with no more camping and hunting

                            land would get houses put on it.

                            and of course there be no reasons to have guns since you could not hunt
                            I don't hunt. Or camp.

                            And in Texas you hunt on private land.

                            I didn't say it was a good idea, just that they could. If we ever hit a major financial crisis with the national debt, I expect we would, at least in part.
                            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              Illinois dealt with its unfunded pension obligations by trying to renege on the deal and screw the teachers who had paid into the pensions system their whole careers.
                              The teacher's unions sued and won.
                              Despite the fact that the ruling democrats tried to screw the teachers in this fashion the teacher's unions still supported those same politicians.

                              You might be right, but I have my doubts.
                              I could be wrong, too.

                              But political speculation aside, the bill is literally going to come due sooner or later.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                                Yes, they can always raise taxes to pay current debts.
                                That admits that excluding the pension debt presents and inaccurate picture.

                                Your repeated reference to social security doesn't work because the Feds can always print more money. California can only raise taxes or take on debt.
                                Which they will have to do.

                                Feel free to keep ignoring the $138 billion in pension debt, but trying to change the subject doesn't make that fact go away.
                                I disagree! Printing money is not the solution for debt as the Germans figured out after WWI. And it is not just raising taxes what can address the problem. I talked about raising CONTRIBUTIONS of the employees or at least the newer younger employees who are entering the system and whose presence affects the calculations of the projections regarding unfunded liabilities 30 years from now. Nor am I saying that California does not have problems. It has, including financial ones but I am not accepting the claim that it is only California which has challenges or that California is i some peculiar position of close t bankruptcy or that these challenges are the result of California's social policies.

                                When I see for example Texas having HIGHER poverty than California when you exclude the housing cost, it is obvious that California is mainly hit by excessive capital (mostly foreign) and high demand which has pushed the housing prices to the roof and which affects mostly the poor people. California has an issue of extreme economic inequalities and poverty, but this is a broader issue of American capitalism and not of just Democrats. in fact, it may be a broader issue of modern capitalism and an indication that the system cannot function anymore with the same efficiency it had in the past when despite the inequalities, it was still obvious that there as a general lifting of all socioeconomic groups. So perhaps there is an indication that we have reevaluate certain economic orthodoxies because we have reached a point of diminishing returns in which structural inequality in the system has become worse without giving any broad benefits.

                                The only thing I can accept as being characteristic of California's culture that contributes to its challenges and to the problems it faces is the attitude of tolerating and in some ways encouraging illegal immigration. I am also very well aware of the hypocrisy of liberal voters who want to be progressive on thee cheap and welcome poor people as long as the voters do not have to approve section 8 projects near their areas.
                                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X