Pension deficit at $34 Billion

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Don_Campbell Senior Member • Posts: 2,643
Re: Pension deficit at $34 Billion

Bill Randall wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

LeRentier wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Chato wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:


This is another example of welfare for the rich (and one I didn't know about). Essentiually, letting the taxpayers pick up on the obligations of Corporations.


Very true. And another example of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, allowing it.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is a government agency. Since this deficit has been going on for some time, I have to ask who is overseeing this agency? Fire them!

Tax payers should not have to subsidize this agency. I propose that instead of tax payers bailing them out, our Congressmen and Senators be obligated to cover the deficit.

I also propose that we give everyone in Washington a cut in pay and benefits.

My understanding is that this agency picks up the tab when the private funds fail so why would anyone expect them not to go down and broke ?

The agency insures retirement programs of various companies.

But it's NOT funded by government dollars.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

You're asking them to look deeper into this than they are capable of looking. Knee jerk whining about government.


Well that explains everything. I wish all posts were as helpful as yours - not. If you know so much I would appreciate it if you would explain it to me because I don't know. I have made several assumptions which may be false. Information is much better than sarcasm.


I don't frequent this forum as much as some of you so I missed your annoyed reply until a few minutes ago.

I guess from reading your reply that you didn't notice that my post was not to you. It was a reply to Lee Jay expressing my opinion that the folks he was posting responses to were unlikely to understand. I said that because the average 6th grader can do a google search and find some answers. Such a concept. Instead, you thought it was my duty to educate you. I notice that since your post Lee Jay has tried to help you though this apparently challenging cognitive thicket. I'll add one thing.

I was well aware of who you were posting to. I thought I understood what the link was saying and, therefore, had no need to google. As soon as it was pointed out to me that I was wrong I did a google and yes, the info was there.

Hmm...It seemed to me as if you shot first, were told you were wrong and then decided it was my responsibility to lead you to the information instead of looking it up. In other words you needed to be told several times before bothering to look it up.

You are correct in that I at first denied the truth. You are wrong in that I never, ever, decided it was your responsibility to lead me to the information. The only responsibility you had at that time was for you to decide if you wanted to help or not, and if not, to refrain from attempting to insult someone. Apparently this was more responsibility than you could handle.

You forget so quickly. You said, and I'll quote from above since you may not be able to find it if I just reference it: "If you know so much I would appreciate it if you would explain it to me because I don't know."

You think I should have straightened your ignorance out rather than trust you to find your own way to the facts.

There is no rule on DPR that all information presented must be 100% correct. It is, to my knowledge, ok to be wrong, to make an error. Other posters are usually kind enough to point the error out as was done in this case by ljfinger.

You took personal offense when I said to Lee Jay, "You're asking them to look deeper into this than they are capable of looking. Knee jerk whining about government." You wrote to me with silly sarcasm instead of simply looking it up. Why?

At that point it was not a discussion concerning the topic, but of your insult.

You took offense at my original comment. You thought it personally insulting even though it was not directed specifically at you. It was directed at Lee Jay and was referring to folks who were incapable of looking deeper into it than whining about government. Are you saying you're part of that group? You seemed to go back and forth with Lee Jay without doing any looking for facts. At least I didn't see you reference any.

Sorry Bill, but I think you proved my point that taking time to investigate is not as fun for you as blasting off about the government. If you're going to be sensitive then you should look stuff up when you're called on your blast-offs.

One thing this post has determined. I can say I was wrong, you cannot. There was no need for that comment, none what so ever. And you contributed nothing of value to the conversation until after my error was acknowledged. This leads me to wonder if you really knew the answer at the time - but we will never know will we.

Bill, come one fella. You're still digging here. You did not give me anything to go on concerning your sincere interest in looking stuff up. If you want to say you looked stuff up right away and chose not to say anything about it while you kept disputing things with Lee Jay then I'll accept that as your intention even if it was not clear by what you posted.

It is my opinion that if someone makes a mistake and they are ridiculed for it, this will discourage people from posting. Now I am not talking about humorous tongue-in-cheek comments, but comments like the one you made.

I'll try to be nicer.

Thank you.

Oh, does that gain me anything on the "I can say I was wrong and you cannot" scale of things? Just curious.

With a google search on the name of the outfit, you could have virtually instantly found the site of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. On that site there a many FAQs. It might have taken you a few seconds to find the information but then you would have to read this:

"PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans."

About assumptions: I appreciate that you felt it possible that you had made some assumptions that might have been wrong. That's a good start, but by itself it doesn't get you far. Arguing based on those assumptions seems like the second step. The first step is to investigate those assumptions. It is clear that you are an Internet user. I would have thought that instead of being angry with me you might have looked into your assumptions.

I've accepted the statement of the PBGC that they don't get government tax revenues. I accepted that after I looked and did not find anything about them ever being bailed out from general revenue funds. I might have missed it in my searching. Correct me if you find out that is wrong.


With a current $34 Billion dollar asset deficit, it is possible that in the near future one of these possibilities will occur:

1. Revenue will increase to the agency and the problem may dissolve.

2. Benefits to retirees will be reduced.

3. Tax payer money will have to be used to pay benefits. It is a government agency and Congress would probably have to change the laws allowing them to receive a bail out.

This is what ljfinger and I concluded. If you have something to add or change to this it would be appreciated.

Blast off at the executives that failed to keep a well funded pension system for their employees. Where's your indignation about them? How many got golden parachutes while their employees got zilch?


Well, if you visited this forum more often you would know that I have commented on that more than just a few times. Too many people on this forum are either Conservative or Liberal. They cannot conceive of someone basing their opinions on the issues - not the party. And, that I take what I consider the good points from both parties. This post was about government - not big business.

You were doing well until that bolded statement. No. The topic is not just that the PBGC has unfunded liabilities, it is ALL ABOUT WHY they have these unfunded liabilities. It is ALL ABOUT businesses and their practices vis-a-vis pension funds. These pensions are not in default when they are properly funded and not misused by the business. How do you think that these pensions suddenly needed to be paid for by the PBGC if not for lack of proper funding? Check into Bain Capital's relationship to pensions after they took over businesses. They are interesting examples of how what was there can disappear in a flash and end up being paid out as millions in "consulting fees" to guys like those at Bain. Did you miss all that during the campaign? I paid attention and it wasn't pretty.

Obviously you consider government to be sacred, and corporations to be evil. I think that is overly simplistic and unreal. And I think this was the basis for your insult.

How simplistic and uninformed of you. I'm willing to judge things on the specifics. We were talking about pensions and why the PBGC had this large unfunded obligation. You think it is government at its worst I think it was caused by pensions that weren't funded by the companies. Do you think that there is some other reason that the insurance company had to pay out for pensions businesses had the obligation to pay?

The PBGC was created after Studebaker suddenly declared bankruptcy and escaped their unfunded pension obligation. It was shocking by its size and an insurance system was created. I think that insurance system has not been given the ability to charge for insurance by some objective measurement of risk. I think that they need to have contracts that put them first in line when a company declares bankruptcy. What do you think? How would you do it?


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow