Municipal pensions not the only ones..

Looks like some corps have their own issues fully funding some pensions.

"It turns out that the plans of S&P 500 companies are underfunded to the tune of $451.7 billion, a number that has grown some 27 percent in just the last year alone, according to data released Wednesday by S&P Dow Jones Indices..."

https://www.cnbc.com/id/100928506?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity

There's a sub article that says ford has pretty much funded there own pensions. I must say Ford appears to be one of the best managed Co.s anywhere from whatever I've read. I remember they were the only automaker not to need any bailout money from the feds.

J
Did anybody notice that Government Motors makes up 24% of the $457b
In related news, a neighbor down the street just had a baby, creating $300,000 unfunded liability. How irresponsible!
Why in the world would you try and downplay thia Forkie, weren't you one of the more vociferous ones about detroit workers pensions?

J

Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
Did anybody notice that Government Motors makes up 24% of the $457b


Oh geez.. I see it now. Just great, I wonder if the feds will feel obligated or whatever to pick up that 100B. Wait a minute ,isn't GM posting billion(s) dollar profits right now? Have to go check, seems I've heard it at least.
Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
Why in the world would you try and downplay thia Forkie, weren't you one of the more vociferous ones about detroit workers pensions?

J
I don't do vociferous.

And the whole "unfunded liability" thing is often a scam. Does a bank turn down a mortgage for a family with two infants because they have a $600,000 unfunded liability? But somehow people apply that brand of stupid to politics.

The post office went from solvent to OMG We're Going Broke! because of the way future liabilities had to be accounted for. And admit it jatki, the first time you heard Social Security was going broke you were probably using Clearasil on a regular basis. How'd those predictions turn out? So when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?


If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?


If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent. And for Republicans, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

And with extra billions (trillions?) to gamble with, the Bush era equity market bubble could have grown and metastasized even longer, leading to an even greater crash, taking down part of the Social Security fund with it.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?


If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent. And for Republicans, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

And with extra billions (trillions?) to gamble with, the Bush era equity market bubble could have grown and metastasized even longer, leading to an even greater crash, taking down part of the Social Security fund with it.

I guess you missed the part where it wasn't going to start until 1/1/2009. That was well after the bursting of any stock market bubble. It was considered neutral from a Social Security Solvency standpoint. You made it sound like it was going to start in 2006 and everyone would have lost their butts. That's just plain not true. It would have been a boon for millions of workers to have the greatest start imaginable to their personal retirement saving.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushVSo when Bush told everyone that the only way to save Social Security was to invest it in the stock market - in 2006 - a lot of us were skeptical.

Aren't you glad?


If the truth be known...

1. Bush's plan was voluntary
2. Only a fraction of payroll tax contributions (4%) could be diverted to private accounts
3. It was to take effect 1/1/2009...so workers missed out on starting their personal retirement accounts with one of the greatest bull markets ever.

Are you still glad?
Of course! It would have removed lots of money from the Social Security fund that even in good times would have led to benefit cuts for the elderly and the indigent. And for Republicans, that's not a bug, that's a feature.

And with extra billions (trillions?) to gamble with, the Bush era equity market bubble could have grown and metastasized even longer, leading to an even greater crash, taking down part of the Social Security fund with it.

I guess you missed the part where it wasn't going to start until 1/1/2009. That was well after the bursting of any stock market bubble...
And if you had only kept the A-10 suited, you would have gotten a royal. But holding suited A-10 is (almost) always a bad move, and trusting the criminals in the equity markets, and especially the rating agencies, with Social Security funds is always a bad move; in 2013, 2009, or 2006. Suggesting it in 2006 was particularly stupid, because it was then that the criminality was coming to light.

And please admit this: if Bush & company had their druthers, the market would have started sucking on Social Security in 2004. And who knows, with all that extra Social Security money, the bubble might still be growing to this day. To Republicans, that 's not a bug, that's a feature.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now