Jump to content
southsider2k5

2018 Democrats thread

Recommended Posts

On 9/20/2018 at 1:12 PM, The Beast said:

I would like the amendment to come into play so we can adjust pensions; however, I would want comprehensive pension reform where new teachers pay something into the pension system but put in some to a 403(b). Retirees would get benefits but they would not get a cost of living increase like they do now. Those about to retire would get their pension, but those who are in the system would pay less. The remainder of funding would come from the state, with the requirement being that pensions eventually will be phased out. I also don’t think an administrator necessarily needs $150,000+ when they hit retirement since they should be cutting back like others have to. There has to be some solution to the problem.

Thanks for the heads up - I will have to look up what the 403(b) includes in my wife’s district.

They created this type of pension system in the last budget,  part pension and part 403b. The issue is no one can quite agree on how to implement it align with the current tier 1 and tier 2 systems.

The problems always comes down to the lack of state funding. They haven't paid their share in the past so even if it's a defined contribution system what makes you think they will pay their portion of it in the future.

Also, be careful about wanting the constitutional amendment. Look at what happened to one that passed in Arizona. They changed it to the hybrid you discussed. They capped new hires pensions at 100,000. If the plan doesn't meet growth expectations, new hires are responsible for paying 50% of the shortfall. Now, are you taking a job in the environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ptatc said:

They created this type of pension system in the last budget,  part pension and part 403b. The issue is no one can quite agree on how to implement it align with the current tier 1 and tier 2 systems.

The problems always comes down to the lack of state funding. They haven't paid their share in the past so even if it's a defined contribution system what makes you think they will pay their portion of it in the future.

Also, be careful about wanting the constitutional amendment. Look at what happened to one that passed in Arizona. They changed it to the hybrid you discussed. They capped new hires pensions at 100,000. If the plan doesn't meet growth expectations, new hires are responsible for paying 50% of the shortfall. Now, are you taking a job in the environment?

I didn’t know the last budget was that way but I also don’t like how the constitution is written. I don’t think people need to be taken advantage of, but I also don’t think people need to live on such high salaries in retirement since they should be cutting back. 

I’m not saying the solutions I am proposing are perfect, but eventually we will not have a choice and will need solutions instead of just partisan bickering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Beast said:

I didn’t know the last budget was that way but I also don’t like how the constitution is written. I don’t think people need to be taken advantage of, but I also don’t think people need to live on such high salaries in retirement since they should be cutting back. 

I’m not saying the solutions I am proposing are perfect, but eventually we will not have a choice and will need solutions instead of just partisan bickering.

No doubt. However, our benefits for teachers in this state are in the bottom half for the nation. They are not very high salaries compared to most, unless you include Chicago but  they don't pay into the pensions and get higher pay. That's a whole other issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

OK, here's where I lose your train of thought:

The dems have a supermajority in the House. Therefore, EVEN if Madigan is gone from the speakership tomorrow, there is a fucking snowball's chance in hell that another Speaker will be nominated by the dems, and then allow himself/herself to be led around by the noots by Rauner. Especially after Rauner did jack and shit, other than to talk shit about Madigan for four years.

 

So again, why would you vote for 4 more years of the same? This is where I lose your reasoning for voting against your wife's own financial self-interests. And worrying about the NEXT election before we get through THIS election seems odd. Four more years of inertia will be bad, particularly when we as a nation are overdue for another recession, which WILL come, irrespective of who is in power. But having a bad budget is better than having NO budget, because the moronic chief executive won't execute.

 

Full disclosure: I'm NOT a fan of inexperienced, obscenely rich assholes taking over executive branch roles. [See Trump and Rauner as examples, and Pritzker as a potential future example.] However, voting for four more years of the same thing is insanity, IMO. I'm also no fan of Madigan, but to pretend that he's going to turn the other cheek is fucking moronic. Better to find ways to live in reality, and work with people who have different political views than your own, but Rauner has done jack and shit instead. YMMV.

If Madigan was out, there’s at least a chance that the person getting in could work with the governor (whoever that is) to fix problems. Then, if they don’t want to fix the financial issues, they will be voted out. Term limits wouldn’t hurt either party, as would independently drawn maps to eliminate gerrymandering.

I would vote for Rauner to try and get a change to the pension system as opposed to Pritzker who may never address it. You are right that we can’t worry about a future election and given Trump’s and Pence’s “popularity,” Ives would probably lose.

I suppose you’re on to something about a bad budget rather than no budget. I wish we could have a balanced budget where services could be provided, taxes could be reasonable and we aren’t overspending, but it might be a pipe dream.

i would like to see Madigan work with Rauner but that might also be a pipe dream. We will see what happens, Pritzker will probably win anyway. At least you and I agree on rich assholes taking over executive branch roles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ptatc said:

No doubt. However, our benefits for teachers in this state are in the bottom half for the nation. They are not very high salaries compared to most, unless you include Chicago but  they don't pay into the pensions and get higher pay. That's a whole other issue.

Exactly. They are their own issue and need to pay into the pensions. And it is definitely a whole different issue, they are going to suffer consequences from all of the borrowing they are doing someday and won’t have enough Cook County taxpayers to fund their problem, unless it is a whole statewide issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Beast said:

If Madigan was out, there’s at least a chance that the person getting in could work with the governor (whoever that is) to fix problems. Then, if they don’t want to fix the financial issues, they will be voted out. Term limits wouldn’t hurt either party, as would independently drawn maps to eliminate gerrymandering.

I would vote for Rauner to try and get a change to the pension system as opposed to Pritzker who may never address it. You are right that we can’t worry about a future election and given Trump’s and Pence’s “popularity,” Ives would probably lose.

I suppose you’re on to something about a bad budget rather than no budget. I wish we could have a balanced budget where services could be provided, taxes could be reasonable and we aren’t overspending, but it might be a pipe dream.

i would like to see Madigan work with Rauner but that might also be a pipe dream. We will see what happens, Pritzker will probably win anyway. At least you and I agree on rich assholes taking over executive branch roles!

The problem with Pritzker is the continued tax raises though. His proposed graduated tax is going to be a tax raise for everybody just more for the higher end. It would be a novel idea if they actual promoted sensible spending instead of just raising taxes. Soon there won't be a tax base to tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenger Hubbell leads the incumbent Reynolds by 2 in the Selzer poll, the gold standard. Decent poll for Dems in Iowa for governor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Heads22 said:

Challenger Hubbell leads the incumbent Reynolds by 2 in the Selzer poll, the gold standard. Decent poll for Dems in Iowa for governor

Hubbell's been running a pretty disjointed and poorly executed campaign. Fortunately, Reynolds keeps (like Blum) creating controversies for herself, and medicaid could be the winning issue for Hubbell. That said, if this weren't a wave year, Fred would be toast. Everybody on the ground is talking about not-so-crazy scenarios where candidates like Finkenauer and Axne win but Hubbell loses. Especially now that straight ticket voting is no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reddy said:

Hubbell's been running a pretty disjointed and poorly executed campaign. Fortunately, Reynolds keeps (like Blum) creating controversies for herself, and medicaid could be the winning issue for Hubbell. That said, if this weren't a wave year, Fred would be toast. Everybody on the ground is talking about not-so-crazy scenarios where candidates like Finkenauer and Axne win but Hubbell loses. Especially now that straight ticket voting is no more.

Oh I agree, plus he's a personality vacuum; to me its a great sign that he's winning despite being an old white rich guy with no personality and a poor campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

OK, here's where I lose your train of thought:

The dems have a supermajority in the House. 

No they don't.  There are 67 dems in the House.  71 are needed for a supermajority. Even when they had a Supermajority 2 years ago, the "all poweful" Madigan was never able to get the 71 votes needed to overcome Rauner's veto. It took a number of level headed Republicans to finally go against Rauner to finally pass a budget last year

Edited by SoxFan2003
Edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SoxFan2003 said:

No they don't.  There are 67 dems in the House.  71 are needed for a supermajority. Even when they had a Supermajority 2 years ago, the "all poweful" Madigan was never able to get the 71 votes needed to overcome Rauner's veto. It took a number of level headed Republicans to finally go against Rauner to finally pass a budget last year

I wouldn't say they were level headed. The ones that went against Rauner were mostly from districts where universities are located and if the impasse went too much longer the already increased layoffs would have led to revolts in their districts. This would have killed any chances of re-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 5:08 PM, The Beast said:

If Madigan was out, there’s at least a chance that the person getting in could work with the governor (whoever that is) to fix problems. 

I would vote for Rauner to try and get a change to the pension system as opposed to Pritzker who may never address it.

i would like to see Madigan work with Rauner but that might also be a pipe dream. We will see what happens, Pritzker will probably win anyway. 

Where Rauner has gone wrong is for him to petulantly expect the members of the legislative branch to just do whatever he says, RATHER than knowing that all three branches are co-equals. Where Rauner's burned all bridges is to petulantly blame Madigan for all of this state's ills, rather than living in reality, and [for better or worse] figuring out ways for HIM to work with Madigan and 67 other dems in the house.

It's almost as if he expected his political foes to just bend over and take it, and he's stunned that they don't. [Again, this is where experience matters in the executive branch.] For fuck's sake, several GOP governors in this state have had to deal with Madigan and they were able to get stuff done. 

10 hours ago, SoxFan2003 said:

No they don't.  There are 67 dems in the House.  71 are needed for a supermajority. Even when they had a Supermajority 2 years ago, the "all poweful" Madigan was never able to get the 71 votes needed to overcome Rauner's veto. It took a number of level headed Republicans to finally go against Rauner to finally pass a budget last year

Yup, you're correct on the arithmetic. That said, Rauner moronically thinks that he can badmouth Madigan, and then ALSO expect him to "work with" him? What an imbecile!

And again, even if Madigan is out of the speakership tomorrow, how do we know LISA Madigan won't be appointed to the speakership? Or Lou Lang, or any one of the other 67 Dem members of the house? To expect the majority-party speaker, in a BLUE STATE, to kowtow to the moron of a governor is just plain dumb on the part of Rauner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×