This is a REALLY good question.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.../701310347/1003

 

If U.S. Airways can afford to buy Delta Airlines for 10 billion........including 5 billion in cash........then how is it that they can get dump their pension liability ( worth 3 billion ) on the taxpayers?

 

 

What a rip off.

[kapkomet]

Because they are borrowing that money.

[Texsox]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.../701310347/1003

 

If U.S. Airways can afford to buy Delta Airlines for 10 billion........including 5 billion in cash........then how is it that they can get dump their pension liability ( worth 3 billion ) on the taxpayers?

 

 

What a rip off.

 

Side Note:

 

Which is one reason why privatizing social security worries me. As a society we will not step over a senior citizen who has worked hard all their life and is now destitute because the company he invested in made poor decisions. So the tax payer will wind up picking up the tab.

 

And I've always kind of thought that Social Security was basically unemployment insurance and public aid with a better marketing plan.

 

And we should be happy that we live in a country that is so blessed we can take care of people. The vast majority of countries on the planet would have to stand by and watch people starve.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.../701310347/1003

 

If U.S. Airways can afford to buy Delta Airlines for 10 billion........including 5 billion in cash........then how is it that they can get dump their pension liability ( worth 3 billion ) on the taxpayers?

What a rip off.

The bankruptcy laws are still too lenient, that's why.

[southsider2k5]

The bankruptcy laws are still too lenient, that's why.

 

As are the pension funding laws... You don't have to offer a pension, but if you make that promise, you need to pay for it.

[Damen]

The bankruptcy laws are still too lenient, that's why.

 

...for Corporations, who can afford to donate millions to lobbyists.

[NorthSideSox72]

...for Corporations, who can afford to donate millions to lobbyists.

...and for individuals, who take that option way too quickly, when they see Joe Slickhair, attorney at law, on the TV. Fortunately, the laws for individuals were tightened up semi-recently. But it should still be more of a last resort than it often is.

 

I would agree though that for corporations, the laws are waaaaaaaaaay too lenient, whereas for individuals, they are getting closer to where they should be.

 

And I agree SS2K5, if you offer a pension at all, that should be guaranteed to the last dollar of the business. If you don't want that risk as a business, then go the 401k route or don't do anything at all.

 

 

On a related note, personal savings by Americans reached a 74 year low in 2006. Lowest since the Depression.

 

These things are interrelated, of course. People are way too apt to spend all their money instead of saving or investing some. There is a significant chunk of the country that now sees things like TV's as a "need". There is nothing wrong with buying a nice TV of course, but don't buy one, ring up more credit card debt than you can handle, then wave the white flag of bankruptcy and say "do-over!"

[Jenksismyhero]

And we should be happy that we live in a country that is so blessed we can take care of people. The vast majority of countries on the planet would have to stand by and watch people starve.

 

 

Too bad we waste a lot of this money taking care of people who don't deserve it. It sickens me to watch an old withering person who's worked hard their entire life go without adequate health coverage or adequate retirement money (ESPECIALLY veterans) when undeserving people who are too lazy to get a job contine to reep the benefits of our old, out-dated and entirely too socialistic welfare system.

 

Perhaps I should change my sig from 'Work harder, millions of Americans on welfare depend on you,' to ' Work harder, millions of Americans on welfare depend on you while the old deserving Americans are left out.'

 

I know, doesn't really have anything to do with the thread topic, but this sentence got me thinking.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Texsox]

Too bad we waste a lot of this money taking care of people who don't deserve it. It sickens me to watch an old withering person who's worked hard their entire life go without adequate health coverage or adequate retirement money (ESPECIALLY veterans) when undeserving people who are too lazy to get a job contine to reep the benefits of our old, out-dated and entirely too socialistic welfare system.

 

Perhaps I should change my sig from 'Work harder, millions of Americans on welfare depend on you,' to ' Work harder, millions of Americans on welfare depend on you while the old deserving Americans are left out.'

 

I know, doesn't really have anything to do with the thread topic, but this sentence got me thinking.

 

I basicaly agree with you. But, just like much of the foreign aid we dish out, these programs also keep desperate people from stealing and other socially unacceptable actions. At some point it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them in prison is more costly, and probably more "fair", than having them on public assistance programs.

[Jenksismyhero]

I basicaly agree with you. But, just like much of the foreign aid we dish out, these programs also keep desperate people from stealing and other socially unacceptable actions. At some point it becomes a cost/benefit analysis. Keeping them in prison is more costly, and probably more "fair", than having them on public assistance programs.

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what I find out in this Housing Law course i'm taking this semester. It's readily apparent in two classes that I'm the lone (or at least most vocal) 'conservative' when it comes to the issue of welfare/public housing. While on the one hand I feel we have an obligation to do SOMETHING to help these people, I don't think giving them housing is the way to go. Making people care about school and community is going to be the most effective method of solving that problem, imo. It's obvious that throwing more money at them isn't getting them to change. We need a different tactic. If you're getting a handout, why move yourself up the income ladder when it means you'll have to stop receiving the handout? Or why work at all when the goverment will give you money?

 

And on top of that most HUD programs are designed around family size and income. Thus, the more kids you have, the more money you get or the more money you can deduct, or the less you have to pay to live in public housing. We're basically telling these people to have more kids and get a crappy job and you won't have to pay anything. I understand public housing isn't the four seasons, but it's still something that costs ordinary folks 30% of their income (or more if you're a poor law student...like 60%) that they're getting for nothing.

 

Much like the homelessness article I posted in a different thread, we can help the more serious cases individually instead of creating a blanket program. A very, very small percentage of people are in such dire situations that they need assistance. The rest are too lazy and expect something to be given to them. Like welfare, the system needs an overhaul. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to hire counselors/administrators to take on each case throughout the nation individually to deterimine housing need and increase funding for schools/communities versus spending billions on public housing projects that do nothing to solve the problem (evidenced by the fact that something like 92% of people in public housing stay in public housing)?

 

 

 

 

Oh, and uhh, U.S. Airways sucks.

[Texsox]

The system needs an overhaul. that is obvious, what isn't obvious is what to do. As soon as you push here something squirts out there that you don't want.

 

I don't know how many kids you have, I suspect none, but the small increases in assistance for each child doesn't come close to meeting their demands. Having more kids isn't a ticket to wealth in this system. Plus, the money in theory is to help the children, do you really think the American taxpayer is going to deny food and shelter to an infant or child? It's easy to fall into the "we're not going to give the adult more money for having that child, but that just hurts the child and causes more of a drain.

 

It is a very tangled mess we gradually got ourselves into, and it probably will be a gradual fix.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The system needs an overhaul. that is obvious, what isn't obvious is what to do. As soon as you push here something squirts out there that you don't want.

 

I don't know how many kids you have, I suspect none, but the small increases in assistance for each child doesn't come close to meeting their demands. Having more kids isn't a ticket to wealth in this system. Plus, the money in theory is to help the children, do you really think the American taxpayer is going to deny food and shelter to an infant or child? It's easy to fall into the "we're not going to give the adult more money for having that child, but that just hurts the child and causes more of a drain.

 

It is a very tangled mess we gradually got ourselves into, and it probably will be a gradual fix.

 

 

Yeah, that money is MEANT to help the kids but it usually gets spent on booze, smokes, drugs, and lottery tickets.

 

I often hear cries from the left about how "pointless" and "unjust" the war on drugs is but I think the real crime is this so called "war on poverty". While well intentioned, all it has done is create a cycle of dependency among those it was intended to help, and has wasted more than a trillion dollars in the process.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, that money is MEANT to help the kids but it usually gets spent on booze, smokes, drugs, and lottery tickets.

 

I often hear cries from the left about how "pointless" and "unjust" the war on drugs is but I think the real crime is this so called "war on poverty". While well intentioned, all it has done is create a cycle of dependency among those it was intended to help, and has wasted more than a trillion dollars in the process.

 

 

Nuke: It usually gets spend on kids and families getting by. Because there is abuse in the system, it does not mean that money is "usually" being spent on booze, smokes, drugs and lottery tickets.