[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Personally doesn't matter to me. Left, right, up, down I could careless what party you attend (add some coors light and I'll go to either). We just need people with a backbone. CT is getting hit hard within the media and bad press is not good.

If my taxes don't go up and we gain atleat at some business (not NYC or Boston business) just some sustainable business CT can grow on ill be happy.

Too much power is put on party titles. Money is green, that's the only thing I care about.

Indeed.

[New Englander]

Originally Posted by Sigequinox

Unless your someone like me, you don't think "never moving there, they're all liberals". Most people move to where makes sense, given life priorities. The things that liberals ruin are ruined in those states as well, but they have something to show for it. If you could buy a BMW 5 series or a Honda Civic with spinning rims and ghetto muffler for the same price, your going to choose the Beamer, which is boston.

I've been saying all along its about value, not cost. The ratio is what's important. Bostob is a huge bargain in that regard (or normal price, depending how you look at it). CT is an over priced waste. CT is the faux Louis V bag being sold out of the back of a rented van in Brooklyn for retail price. NY is a real LV at MSRP and Boston is a real LV on sale. The choice is not hard if north east is where you want to be.

Co-sign this. As someone who moved from Boston to Ffld, I can attest to what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, CT has some great potential: educated workforce, good location, beautiful communities, however the leadership deficit has been significant in CT.

Although, I am a Republican, I am going to fair here in stating that Gina Raimondo (D-RI) and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) have shown more leadership in their respective states than Malloy. As far as MA is concerned, I love Charlie Baker -- he is my kind of Republican: Fiscally conservative, policy wonk, does not encourage controversy. It's no wonder he has been one of the most popular Governors in the country.

I am holding hope for proper leadership, public-private partnerships will bring CT out of the economic malaise - after all, places like NY, MA were on the decline in the past and were able to emerge economically stronger.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

And why is that a bad thing for CT?

Once again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say anything close to that. I was simply pointing out the facts. Jay

[westender]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

States can not declare bankruptcy.

Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp ? You can read all about it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensio...ty_Corporation

The pensions are insured. In order to discharge pension obligations it has to go to bankruptcy court first. Remember states can not declare bankruptcy so this just becomes a big circle jerk.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does not insure public (government) pensions.

These government pensions are only guaranteed by the whim of the voters. In one election, they all could go poof.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by westender

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does not insure public (government) pensions.

These government pensions are only guaranteed by the whim of the voters. In one election, they all could go poof.

Well alot are protected by laws as well and the constitution in some states. In CT they are held as contracts as real property I believe in order to kill them you open up breach of contract at the state level. At the municipal level they are guaranteed in law.

[westender]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Well alot are protected by laws as well and the constitution in some states. In CT they are held as contracts as real property I believe in order to kill them you open up breach of contract at the state level. At the municipal level they are guaranteed in law.

...and as I stated, in one election, they could all go poof.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by westender

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation does not insure public (government) pensions.

These government pensions are only guaranteed by the whim of the voters. In one election, they all could go poof.

I am only writing about pension benefits that have already been accrued. A number of people here think those benefits can just be cancelled and/or reduced. No such thing will ever happen.

If you want to stop pensions for new Govt employees that's great. First you have to let them contribute to Social Security so they can accrue benefits that way. This is mainly for teachers who do not contribute to SS.

Second removing pension benefits will not have the effect most here think. It will have the opposite effect.
No educated highly skilled people are going to work for the Govt @ 40k a year no benes.

Say good bye to all the medical and dental school professors, university professors, judges, prosecutors, banking/finance/budgeting directors, transportation engineers, police/fire, and prison guards to name just a few.

Try filing a lawsuit with no judges to adjudicate them. Maybe you can open your own court instead. Better yet make it subscription based. Perhaps you'll turn a profit.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I know states cannot now, but who knows in a few years? Feds cannot bail out several states.

Plus while pensions are insured, PBGC is not able to handle what is coming either. Its fine at small funds going under, but the reserve is not meant for giant funds, such as Illinois. The $103 mill it paid in 2015 per that link is a rounding error for say, Illinois.

There's a difference between reorganization and discharge in bankruptcy. A state Govt will never be able to discharge all its debt since a Govt can not go out of business. Govt also has the power to collect and or raise taxes, whereas a private business does not.

Reorganization/restructure of debt is what will happen if a state ever gets into a bankruptcy court. Detroit has already done this, so there's at least one example to draw upon, but Detroit is not a state.

CT and IL are Blue states so they will never get one cent from a Republican controlled legislature anyway and they certainly won't approve any changes to the bankruptcy laws if they think it would help blue states.

[westender]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I am only writing about pension benefits that have already been accrued. A number of people here think those benefits can just be cancelled and/or reduced. No such thing will ever happen.

If you want to stop pensions for new Govt employees that's great. First you have to let them contribute to Social Security so they can accrue benefits that way. This is mainly for teachers who do not contribute to SS.

This has nothing to do with what I want. I'm simply stating that the voters have the ultimate say-so regarding government pensions.

What do I think is likely? Some sort of cap on benefits (no more "spiking"); a slow transition to a defined contribution model, like a 401(k); eligibility for Social Security for all workers regardless of public/ private status.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by westender

...and as I stated, in one election, they could all go poof.

Yep. Recall the Detroit bankruptcy where they reworked muni pensions. A Federal appeals court in October 2016 ruled in favor of the city when the union sued about pension cuts. A union contract isn't a financial suicide pact.

However, it wouldn't be "poof". It would be a big haircut. Kill COLA and a small percentage reduction in the payouts. Change the early retirement deal for current workers so health care is Medicare at age 65 like the rest of us and slash the early retirement pension benefit that none of the rest of us get.

I still think that Medicaid is a far bigger deal than unfunded pension liability. The aging boomers are going to crush the system with nursing home bills where the rich states pay 50% of the bill. I don't know the Connecticut numbers but in Massachusetts, Medicaid is 25% of the budget and skilled long term care is about 1/3 of that. Look at the demographics projections in 20 years and the nursing home bill is going to be enormous.