CalPERS gets decision: Judge rules Stockton can sever its city pensions (CA)

Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/01/2014 | Dale Kasler

[vette6387]

“I have no statistics just what I have observed over the years, had a Business there for 20 plus years.”

We were out there recently (Manteca actually) visiting a friend who used to be a neighbor. They used to have a 60 acre farm in Stockton, but gave it up after the husband passed. The wife tried to live in a home in Stockton, but it was not a safe place for someone past 60. Manteca is a whole lot better, but still heavily latino. The problem wasn’t blacks, it was definitely latinos. Don’t know who works for the government, but sooner or later, CalPers is going to get a serious haircut in the bankruptcy. If Stockton doesn’t deal with the pension shortfall now, they will simply fail and have to go back into bankruptcy yet again as Vallejo will most assuredly be forced to do. It was good to see a Federal Judge tell CalPers that they are not a “protected species.”

[easternsky]

Yes absolutely should have been ruled that way years ago. I have posted on here several times calling Stockton little Tijuana, when you drive through its what I remember of Tijuana when I visited there in my early teens. It was a tremendous farming area, as was Manteca, they have both become very dangerous, and not Family friendly.

[dennisw]

Live like parasites//// die like parasites

[going hot]

Sometimes, it just feels good to let out a hearty BWAHAHAHA.

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving crowd.

The natives are going to be restless. That is, until they find a more friendly jurist to reverse this decision....the Ca way.

[SteveH]

¡Ay carumba! El Senor gigante Sta-Puft! Arriba!

[fifedom]

“Whether Stockton would sever its CalPERS contract is another matter. City Manager Kurt Wilson told the Sacramento Bee that there’s no change in the city’s plan to keep paying CalPERS in full and retaining its full pensions”

The cesspool will not drain.

---

Luckily, it’s not up to the city politicos. They already agreed to a sweetheart deal for the unions but they were sued by the Muni bondholders, who got the shaft from the politicos. The judge may agree with the bondholders that everyone including the unions should get a haircut. I say ‘may’ because he has not issued his final ruling.

The fact is there just is not enough money to pay off the promised bennies. The unions will want to seize the taxpayers’ assets to pay them off and it will be interesting to see whether the sheeple will let it happen.

[cradle of freedom]

Is it legal for a municipality to run up a debt so large that it will be passed on to one or two more generations? Isn’t that the ultimate form of taxation without representation, when children who cannot vote are forced to pay the debt incurred by their parents?