3 ms·

I don't want to deprive them of that. Stop arguing in bad faith. The requirement stands out as extremely onerous and atypical. Look at most state pensions. Some

• Alupis 6y ago
  > Somehow, magically, most republicans only care about the USPS. I could argue the opposite right now. Seems "the other side" only wants to champion USPS right now, even though only a year ago everyone would have been in near agreement USPS needs reforms. It's political... I get it, but does everyone here arguing get it too? Doubtful. In my time serving as a legislative assistant for a California Assemblyman, we fought against several state controlled pension funds, including pushing for divestment from Iran. These attempts were always met with fierce opposition - "you're destroying my retirement!" and more. Anecdata I know... Pensions, in my opinion, are universally bad. You, the individual, should control your own retirement. Too often these pensions, that people rely on, dry up or disappear suddenly due to gross mismanagement. If you're going to have a pension - it should have to be funded for a massive amount of time. Maybe not 75 years, but the average person's working years (ie, 40 or 50 years). Making it impossible for the pension to be gone through no fault of your own is what we owe people stuck with pensions.