Illinois made another Who's Who list: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/11/these-10-states-may-be-closest-to-financial-collapse/
"Many of the states, like California, New Jersey and Illinois, have a long history of borrowing to close budget gaps."
I love it when we send professional politicians and professional government types to run state business.
I wonder who Senator Frerichs is going to suggest we elect for Governor. He picked a winner with Blago, maybe he can go 2 for 2.
I'm sure California, New Jersey, and Illinois have more similarities than simply creative borrowing.
Obviously, a tax increase is the solution.
Of course this gentleman is running for Gov if I am not mistaken....
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/1881416,jim-ryan-apology-death-row-nicarico-111209.article
I wonder who Senator Frerichs is going to suggest we elect for Governor. He picked a winner with Blago, maybe he can go 2 for 2. I'm sure California, New Jersey, and Illinois have more similarities than simply creative borrowing. Obviously, a tax increase is the solution.
What do you care? Aren't those the professional politicians who raise taxes to create programs at which some people suckle?
I'm sure California, New Jersey, and Illinois have more similarities than simply creative borrowing.
That is so true. The similarity is that they all have been run into the ground based on bi-partisan promises of cutting taxes and the mythology that essential public services can be preserved at the same time.
Maybe if voters were smart enough to throw both Democrats and Republicans into the street, things would change for the better? Until then, it's Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.
Maybe if voters were smart enough to throw both Democrats and Republicans into the street, things would change for the better? Until then, it's Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.
Here! Here!
This is the backwash of the Reagan Tax Revolution - the basic lie that you can have it all in terms of government services and not have to pay for it.
Here! Here!
A lot of good these wrods will do
So Sen. Frerichs is responsible for Blagojevich? I guess he got him elected by himself. And hey "B for Business", who did you support for governor before Blagojevich? Naturally you were too smart to vote for George Ryan, right?
"So Sen. Frerichs is responsible for Blagojevich?"
He is certainly partly responsible for him, having been in charge of his Champaign County campaign efforts during Blagojevich's first campaign for Governor.
And he's certainly responsible for supporting his budgets since being in the State Senate.
But this is the era of "change".
"He is certainly partly responsible for him, having been in charge of his Champaign County campaign efforts during Blagojevich's first campaign for Governor."
Blagojevich lost Champaign County in the general elections of both 2002 and 2006. He also lost the 2006 primary here. He was able to achieve only a mediocre plurality (43%) in the 2002 primary.
Obviously, a tax increase is the solution.
Well, if it were a small problem, either a tax increase or spending cuts could solve it without undue harm. But I think the problem is so large that both significant tax increases and significant spending cuts are required. No one is going to be happy with the solution(s). The politicians are playing the usual political games while the problem only gets worse by the day.
In another thread I posted a link to a newspaper story to the effect that SIU is worried about its ability to make payroll in a month or so. Is this the kind of event that it will take to shake things up to the point that the legislature actually has to fix the problem?
"This is the backwash of the Reagan Tax Revolution - the basic lie that you can have it all in terms of government services and not have to pay for it."
That is incorrect. Reagan was about less government, less taxes. Blagojevich is the first politician who comes to mind who promised more with less.
Government ballooned under Reagan. Was he lying?
"Government ballooned under Reagan. Was he lying?"
Yes, the armed forces of the United States grew under Reagan. What's the point?
Yes, the armed forces of the United States grew under Reagan. What's the point?
But that doens't count as government then?
Please, since you're apparently so knowledgable, provide a reliable source that shows how Reagan put his "less government" talk into actual action. Show us how he discernablly reduced the size of the federal government other than just lowering taxes (which also forgets the three tax hikes that followed it).
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
Show us how he discernablly reduced the size of the federal government other than just lowering taxes..
History, history, and more history. I don't understand you guys going on, and on, and on about how this one was worse/better than the other one at decreasing the size of government or lowering taxes when you have the worst of all time worsts going on right in front of your faces. Helloooooo, anybody see that elephant sitting in the middle of room. History will always be exactly what it was, no amount of finger pointing will change it. Today, right now....now there's an opportunity to address real issues.
Just keep on playing your Republicrat game until we all wake up to find the whole damned lot of us are Socialists.
Just keep on playing your Republicrat game until we all wake up to find the whole damned lot of us are Socialists.
Todja: What does "socialist" mean to you ?
History, history, and more history.
The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, published the following on March 1, 2001:
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9
The whole article
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
What does "socialist" mean to you ? I have answered this previously.
It means we would no longer be a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people." We would be an enslaved people who's labors only profit the elite few in power. Everything that made our country the beacon of freedom and hope to the rest of the world will fade away. Property will not be owned, it will inhabited or used at the discretion of few. Entrepenuerism will vanish as the fruits of our labors are confiscated and redistributed as the governing powers see fit. Choices will be made for us and voices will be silenced. We will become a country of beggars, as hard work will not be rewarded.
I know there are many arguments to be made that we are well on our way to a socialist society now with the ever increasing intrusions into our finances and personal choices, the rising tax burdens, corruption, and "entitlement" programs. However, with this administration's "push" we are now at a crossroads. We are about to step over a point of no return onto a path that history proves will lead to collapse and ruin. Socialism is the opposite of everything our country was founded on, everything our Constitution stands for, and everything that has made us great. To abondon our founding principals is to spit in the face of the millions who have died to establish and preserve our way of life. To sit back and allow our hard fought freedom to wash away says we are quiters, losers and we deserve our fate.
Socialism is the opposite of everything our country was founded on, everything our Constitution stands for, and everything that has made us great.
No, it's not. Fascism and Monarchism are the opposite of everything our country was founded on. We didn't rebel against a socialist state, we rebelled against a monarchy. I suspect you don't understand the difference between these terms.
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
It's like reading the National Enquirer. Teabaggers are on an adrenaline buzz, and it's always ONE! MINUTE! TO! APOCALYPSE! GAAAAH! EVERYBODY RUN!
And when they throw around words like "socialism" and make it excruciatingly clear they don't know what the hell it means, well, that just doesn't help much, does it.
Well golly gorsch Arved, rekkin yure rite. I dunt now a blasterd thang. I wuz perty close tho, huh? Rekkin close only cownts in hores shews an hand grinade tho, ainten that rite? So maybe thell let us keep are ernins, guns, an bibels? Iffen only I wuz a smart as yu, I woont be so afeered of them skowndrels.
Todja wrote: What does "socialist" mean to you ? I have answered this previously.
Todja So: Please provide the link to your previous answer. Then other can discern whether your fears are rational
Todja wrote: We would be an enslaved people who's labors only profit the elite few in power.
Goldman Sachs' success depends upon citizens like Todja who believe this.
Todja wrote: Everything that made our country the beacon of freedom and hope to the rest of the world will fade away.
Todja: To keep this simple for you, please list just five things that have made our country the beacon of freedom and hope
Todja So wrote: Entrepreneurship will vanish....
Even in the most oppressive regimes, entrepreneurship flourishes. The owners of German munitions factories did quite well during WWII. Blackwater did quite well during the Bush-Cheney years, and is still faring well under a new name, XE Corporation
Todja So wrote: .... we are well on our way to a socialist society now with the ever increasing intrusions into our finances and personal choices, the rising tax burdens, corruption, and "entitlement" programs.
List five intrusions on our finances and personal choices. Is corruption any more or less than it was in the first 20 years of the 20th century?
Todja wrote: ... However, with this administration's "push" we are now at a crossroads...
Please describe the push you allege.
Todja wrote:To abandon our founding principals
Todja. Please tell us what you believe those founding principles are.
Todja wrote: Iffen only I wuz a smart as yu, I woont be so afeered of them scoundrels.
Finally, an assertion by Todja with which most of us would agree. Todja's need to enlist self-mockery indicates how weak her complaints/arguments are.
I answered your question and I'm finished playing school with you Mr. Anonymous. Mock away if that's what trips your trigger.
Todja So's inability to address the concerns of 06:27 PM, Anonymous means Todja So needs much more schooling
An equally amusing quip from Todja was that "socialist" means "It means we would no longer be a country 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.'"
If the the people were to own all or some of the means of production, then our country would become much more of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Such inconsistency is typical of Todja So's postings.
I found Tom Kacich's article in today's News Gazette interesting: "Expert's straight talk on taxes unpopular but accurate" (link pops to new window).
Pretty much says what I've been thinking.
What caught my attention in the article Akibare @ 12:21 P referenced is that "Johnson also received $64,554 last year from his Illinois legislative pension." This is in addition to what he earns as a representative. The reason for it catching my attention has to do with the fact that I have contacted his office, also with the offices of Durbin and Burris, concerning the social security windfall and offset provisions. A topic that the NEA is working on. http://www.nea.org/home/16491.htm I encouraged Johnson and the others to join the NEA efforts and I have done the same with SUAA and RSEA. The non "canned" responses have been most disappointing, even though Johnson, Burris, and Durbin have signed on as cosponsors to the respective bills to eliminate the windfall and offset.. It appears appropriate to earn retirements from more than one tax payer supported retirement system with no windfall or offset, but not for those who have paid in to social security. The second reason for mentioning this has to do with the first part of Kacich's article--that taxes will have to be raised. That is probably accurate, but it does not mean that one can not question why these multiple levels of retirement packages continue to drain the state coffers. Paul Simon moved in the group of triple dippers.
Pattsi Petrie
If the the people were to own all or some of the means of production, then our country would become much more of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Your learning that BHO word game rather well. However, government owned is wholly different from privately owned or even public held industry as you well know. Think not? Try calling Washington and telling them you want to cash in your stock or cast your ballot for the board of directors.
Here is how your "of the people, by the people, and for the people" industry works. The government buys into (bails out) GM against the vast majority of voters wishes. The government tells us they're restricting executive compensation when in truth they're increasing it (this is where that crazy elite theory comes in). The government has now negociated compensation decreases for the line level employees through paying off the unions. The government then dictate what cars will be built, where they will be built and by whom, and how much those vehicles will cost. They're working on legislation that will force us to buy these vehicles. But for now, the vehicles will be too costly for the average working person to purchase, so they'll lose money. Then they'll come back to us, the taxpayers, to bail them out again.
In this scenario, who's making money? A: The elite Who's paying or losing money? A: The enslaved. Nice system huh? No place I want to go.
Now you give me a real-time example of how your eutopian socialist model is working for the people?
Todja wrote: ... BHO word game ...
What does BHO stand for ?
The difficulties and anomalies concerning auto industry you spend a paragraph citing and complaining about are not relevant because they come about from the government trying to save private ownership, rather than from any real attempt at public ownership.
Emission standards are to ensure public safety. Why is this any different from having building codes ?
Todja wrote "Now you give me a real-time example of how your eutopian socialist model is working for the people?"
Ownership by the people does not necessarily mean government ownership. There are a small number of employee owned enterprises. The best local example of this is the publisher Human Kinetics
The difficulties and anomalies concerning auto industry you spend a paragraph citing and complaining about are not relevant because they come about from the government trying to save private ownership,
Just keep telling yourself that. BHO = Barack Hussein Obama
Ownership by the people does not necessarily mean government ownership.
However, that is what you insinuated the statement below, and that is what I'm asking you to defend.
An equally amusing quip from Todja was that "socialist" means "It means we would no longer be a country 'of the people, by the people, and for the people.'"
If the the people were to own all or some of the means of production, then our country would become much more of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Please stop using the phrase "teabaggers" to describe members of the tea party movement or conservatives--it's a demeaning sexual term that does not apply to them unless you're really saying that members of the tea party movement practice this particular sexual act. No wonder we can't have a civil dialogue in this country.
Todja So wrote: However, that is what you insinuated the statement below,
I did not insinate as you suggested. You invented implications that are not there. .
Before requesting a defense of a statement, please advise us why you think the statement is inaccurate
No wonder we can't have a civil dialogue in this country.
Why and how does this affect civil dialogue throughout the country?
I did not insinate as you suggested. You invented implications that are not there. Then perhaps you should clarify what it was you were trying to say since you were using it to rebut my statement. How is my statement typically inconsistent as you charge?
Before requesting a defense of a statement, please advise us why you think the statement is inaccurate.
Since you insist I did have incorrectly interpretted your answer or invented implications, I would need you to clarify your answer/implications before I could address it. Who is us?
Todja So wrote: I would need you to clarify your answer/implications
Any implications are in your imagination. The poster cannot clarify your imagination for you.
Todja: Your inability/indisposition to address the issues raised by "November 14th, 2009 at 06:27 PM, Anonymous" is going to create more BHO supporters. In particlular, you were asked about "founding priciples." and you have not told us. You claimed BHO has pushed us to a "crossroads," but provide no description. You were asked to provide five intrusions into our finances and personal choices and have not done so.
illinipunditposter
This isn't that tough guys. I was asking the poster to clarify their answer and how it contrasted or contradicted what I had posted. The posters insistance that I was inconsistent was not supported by their post, at least that I could decipher. I'm simply asking what the poster meant by: If the the people were to own all or some of the means of production, then our country would become much more of the people, by the people, and for the people.
I will attempt to engage in a productive exchange of Q&A if those presenting such are doing so in good faith. However, I am not going to be patronized with your voluminous questions while offering no answers to my questions in return.
Todja wrote: how it contrasted or contradicted what I had posted.
Most of what you write here Todja is either (a) self-contradictory, (b) easily demonstrated as ill-thought out with the simplest examples, and/or (c) incapable of being supported by example
You need to provide some worthy, sensible questions, before others will respond
The poster meant exactly what s/he wrote: If the the people were to own all or some of the means of production, then our country would become much more of the people, by the people, and for the people.
No more, no less. The poster even provided an example of a relevant local company: Human Kinetics. No additional explanation seems needed.
Todja: If you disagree with the poster's statement, please explain why. Your failure/indisposition to do so may result in several additional votes for BHO in the next presidential election.
Todja: If you disagree with the poster's statement, please explain why. Your failure/indisposition to do so may result in several additional votes for BHO in the next presidential election.
You have, like the rest of us, missed Toldja's point. For her the world is divided between the adherents of Godless Socialism (dare I say Communism) represented by the President and the Democratic party on the one hand and the patriotic devotees of Ms. Palin on the other. Those of us who believe that the political system of the United States, as imperfect as it may be, is the best system of government yet devised by man are but poor, ignorant dupes who have not yet been initiated into the mysteries of REAL AMERICANISM. Logic and evidence has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you question her dogma you are, by definition, UnAmerican!
Three Score and Ten Plus One
Keith Hays
Keith wrote: You have, like the rest of us, missed Toldja's point.
Keith: Are you insinuating that Todja has a point?
Todja wrote: I was asking the poster to clarify their answer and how it contrasted or contradicted what I had posted. The posters insistance that I was inconsistent was not supported by their post, at least that I could decipher.
Might Stepanie Holderfield be Todja's rhetoric coach ?
illinipunditposter
My goodness, it appears my popularity ranks with the likes Sara Palin, I'm flattered. What once was a thread about issues is now all about lil ole me.
I direct your statements back to you, particularly this one: You need to provide some worthy, sensible questions, before others will respond
Good evening my dear learned gentlemen.
What once was a thread about issues is now all about lil ole me.
No, it is about how a conservative, or anyone else, can make her/his views unattractive, or even repulsive to others via incoherent and undocumentable discourse.
Todja: Can't you get any thing right ? Ms Palin's given name ends with the letter "h"
I assume NEA is working with NARFE on the WEP etc on this?
To Oil Man @9:44 A--certainly hope so. If not, those who are members of NARFE ought to urge the organization to do so. This is a very serious issue and affects so many individuals.
Pattsi Petrie
My federal friends tell me NARFE has been working this for more than a decade. I thought PAC´s coordinated efforts unlike the government.