The Deification of Reagan

[merrylander]

Here we have one of the local flicker and flash companies, Pepco, explaining to the PSC why the do such a lousy job of restoring power after storms. The chaiman in a fit of generosity said he will forgo $900,000 in compansation this year. Of course that still leaves his $880,000 salary untouched. And they wonder what is wrong with the system.

Damn, now I can't find the article but I did read summat about a bank forclosing on the homes of military who are fighting in the middle east - what next?

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Looks like they are following the University of California system's lead. No shame in their greed at all.



Carl

It's shameful how they are conducting themselves, Carl. Here we are trying to provide our young people with the tools to become productive, innovative world class decision makers and the system is heaping on them massive financial burdens that they don't even full comprehend yet. I'm certainly not calling for "free" post high school education but the cost to benefit ratio has got to be questioned at some point.

It really doesn't surprise me though. Institutions, Programs and Public Service/Works (whatever they may be) that are funded by Fed. and State dollars, know and understand very well that in order to secure their yearly funding and increases must show a need. The only way to show a need for more is to spend it all prior to going back to the well. Now that the well has seemly run dry, the only solution is to hit the students and hit them hard. Like many, these folks have been brought up on such a steady diet of endless and ever increasing handouts that they cant even comprehend the concept of reeling in spending or losing some incredibly redundant folks and programs.

The public sector seems oblivious to what the private sector typically knows painfully well .

[merrylander]

Sorry but as far as I am concerned the private sector is FUBAR and has been for some time. What sort of financial genius beggars his workers when it is the consumer that drives the economy. Frankly things here are little better than Egypy when it comes to the wide disparity between the haves and have nots.

I still maintain that there is not a man or woman on God's green earth worth more than $750,000 a year and there are bloody few of them.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Sorry but as far as I am concerned the private sector is FUBAR and has been for some time. What sort of financial genius beggars his workers when it is the consumer that drives the economy.

I've worked for 7 companies in my 26 years of employment and have only found one of them that I would consider "fubar" by your definition.

I'm not so sure about that, Rob. If you look the Fed. deficit around 1.4 Trillion along with the massive deficit most states face in combination with pension fund shortfall projections estimated between 1-3 trillion I guess I'd have to look to the private sector, comparatively speaking, for who is best at overall money management.

Your right about these corporate big shots salaries. I try to refrain from placing a monetary value or limits on any particular position but it has gotten way out of hand. Particularly when these yahoos can march in, destroy the company and the people that got them there then collect based on a contract and not performance. Beyond that, they do so without fear, shame or any apparent conscience what so ever.

Small and medium sized businesses built this country if we don't start to recognize that again soon we are in a world of hurt.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I'm not so sure about that, Rob. If you look the Fed. deficit around 1.4 Trillion along with the massive deficit most states face in combination with pension fund shortfall projections estimated between 1-3 trillion I guess I'd have to look to the private sector, comparatively speaking, for who is best at overall money management.

Well, I'm not sure you're looking at the whole picture. A company is run by a few folks. Quite often, the people who work there aren't so sure that they like how it's run. They might say "they should pay better!" or "we should get more time off!" But in the private sector, they don't get a lot of say on it. They don't like it, they can get a job somewhre else.

But what we ignore is the "governmetn" does what we tell them to. We say they don't, but they do. We say they don't when "the other side" gets to decide something. Then we say "they're not listening to the people!" Well, yeah they are, they're just listening to other people.

And right now, the people are saying "cut spending but not anything I want". And it's not working out so well. In big part that's because it benefits the tools who want power to lie to them. So they get all charged up about some guy and he tells them what they want to hear "your taxes are too high because 'they' are wasting it!" He doesn't mention that they're wasting it on stuff you want. He says "look how much PBS is costing! None of you watch educational television! Why do you have to pay for it!?" He leaves out the part where it doesn't add up to shit and won't change anything. It fires up the people and they vote and say "yeah! it's 'their' fault!"

But, really, it's our fault.

[doucanoe]

I'm personally not asking anything of them much more than to maintain the roads, police and fire protection along with the basics when it comes to social services.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I'm personally not asking anything of them much more than to maintain the roads, police and fire protection along with the basics when it comes to social services.

Sure you are. You're just on the other side of the coin. You're on the "I don't want to pay for the services because I don't agree with those decisions" side.

[doucanoe]

I don't think that you are following along with my thinking, Ed. Everyone of course has opinions regarding what is important to them and what isn't. It's not all about what you or I want, it's about whether or not government on both a state and fed level has grown themselves beyond the limits of the peoples ability to maintain current levels of what anyone wants financially.

Your argument is flawed because you have left out one important element. You make the assumption the all this has been done solely for the benefit of the people by benevolent individuals and it's only the "people" that can't come together on what should go. What you have left out is the reality that we have allowed government (not all of course) to evolve into a career path for the self serving with little effort for checks and balances. Politicians aren't going to shoot their reelection chances in the foot by doing the right thing. It's so it's much easier to pass it off on public indecision.

Once again, it's not just the people who want this or that or don't want this or that. It's also much about government preserving government. I'm sure the throngs of individuals in prominent positions to those working in every dark corner of the machine have quite a voice as to what goes away and what doesn't.

Nobody likes to lose their job and I'm convinced that most haven't heard "no" for quite some time.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Your argument is flawed because you have left out one important element.

I always know I'm in trouble when I hear these words.

My argument is not flawed. I'm 100% certain of that. Because it's not an argument. It's just an observation.

Fact #1. If you eliminated the entire Federal budget, except for Social Security, Medicade, Medicare and Military spending, it would not balance the budget.

Fact #2. If you run for office and suggest that you'll cut Social Security, Medicade, Medicare or Military spending, you can not get elected. The so called "third rail" of politics.

Fact #3. If you run for office and suggest that you will cut spending so we don't have to raise taxes, in many places you will get elected.

Fact #4. If you run for office and suggest that you will raise taxes so we can pay down our debt, you can not get elected.

Fact #5. There is no way to reconcile facts 1 through 4.

It's quite the quandary. And the Teapublicans are doing exactly as I said they would- knew they would. They could do nothing else. They will cut some minimal numbers from the budget against things they don't like. Then they will go home and tell the voters "I cut spending by 11 Million dollars!" People will go "ooooh, that sounds like a lot" and we'll be in debt even more two years from now than we are now.

But, rest assured, someone will again be running for office saying "we just need to cut spending!" There's a commercial on TV right now about some tax on soda. Okay, I'm down with that. That's a stupid tax. But the tag line- "The government needs to trim it's budget, not tell us yadda yadda" Something like that. But "trim it's budget" is the line for sure.

Well first, there is no "government" to trim bupkus. There's just us and the people we elect to represent us. So talking about us in the third person doesn't really change anything. Second, "trim" the budget?! Ha! A little off the sides. Really? That's what "government" needs to do? That's the most assassin thing I've heard. And it's advertising intentionally crafted to imply that cutting a little here and a little there will take care of things. But math tells us it won't. And every year we pretend like it's not a problem we get much deeper.

And, seriously, "benevolent individuals"?! Have you read anything I've ever posted? There aren't any benevolent individuals in office. No benevolent individuals would take the job. They're all power hungry ass holes. That's the only reason anyone would run. And yes, they are lying. They are lying to keep their power. But it's not the lies that are causing the problems, it's the idiots who keep buying the same line expecting some different result. We simply can't keep all the programs they say we can and not pay for them. It's that simple. And you can "trickle down" and "expand the tax base" all you want, it won't change anything. It doesn't add up. Bush said "cut taxes and everything will be dandy". We cut taxes. Everything isn't dandy. Then the Teapublicans said "keep the tax cuts and everything will be dandy". We kept the tax cuts. Everything isn't dandy. The whole "cut spending" idea only works if we, you know, cut spending. But so far, no cut. Next year? No cut. Year after that? No cut. Why? See above.

Chas had it right earlier. We need big cuts in the sacred cow programs, not silly games of semantics about some self aware being called "the Government" that's out to get us and our money. If we'd quit pretending there was a monster out to get us, we could stop killing ourselves.

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

It's shameful how they are conducting themselves, Carl. Here we are trying to provide our young people with the tools to become productive, innovative world class decision makers and the system is heaping on them massive financial burdens that they don't even full comprehend yet. I'm certainly not calling for "free" post high school education but the cost to benefit ratio has got to be questioned at some point.

In response to Gov. Jerry Brown's proposal to slash $500 million from the University of California budget, UC President Mark G. Yudof said this week that he might be forced to flout the state's 50-year-old Master Plan for Higher Education by reducing enrollment by thousands of students who otherwise would qualify for entrance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5809615.story

As they wrapped up their meeting in San Diego, the regents also awarded controversial, 10% pay raises to three financial managers in the UC president’s office whose salaries after the increases will range from $216,370 to $247,500. Officials defended the one-time raises as a way to save money in the long run;

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...pay-hikes.html




Just a taste, there is much more of this type of nonsense going on.


Carl