Rahm Emanual WTF?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Where was this when he was in whitehouse?
He's changed parties :scared

http://wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2238026&spid=

WLS Radio's Bill Cameron Reports
CHICAGO (WLS) - Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he's going to lay off up to 625 city workers, a move he says will save $10 million to $12 million for the rest of this year.
During the news conference Emanuel said, ?I did not create this problem, but I will resolve this problem. They can be my partner in doing things smarter, better and more efficient and cost-effective to the tax payers. The people that struggle everyday in this city, get up, raise their kids, go to work and pay the bills. I will be their voice. They deserve one in City Hall.?
Emanuel says he gave the city's unions until Friday to come up with proposals to avoid the cuts, and they haven't produced any.

 

[Skulnik]

Pity Really.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-layoff-20110716,0,6005284.story

Rahm to labor: Choose

This is common sense

Do work rules trump workers?
Chicago's municipal labor unions have to decide that right now.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced Friday that layoff notices will go out to as many as 625 city workers. Some layoffs will start immediately---



----Jorge Ramirez, president of the Chicago Federation of Labor, said union leaders were "perplexed" by Emanuel's move on Friday.
Some 34,000 Chicagoans work for city government.
And some 2.7 million Chicagoans don't work for the city. But many of them do work, and they do pay taxes.
And to them, what the mayor's doing is not perplexing at all. It's just common sense.

 

[ImFeklhr]

Managing a municipal government is a different animal. You can't print money, and most states/cities are required by law to balance budgets.

As it should be.

 

[Mags]

Managing a municipal government is a different animal. You can't print money, and most states/cities are required by law to balance budgets.

As it should be.

Interesting - sounds just like what Walker did in WI. Only difference (big difference) - he gaves municipalities the option whether to require contributions by public workers - so the municipalities could decide what was best - lay off workers or impose cuts.

Rahm is letting the union decide what they think is best instead. Which is a foolish move - as the union is more concerned with themselves and their power than what is right for the public at large. Which is why they have massive layoffs there, instead of cost concessions.

Walker did it the right way - make the decision makers, and those that are responsible for the budget, make the decisions - not the union.

Nevertheless, is is surprising that Rahm is not taking more heat over this (gotta love the liberal media!)

 

[Trench]

Interesting - sounds just like what Walker did in WI.

You still don't get it, do ya Mags?

This bears no resemblence whatsoever to what Walker did in Wisconsin. Emmanuel proposed measures to close the budget gap in Chicago and the union failed to respond. Emmanuel made no attempt to strip city workers of their collective bargaining rights. Once again, your comments reveal your continued failure to understand the core issue of the Wisconsin labor battle.

 

[ImFeklhr]

You still don't get it, do ya Mags?

This bears no resemblence whatsoever to what Walker did in Wisconsin. Emmanuel proposed measures to close the budget gap in Chicago and the union failed to respond. Emmanuel made no attempt to strip city workers of their collective bargaining rights. Once again, your comments reveal your continued failure to understand the core issue of the Wisconsin labor battle.

I don't really get why we need collective bargaining for public employees. Don't we as "stock-holders" of all public companies, whether it's police or teachers or janitors, decide what the pay is fair for government workers? If we value quality services from our government we will vote-in representatives that will pay government workers highly so you get high level workers vis a vis the private sector. If we don't value a particular service we will vote in representatives that will low-ball government workers. The ensuing poor service received from government workers paid on the cheap would be readily apparent.

Unions are one thing when it is the dog eat dog world of business. But since when is working for the government been viewed as cutthroat? Aren't most government jobs based on who you know and newer forms of patronage?

 

[Mags]

I don't really get why we need collective bargaining for public employees. Don't we as "stock-holders" of all public companies, whether it's police or teachers or janitors, decide what the pay is fair for government workers? If we value quality services from our government we will vote-in representatives that will pay government workers highly so you get high level workers vis a vis the private sector. If we don't value a particular service we will vote in representatives that will low-ball government workers. The ensuing poor service received from government workers paid on the cheap would be readily apparent.

Unions are one thing when it is the dog eat dog world of business. But since when is working for the government been viewed as cutthroat? Aren't most government jobs based on who you know and newer forms of patronage?

Exactly what I've been saying (and most educated folks like FDR) have been saying all along - unions have no place in the public sector. Bad Public policy. And even the ones fighting for them know it is bad policy, but all they care about is themselves and their power.

 

[Trench]

I don't really get why we need collective bargaining for public employees. Don't we as "stock-holders" of all public companies, whether it's police or teachers or janitors, decide what the pay is fair for government workers? If we value quality services from our government we will vote-in representatives that will pay government workers highly so you get high level workers vis a vis the private sector. If we don't value a particular service we will vote in representatives that will low-ball government workers. The ensuing poor service received from government workers paid on the cheap would be readily apparent.

Unions are one thing when it is the dog eat dog world of business. But since when is working for the government been viewed as cutthroat? Aren't most government jobs based on who you know and newer forms of patronage?

What our friend Mags knows but won't admit is that public unions, while seemingly anachronistic in todays world, are the last vestige of organized opposition to the complete and final takeover of our political system by corporations and big money interests.

Even if it's difficult to see the need for public unions from an economic standpoint, it shouldn't be difficult to understand the need for organized political opposition to the hostile takeover of our political system by the corporate elite. The Citizens United ruling paved the way for corporate interests like Koch Industries to systematically attack any and all opposition to their agenda. It's happening before our very eyes and the 2010 mid-term elections were only the beginning.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Managing a municipal government is a different animal. You can't print money, and most states/cities are required by law to balance budgets.

As it should be.

:toast:

--the feds--well as any responsible entity should have to operate on same principles.

If they did- we wouldn't have this fiasco--nor credit repair ads on TV.

U.S.is getting close to inevitable results of those TV ads are made for--they won't be able pay interest on debt--let alone principal.

It's mindboggeling we have reached a point where so many believe balanced budgets are bad and debt is good--because it effects their lifestyles.

 

[ImFeklhr]

:toast:

--the feds--well as any responsible entity should have to operate on same principles.

If they did- we wouldn't have this fiasco--nor credit repair ads on TV.

U.S.is getting close to inevitable results of those TV ads are made for--they won't be able pay interest on debt--let alone principal.

It's mindboggeling we have reached a point where so many believe balanced budgets are bad and debt is good--because it effects their lifestyles.

Well the problem is we have gone so far down the rabbit hole as it relates to debt, that we can't just stop now...without feeling serious pain. We kinda had a chance when the economy tanked a few years ago. But instead of saying "let's take our medicine of having a few years of a really bad economy" we decided to bail out banks and prints a ton of money and pass the problem 10 years down the road.

We have so much debt, and deficit spending that to suddenly balance the budgets we would face serious pain. I don't particularly "want" to endure a few years of serious shitty times, but I feel like that would set us on the right track for the future. :shrug:

 

[Duff Miver]

It's hilarious about the "born-again" financial conservatives.

They now think the USA should have a balanced budget every year, one where everything is on a cash-and-carry basis. No borrowing, no debt allowed.

Then they go on about "balancing the budget like a family does at the kitchen table."

If every family operated on the cash-and carry basis, there would be no home mortgages, no car loans, no student loans.

These teabaggers elected last election are dumb as doggies.:facepalm:

 

[Chadman]

We have so much debt, and deficit spending that to suddenly balance the budgets we would face serious pain. I don't particularly "want" to endure a few years of serious shitty times, but I feel like that would set us on the right track for the future. :shrug:

I think that a couple of key areas that would help work on this debt are foreign aid and federal government expenditures on state pork projects. I don't pretend to understand the ramifications of our foreign aid programs, but it seems to me when our own country is doing so poorly financially, perhaps a year or two of (at least) cuts in foreign aid and stopping government funding of individual projects for states (that senators and representatives ask for and benefit from) would be a smart start.

 

[ImFeklhr]

I think that a couple of key areas that would help work on this debt are foreign aid and federal government expenditures on state pork projects. I don't pretend to understand the ramifications of our foreign aid programs, but it seems to me when our own country is doing so poorly financially, perhaps a year or two of (at least) cuts in foreign aid and stopping government funding of individual projects for states (that senators and representatives ask for and benefit from) would be a smart start.

Yeah I don't know either. I'm not an economist, just sharing 1-man's thoughts. Problem is it seems like the scale of the debt is so huge that no one cut will make enough of a dent. Except across the board cuts on everything, or seriously looking at military budget.

 

[ImFeklhr]

It's hilarious about the "born-again" financial conservatives.

They now think the USA should have a balanced budget every year, one where everything is on a cash-and-carry basis. No borrowing, no debt allowed.

Then they go on about "balancing the budget like a family does at the kitchen table."

If every family operated on the cash-and carry basis, there would be no home mortgages, no car loans, no student loans.

These teabaggers elected last election are dumb as doggies.:facepalm:

Borrowing and debt should be allowed, but avoided when possible. Let me ask you this: what do you think is the best case scenario for our current debt problem?

 

[Duff Miver]

Borrowing and debt should be allowed, but avoided when possible. Let me ask you this: what do you think is the best case scenario for our current debt problem?

I don't know the entire answer to that, but here are some ideas:

1. Get out of Iraq and Iran. Tomorrow afternoon would not be too soon. Close 90% of our bases which are in other countries. By Monday. Cut the DoD budget by 50%. Immediately.

2. Create jobs. Now.

a. End tax breaks for American Corps which are earned overseas.

b. Require all able-bodied people to work. If there is absolutely no work available, create jobs WPA style. Payment for those jobs the same as present unemployment checks.

c. Re institute selected import duties.

3. Temporarily return income tax rates to what they were in 1960 until the debt is paid down.

4. Limit campaign contributions to $100 per individual or corporation.

5. No more earmarks. Every penny to be approved in the Federal budget.

6. Add another 1000 auditors to the IRS, and collect every penny which is owed. Make willful failure to pay taxes a capital offense. IN the case of corps, the CEO, COO, and CFO swing - publicly, on a Saturday afternoon, bring the kiddies and a picnic lunch.

That's not enough, but it's a start.

 

[ImFeklhr]

I don't know the entire answer to that, but here are some ideas:

1. Get out of Iraq and Iran. Tomorrow afternoon would not be too soon. Close 90% of our bases which are in other countries. By Monday. Cut the DoD budget by 50%. Immediately.

2. Create jobs. Now.

a. End tax breaks for American Corps which are earned overseas.

b. Require all able-bodied people to work. If there is absolutely no work available, create jobs WPA style. Payment for those jobs the same as present unemployment checks.

c. Re institute selected import duties.

3. Temporarily return income tax rates to what they were in 1960 until the debt is paid down.

4. Limit campaign contributions to $100 per individual or corporation.

5. No more earmarks. Every penny to be approved in the Federal budget.

6. Add another 1000 auditors to the IRS, and collect every penny which is owed. Make willful failure to pay taxes a capital offense. IN the case of corps, the CEO, COO, and CFO swing - publicly, on a Saturday afternoon, bring the kiddies and a picnic lunch.

That's not enough, but it's a start.

Works for me. Don't agree with it all, but shit, pretty much every plan we discuss in hear is better than what the politicians are coming up with.

 

[Duff Miver]

Works for me. Don't agree with it all, but shit, pretty much every plan we discuss in hear is better than what the politicians are coming up with.

We don't have to agree on everything to make progress.

Shit, any three folks on this board ('cept doggie and the Maggot) could spend a few hours with pencil and paper and produce a better plan than the entire Congress will.

Of course we aren't getting any bribe money.

 

[Chadman]

We don't have to agree on everything to make progress.

Shit, any three folks on this board ('cept doggie and the Maggot) could spend a few hours with pencil and paper and produce a better plan than the entire Congress will.

Of course we aren't getting any bribe money.

I gotta say, that I don't think the eternal ripping of Wayne and Mags is fair when it comes to figuring out what's best for the country. Honestly, many of their concepts and questions are fair and worth looking at, in my opinion. I know it's not the "cool" thing to say, but one-sided views on either side are not ultimately a good thing for our country. We have to have a balance - but I'm sick of the ripping that goes on these days - on both sides. It does no good.

I guess I finally need to say in some small way that I think the name-calling and inane ripping that goes on between people trying to talk about things is ridiculous here. A sign of the times, to be sure, but it's just ridiculous, unless it matters that much to you personally. And then again, I think that makes it ridiculous, and undermining of your points.

Cheers, sorry for the rambling...