T1B

smackaholic wrote:up through at least the 60s, many teachers attended 2 year teachers colleges. and the product they turned out was light years ahead of what we get now. you don't learn to teach in grad school, you learn to teach in the fukking classroom by teaching.

Where the fuck are you from? Arkansas?

Speaking as someone who received their public education from the mid-50's through the 60's in Iowa, I never had a teacher who didn't possess at least a 4 year degree. I know that's not true in all states but it has been that way in Iowa for a very long time.

Yes, you learn how to teach "in the classroom", which is why college students do their student teaching in a classroom, but you learn what to teach when you're in the college classroom.

Mace wrote:

88 wrote:

Mace wrote:"Grossly excessive?" Not at all. The government needs to offer a pension plan for employees to attract them to the jobs and I don't think that 60-65% of your annual salary is excessive. Don't forget that the employee also contributes to the pension fund every month during their employment (at least in Iowa). What percent would you suggest as a fair amount to pay out for a pension? My "lifetime health insurance" is called medicare and whatever supplemental insurance I buy out of my own pocket. I also received a check for a $400 dividend this month that comes from a surplus fund from the pension. It's not guaranteed and will eventually run out if the investment market doesn't improve but, for this year, I got $400.

I'm not going to apologize for receiving 64% of my salary in exchange for 34 years of my life and doing a job that gave me a comfortable, but not extravagent, lifestyle. A State paying 75-105% of your salary would be excessive to me.

So, 88, what do you see as a fair percentage for a public employee pension? I don't feel that I'm making out like a bandit.....hell, my pension barely pays the monthy bills, which is why I'm working as a substitute teacher and operating a lawncare business to supplement my income.

The government doesn't need a pension system to attract employees to jobs that pay them higher wages than comparable jobs in the private sector. There should be no public pensions at all. The public sector should be the same as the private sector. On its own to save up for the future.

And what are these high paying jobs of which you speak? It certainly wasn't all that lucrative being a probation/parole officer....or a school teacher, for that matter.

And apparently Goobs is correct....your wife is a slacker. My wife is in school by 7am every morning and is never home before 5pm....then returns to school to take tickets at basketball games, work in a concession stand, or to a variety of meetings. She prepares for classes at home, grades papers at home, and does whatever else she needs to do that she can't complete in the one free prep period she and all of the other teachers get each day. Those "in-service" days at our local school consist of staff training, not free time for teachers to grade papers or do classroom work.

It sounds like Oregon's pension plan is fucked up but, in all honesty, Iowa's is in relatively good shape. Iowa public employees contribute monthly to the plan, as I said before, and it's matched by the State. All of the money is invested and an employee can withdraw all of the money that they have contributed, without interest, at any time before they reach retirement age. Maybe you make enough and can save enough to create your own retirement plan, but the majority of public employees I know don't make nearly enough to do that.

You don't think that public employees should have a pension. Fine. I'm just glad you're not in charge of anything.

I was a teacher for about 6 years in a non-union district. 11 hr days were common and you take work/papers home to grade... and you had to coach or something else off the clock where you barely got paid. $34k/yr was not worth it. Great benefits if you can put up with it.

Mace wrote:

smackaholic wrote:up through at least the 60s, many teachers attended 2 year teachers colleges. and the product they turned out was light years ahead of what we get now. you don't learn to teach in grad school, you learn to teach in the fukking classroom by teaching.

Where the fuck are you from? Arkansas?

Speaking as someone who received their public education from the mid-50's through the 60's in Iowa, I never had a teacher who didn't possess at least a 4 year degree. I know that's not true in all states but it has been that way in Iowa for a very long time.

Yes, you learn how to teach "in the classroom", which is why college students do their student teaching in a classroom, but you learn what to teach when you're in the college classroom.

connecticut.

most of my teachers had bachelors or better, but, some of the old timers did not and from what i recall they said that the was normal for teachers back then. and the state of edumacashum was a damn sight better than it is today.

do you really think it takes a post grad degree to teach any high school or lower class?

i don't.

it takes a thourough knowledge of the material and a little training in how to teach. most of that actual occurs on the job. not saying that they might not pick up a thing or two on the post grad level, but, not enough to make it mandatory.

and save me the bullshit about how we need the best educated teachers in the world. that is bullshit. we need teachers with a decent amount of knowledge, but, more importantly, we need people that actually want to be there because they love teaching. not people who are there for the smoking benefits package and the ability to retire at 50.

Atomic Punk wrote: I was a teacher for about 6 years in a non-union district. 11 hr days were common and you take work/papers home to grade... and you had to coach or something else off the clock where you barely got paid. $34k/yr was not worth it. Great benefits if you can put up with it.

should have moved to Ct. we have the highest paid public school teachers in the nation. actually, i think we are number two after alaska where the cost of living is ridiculous. i believe they start in the 40s and are over 50 pretty quickly. not bad for a gig with summers off.

fi you really want to do well, you take a yob in one of the big cities where they get combat pay that puts them around 70. and they earn it imo. tough gig compared to the burbs where enarly every kid there has an intact family and parents with a clue.

smackaholic wrote:do you really think it takes a post grad degree to teach any high school or lower class?

i don't.

it takes a thourough knowledge of the material and a little training in how to teach. most of that actual occurs on the job. not saying that they might not pick up a thing or two on the post grad level, but, not enough to make it mandatory.

No, I don't think it's necessary for a high school teacher to have a Masters Degree and, the ones I know that have one, either did it to get a bump in pay or intend to become school administrators. Nothing wrong with either of those motives.

and save me the bullshit about how we need the best educated teachers in the world. that is bullshit. we need teachers with a decent amount of knowledge, but, more importantly, we need people that actually want to be there because they love teaching. not people who are there for the smoking benefits package and the ability to retire at 50.

No bullshit from me....it's all coming from you. A teacher in Iowa can't retire at age 50 and get anywhere near a full pension. We actually need highly educated teachers who want to be there because they love teaching. I don't think it should be an either/or situation.

88 wrote:Well, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I'd say that I would not have been better off taking a job in the Public Defender's office. But no one knows that when they get into practice, do they?

I knew when I took my job in 1977 that I was never going to get rich making $10,200 a year (my starting salary) but I knew that I could make a living and someday raise a family. I also knew about the pension but, back in my 20's, didn't really consider that as a major benefit because it was 30+ years away. The State paid for my single insurance and, when I married, my wife got her single insurance through the school district. When we had kids, we paid the difference between a single and family policy. I see those benefits as being excessive and they're pretty much the same as the private sector employees I know. I paid into the pension every month of my employment, as did the State, who then invested that money to pay my pension. The pension fund took a hit a couple of years ago but is still financially sound. I settled for a smaller salary than I could have received in the private sector and have a pension that I paid into for 34 years. Yes, it's a nice benefit but it's not excessive by any stretch of the imagination. You decided to enter private practice and are making more money than I ever did and are able to invest your money for retirement as you see fit.

If you don't want public employees to have a pension, fine......give them a hell of a salary increase so they can create their own portfolio.

I think you're missing my point.

Why should people who work for the People continue to get paid by the People when they stop working for the People? Why should they be treated differently than people who don't work for the People, who don't continue to get paid by anyone when they stop working?

Why? Because they don't earn enough to have their own private retirement plan. Public employees should earn a salary commensurate with the education required to do the job and a pension is a benefit that the States throw out to them so that they don't have to do that. If being a public employee was so lucrative, you'd be a Public Defender.


I think it was Derron who spoke of furloughs and the employees getting enough overtime hours to make up the difference. Iowa has had furloughs the past few years too but, at least in my department, there has never been any overtime hours. We always worked 45-50 hours but always got paid for 40 hours. Some of the union folks filed lawsuits about 10 years ago and received settlements and, after that, we risked a suspension if we worked more than 40 hours. My supervisor was an old schooler like myself (we were rookies together working in the same office) and I told him I'd never turn in overtime but would not leave the office until the work was done. He was okay with that and just asked that I not tell anyone. He also knew that I wouldn't be filing a suit. I always figured that I was receiving an annual salary and that, as a professional, I should do the job for the salary they were paying, no matter how many hours a week it took.

88 wrote:50% of the population that is here isn't paying any federal income taxes.

Bullshit. And what that has to do with state pensions I haven't the foggiest.

Mace, I suspect that in Iowa things are still reasonably sane when it comes to public/private compensation. Places that have been run buy the democratic machine such as the U&R, left coast and more urbanized parts of the midwest like chicago and c-land are different. In these places getting a gubmint gig has long been considered akin to hitting the lottery. This is especially true of those with little higher educatin'.

As I have done before when this topic comes up, I will tell you about my buddy who works for the dept of crazy fukkers. Jay is a HS grad with a handful of college courses. He spent a number of years working as a security guard and also managed to get a gig working for some private sector drug rehab place as a counselor. Both of these yobs never paid a penny over 15 bucks an hour. He tried to get on with police forces, but, lacking a criminal justice degree or military experience, couldn't. He was able to get into the prison guard racket but realized within a month or two that he couldn't stand it and bailed. He then got into the dept of mental health. The drug rehab place experience helped with this, but, he has told me that pretty much anyone with a psych AA from the local CC can get in....when they are hiring.

So, basically, we are talking about a person who's education/experience level says he's worth about 15 bucks an hour. He makes thirty with a gold plated pension plan because he works at in the really, really crazy, in a criminal type of way, department. He works the night shift and puts in a good bit of OT and in the past 5 years has earned 6 figures each year. I bust his ass about being overpaid in a criminal type of way, he just laughs and says i'm a dumbfukk for not getting in the state racket. He was gripping pretty hard during this last election because the republican candidate said he would privatize his department. The democrat of course got in on the strength of the public sector employees and the urban unwashed masses. I've told him that he's not out of the woods yet and that he should save plenty in a 401K (he does) because I doubt that epcot retirement plan is gonna be there in full when he retires.

As for your citing 88 and the crazy money he makes, remember a few things. Law school is expensive, you gotta be reasonably smart and highly motivated to just get in and then you have to pass a bar. And if you get all the way through that, you are still guaranteed nothing. If you suck at it, you will not make it and prolly end up taking one of those public sector jobs for not a whole lotta money.

Jsc810 wrote: Even though I'm a Republican

:xxxl:

Jsc810 wrote:Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Bush
McCain

you really dropped the ball on the last three elections

mvscal wrote:You may begin at any time.

hey I gave $2 to some shebeast hanging out on the corner with a sign that said she'd been laid off and that she was pregnant......doubt arose when she came closer (couldn't imagine anybody laying wood to that), but I was stuck at the stop light so I felt obligated....

88 wrote:Why should the wealthy have to pay for the poor?

Henry Ford (certainly no socialist, he) recognized that it was in his own best interest to pay his employees well enough that they also could afford to be customers.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

88 wrote:Why should the wealthy have to pay for the poor?

Henry Ford (certainly no socialist, he) recognized that it was in his own best interest to pay his employees well enough that they also could afford to be customers.

What does that have to do with welfare?

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:

88 wrote:50% of the population that is here isn't paying any federal income taxes.

Bullshit. And what that has to do with state pensions I haven't the foggiest.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... l?x=0&.v=1

Of course all working families have withholding taken throughout the year. Which means Uncle Sam has gotten a nice fat interest free loan. Also, they pay excise taxes in greater proportion to their income than rich people. And let us not forget payroll taxes, which are also not avoidable.

Your article says that a family of 4 making 50k a year or less is exempt from paying taxes. Honestly, if 50% of the country is in that bad a shape, then there is no wonder why we're in a recession. Who the fuck are you expecting to spend us out of this recession?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

88 wrote:Why should the wealthy have to pay for the poor?

Henry Ford (certainly no socialist, he) recognized that it was in his own best interest to pay his employees well enough that they also could afford to be customers.

hank didn't give a fukk about whether or not they could afford to be customers. what he did give a fukk about was having a workforce that would show up every day, on time, sober. he quickly realized that the whole production line thingy doesn't work if a single station on the line is unmanned. this is why he paid double, if not better, the going wage.

smackaholic wrote:hank didn't give a fukk about whether or not they could afford to be customers.

Yes, he did. He was quite specific on that point.

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:hank didn't give a fukk about whether or not they could afford to be customers.

Yes, he did. He was quite specific on that point.

I'm sure he put out that that was a goal and it certainly was a good thing. According to a documentary i saw on the history channel it said that his primary reason for doing it was to have a workforce that was committed to showing up every day. The only way to do that was to pay better than anyone else around.

smackaholic wrote:According to a documentary i saw on the history channel

Stop digging.

Not digging. Just telling you what i saw on this documentary.

Of course he put out that he wanted to have employees that could afford his product. It sounds better than saying it's the only way to get a bunch of mics, pollacks and guineas to show up on time and sober.

Certainly, adding them to the customer list was a benefit, but, according to this documentary, the primary reason was that in a production line system, it is absolutely essential to have very good attendance. If you have more than a small percentage of people out, the entire line grinds to a halt.

Old hank was a master of production efficiency. If he thought he could have gotten the same work out of his employees and paid them less, he would have, but, he knew better.

88,

I do see your point and, in all honesty, I would not have cared if they had deducted the entire 6% from my paycheck with no matching funds coming from the State. The State of Iowa has done a pretty good job of investing and monitoring the funds but there would be some employees who would undoubtedly prefer to invest their own money. That's not the way it works at this point in time but, given the state of the economy, it could change at some point in the future for the current State employees.

Smackaholic,

Yeah, you live in a different world than me....no doubt about it. Our State government is a pretty moderate and common sensical lot. We have checks and balances to protect the taxpayers from much of the corruptions you speak of and I don't know anyone working in the field staff (as I was) making anywhere close to six figures. Department heads and the Governor make six figures but, unless you're a head coach at one of the universities, you'll never make that kind of money. We have a good work ethic in Iowa (likely because of our agricultural roots) and, in 34 years, I never received one cent of overtime pay, even though I typically work 50+ hours a week. Iowa is a "right to work" state which, if you're unfamiliar with that, means that you cannot be forced to join a union which, in effect, weakens the unions but still grants them the authority to negotiate contracts. I was always outspoken about saying we needed to agree to a pay freeze to save jobs in tough economic times over the years but, since I wasn't a member of the union, never had a vote and had to live with the vote of the members. In fact, one of the reasons I retired last year was to save a young person's job who would have been laid off had I stayed. Financially, I'd have been better off to stay for a couple of more years but there were other factors involved in my decision as well.

As for 88's income, I don't begrudge him making more than me. Quite the contrary. I know many lawyers and Judges that I consider very good friends and have a respect for them and their profession, even though I've met a few over the years who fit the shyster mold and are the reasons for all of the lawyer jokes. In fact, I had two Judges and an Assistant Attorney General volunteer to be references for me if I decided to seek other employment after retirement. The folks here can say what they want about lawyers and Judges but I've found the vast majority to be honest, intelligent, and fair minded....and they deserve whatever they can earn.

Dammit Mace, stop being such a nice, reasonable, agreeable guy. No room for that here.

Mikey wrote:Dammit Mace, stop being such a nice, reasonable, agreeable guy. No room for that here.

yeah, no shit. this place has a reputation to uphold.

now go fukk yourself and get another job and stop mooching off the good people of iowa.

btw, rack you for stepping down for some young guy.

88 wrote:Are you advocating progressive excise taxes? That would be a hoot. Sir, I need to see your 1040 to determine whether that Snickers bar costs $0.49 of $37.50...

The abolition of all excise taxes would be a good start. It is not logical to have so many different forms of taxation. It is wasteful and inefficient. Better to have one progressive income tax and call it a day.

BSmack wrote:Which, like excise taxes, are also not income taxes. Any good liberal knows that. This is the basis of the liberal argument that Social Security and Medicare are solvent, self-sustaining programs that are not considered any part of the budget (notwithstanding that virtually all of the money collected for these programs to date has already been spent on other things, which now must be paid for with income taxes).

Yet they are taxes and poor people are paying them. Poor people also pay a far greater percentage of their income in sales taxes.

BSmack wrote:You can never spend your way out of a recession with borrowed money, chief. Sometimes you just have to eat a shit sandwich for a few years after an artificially inflated bubble explodes before you can resume your irresponsible ways.

Yes, actually you can spend your way out of a recession with borrowed money. This country's problem is that the previous occupant of the White House borrowed obscene amounts of money when there was no recession.

Do any of you tedious boring asswipes have a clue as to what's going on?

TUNIS, Tunisia — After 23 years of iron-fisted rule, the president of Tunisia was driven from power Friday by violent protests over soaring unemployment and corruption. Virtually unprecedented in modern Arab history, the populist uprising sent an ominous message to authoritarian governments that dominate the region.

The office of Saudi King Abdullah confirmed early Saturday that ousted President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and his family had landed in Saudi Arabia, after several hours of mystery over his whereabouts. "As a result of the Saudi kingdom's respect for the exceptional circumstances the Tunisian people are going through, and with its wish for peace and security to return to the people of Tunisia, we have welcomed" him, the statement said.

Tunisians buoyant over Ben Ali's ouster faced uncertainly, however, about what's next for the North African nation. The country was under the caretaker leadership of the prime minister who took control, the role of the army in the transition was unknown, and it was uncertain whether Ben Ali's departure would be enough to restore calm.


Now perhaps you've been conditioned to pretend to think..."oh, great, another move towards American styled values of democracy, etc"

Well fuck you, the U.S. puppet government will help to suppress the brave Tunisian people just like it savagely attacked the people of Nicaragua..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/1 ... 09473.html

WW

BSmack wrote: Yes, actually you can spend your way out of a recession with borrowed money. This country's problem is that the previous occupant of the White House borrowed obscene amounts of money when there was no recession.

You are correct. Bush did borrow an obscene amount. Part of this was understandable as wars tend to be pricey. I'll save the whether or not we should have been in that war for a different thread. What was not understandable was his attempting to out democrat the democrats at the same time.

But this was just part of the problem. The other part was the ridiculous private sector borrowing spurred on by the fed's free interest for everybody policy along with various gubmint agencies strong arming banks to loan to those with credit level similar to lets turds board credit level.

You are also correct about another thing bri. the biggest problem with the tax system is it's complexity.

I would like to see a simple income tax. It would be progressive, but would exempt no one. I would also ban all deductions. Deductions are just a way for one group to persuade another group to spend in a particular manner. They are also a huge source of power for politicians. Take them away and all the DC whore's sugar daddies will fold their tents and go home.

I realize that this would create about 80% unemployment inside the beltway, but, too fukking bad. Screwey can find jizz to mop somewhere else.

There is one other area we could get a nice chunk of money from. The place they used to get it before they decided to start bleeding us.

Tariffs.

We could come up with a formula based on trade surplus/deficit as a percentage of total trade. If we run a high % deficit with a country, we have a high tariff on their goods. If we run no deficit, no tariff. This could be recalculated on a yearly basis, or even more often if it seems a particular country is trying to game the system.

I would also use this tariff as a diplomatic tool.

Help us fight wars?

[flo from progressive] DISCOUNT!!!!! [/flo from progressive]

Cock block us diplomatically, 'sup china?, tack a little extra on.

It really baffles the hell out of me how we can have problems with Kim il mad golf skillz at the same time we import bazillions of dollars worth of junk from china. We don't need 6 party talks or 2 carrier groups in the sea of japan. We just need to shut down our ports to chinese shipping for a spell till that fukker disappears.

Problem with that is the whores in DC are hooked on beijing $$$$ and being good little junkies, they'll do whatever their dealers asks.

88 wrote:

Mace wrote:88,

I do see your point and, in all honesty, I would not have cared if they had deducted the entire 6% from my paycheck with no matching funds coming from the State. The State of Iowa has done a pretty good job of investing and monitoring the funds but there would be some employees who would undoubtedly prefer to invest their own money. That's not the way it works at this point in time but, given the state of the economy, it could change at some point in the future for the current State employees.

Its cool. I'm part of the problem too. My wife went into teaching for several reasons, one of which was that it provided benefits that were far better than anything she could hope to obtain in the private sector. As long as the People continue to permit their representatives to hand out gold plated benefits to government workers, you would be a fool to turn them down. But the People are screwing the pooch on this one in the long run.

Another factor is where we live. We live in greater Cleveland. This has been a one-party town for decades. Since 1950, the City of Cleveland has lost more than half of its population. The same is true of the Cleveland Public School District. But there have no been commensurate cuts in administrators and teachers. And the Cleveland Public School District, which routinely scores among the very worst in terms of academic performance in the State of Ohio, routinely leads the State of Ohio in terms of per pupil spending and teacher/administrator salaries. The fact that Cleveland pays its teachers so much puts pressure on suburban school districts to spend that much too. This entire region is grossly overpaid. The couple that live across the street from me are both teachers in the Cleveland Public School District. They are in their late 50's and have worked nearly 30 years in the district. Between the two of them, they make $180,000 in salary plus benefits. And they constantly talk about going on strike if the District whispers about not giving them a raise or attempts to reduce any of their benefits.

88,

Why are you against this spending, you evil money grubing, odd chromosome having, knuckledragging, lawyer, POS?

It's for some administrator's beach house the chillins.

I don't know anything about the cost of living in Cleveland but my wife is in her 35th year of teaching and has never reached a $50,000 salary, and will certainly never get anything close to $90,000. Another thing, public employees covered by AFSCME or the teacher's union in Iowa cannot strike.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: the U.S. puppet government will help to suppress the brave Tunisian people...

Yeah, those same brave Tunisian souls who are now rioting and looting.

88 wrote: Due to improvements in the ability to transport goods over enormous distances swiftly and at low cost, and the ability to perform services remotely, the United States has lost its edge in terms of manufacturing. We can no longer afford to hand out benefits like its 1957.

You are either as stupid as a dead dog or one lying assed fuck. There are plenty of first world nations doing just fine thank you. Same day and age. Same transportation costs, same every thing as us except they have sound trade policies.

Its (sic)a reality.

The reality of the situation is that you are a complete dumbass.

88 wrote: As long as the People continue to permit their representatives to hand out gold plated benefits to government workers, you would be a fool to turn them down. But the People are screwing the pooch on this one in the long run.

So you don't believe in it but you are so lacking in integrity that you have no problem benefiting from the situation?

Do you have ANY morals? Anything you really believe in? Besides being a DNA deficient hillbilly who the fuck are you?

IndyFrisco wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Question is, where is this money coming from?

Still waiting Jsc.

Tariffs on any good produced abroad and then shipped back in for sale. Prett simple really. Fuck the dollar stores. Buy American....because it WILL be cheaper.

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote: As long as the People continue to permit their representatives to hand out gold plated benefits to government workers, you would be a fool to turn them down. But the People are screwing the pooch on this one in the long run.

So you don't believe in it but you are so lacking in integrity that you have no problem benefiting from the situation?

Do you have ANY morals? Anything you really believe in? Besides being a DNA deficient hillbilly who the fuck are you?

fookin rack

H4ever wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:Question is, where is this money coming from?

Still waiting Jsc.

Tariffs on any good produced abroad and then shipped back in for sale. Prett simple really. Fuck the dollar stores. Buy American....because it WILL be cheaper.

I'm 100% ok with that. Don't mind paying more for goods as long as my dollars aren't being used to subsidize poor motherfuckers who do nothing to better themselves.

Derron wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

A couple of things. One, you can’t balance your budget on the backs of your government employees. State AND local government employees are 8.2% of Oregon's workforce.

With government budgets at 85% or more being labor, just where the fuck would you suggest balancing them at ?..As for the 8.2% , you may be right I don't know and really don't care.

I may be right? I provided you a link. All you've provided are opinions and guestimates.

But you know what? I'm going to help you out here. I'm sorry, you guys are right. Oregon is a truly fucked up state. You do have opportunities to clean up your deficit on the backs of your government workers. Just not the K-12 teachers.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/janu ... ers_ew.php

88 wrote: We live in greater Cleveland.

Greater than what?

Mikey wrote:

88 wrote: We live in greater Cleveland.

Greater than what?

I believe it’s greater than Akron. But not by much.

Greater than Youngstown.

88 wrote:Let me be the first to thank both of you (and all of your liberal friends, for that matter) for sending annual gifts to the U.S. government for the difference between what you are required to pay at the current tax rates and what you believe the tax rates ought to be in this country. Your morals and beliefs are unassailable.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Let me be the first to ask you if you really think the two are the same?
You suck government tit and then complain about people sucking government tit.
How is that the same as paying your taxes and not then giving money to the government on top of that?
And I think my taxes should be lower so your stupid little post misses on all accounts.

DNA deficient hillbilly much?

Goober McTuber wrote:Oregon is a truly fucked up state.

Now you're catching on. Wasn't a big deal, until somehow it became the destination for the tit-to-tomb transplant crowd, who unfortunately get to vote.

And outside of Portland, Eugene, and Salem, people don't vote fopr the stupidity. Unfortunately those metro areas make up the huge bulk of the state's population. Ask the folks on the other side of the mountains how they feel about big-city land use laws that still apply in the middle of the desert.

You do have opportunities to clean up your deficit on the backs of your government workers. Just not the K-12 teachers.

Therein lies the rub -- it's the battle cry of the big-government folks... anyone who is opposed to bloated government and its runaway spending is immediately branded as someone who hates teachers, cops, and firefighters (the latter two have their own unions and pension plans anyway).

And heaven forbid anyone proposes a ballot measure with tax cuts or a referendum on a new tax bill -- the fatcats, without hesitation immediately turn to "we'll have to fire teachers and state police."

I couldn't even tell you the exact moment things got away, but at some point in the 90's, something went horribly wrong (in no small part because the feds decided they were better able to dictate timber harvests than the state was, and that was the state's bread-and-butter since the beginning of time)

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/janu ... ers_ew.php

Appreciate the link.

What's insane, is that the guy who started the downward spiral, believing the taxpayers were a bottomless pit to be milked at will, decided to run again, and the idiots here actually voted for him. And I'm not sure, but I think other states budget differently -- in Oregon, each agency gets to... and no, I'm not making this up, but it's going to sound like I did... but each state agency gets to make up its own budget... no, really. The governor then takes all the agency budgets, and allegedly "reviews" them. By "review," I mean "says OK, no problem." The it gets approved by the legislature -- there is some stupid law that says the budget "must be balanced," but the catch is they're making the budget over two years out, and they have no idea what revenues are, and they come up with the "projected revenue" figure after they make the budget (I think they claim otherwise, but your link showed how "transparency" works around here). And the last time the legislature denied any request for "free money" was... right around never. And since the actual revenue never adds up to the budget... guess what the Salem Einsteins do next... you'll never guess?

I won't even insult you with the answer -- it's just a matter of "who." Last time, it was the "evil corporations" -- and the tards voted for it, even after it was explained to them how C and S corps work... didn't matter. Yup, they voted in taxes for all corps, including C and S, which make exactly zero profit every year... but it's better than that -- they even made the tax increase retroactive... and no, I didn't make that up either -- corps had to pay more for the previous year. Pretty business-friendly climate we've got going -- yet the Elite can't figure out why unemployment is off the charts (and so many people have used up the benefits, many have estimated the actual rate for the state at 20%+).

Quick example -- my buddy wants to move his winery, so he can expand it. The land-0use clowns won't let him do that unless he plants at least 15 acres of grapes immediately. Buying/leasing a building with a couple of thousand of square feet in the boonies so its cheap is one thing -- starting a major agricultural enterprise while attempting to expand an established business is another -- and is proving to be too onerous to overcome (although that requirement depends on all kinds of convoluted zoning and location and land-designation, and 5000 pages of other shit). Hell, if reading the related paperwork and filling it out wasn't a full-time job, maybe he could get into a place and be done with it, expand production and... crazy thought... hire people. But that's not Oregon's way.

I bring this longwinded example up since it's relevant to what's in your link -- it takes a huge staff of 6-figure state (and local) administrators to decide how many thousands of forms someone starting/moving/expanding a business has to fill out, and another few 6-figure administrators to decide how they should go about it.

Once the power gets top-heavy, don't look for those in charge to vote themselves out of a cushy job that offers a pay raise upon retirement.


Let it be a word-to-the-wise in other states. Never let a state's budget grow at a rate greater than the increase in state GDP. Here' the state budget has averaged right around a 7% increase per year (although its done in bienniums), for at least the last 16 years -- since our idiot governor's first go-around.


Oh, and BTW -- this is a "sancuary state," and illegal aliens get free health care, across-the-board.


But BSmack says we're not broke, so it must be true.

Dinsdale wrote: anyone who is opposed to bloated government and its runaway spending is immediately branded as someone who hates teachers, cops, and firefighters (the latter two have their own unions and pension plans anyway).

Could be truthful just ONCE. Is that really too much to ask?