T1B

This is the start of the revolution. This is exactly the kind of shit that is going to happen and needs to happen to make people wake the fuck up and understand that the public employees compensation packages, and the way governments spend money, and borrow money and has been fucking the American taxpayer in the ass for the last 20 years.

When something catastrophic happens like this, and the public employees get fucked, then shit will start to happen. Scrotum is going to have the cops running around well armed taking shit from people who have it. Nobody listens until this shit happens then they go all chicken little.

Best be ready to set up volunteer fire brigades and every one will be strapping for self defense when there are no cops working. Then the water system or power grid goes fuck ball, and the shit starts to happen.

I remember when I was an excited, wild-eyed revolutionary like Derron. Good times.

Anyhoo, lets not panic. More-like towns drained of employment and a tax-base, then amalgamate into the county, or whatever the next step up is in the regional hierarchy. Economy of scale.

No doubt 88's solution would divide Scranton into 1,476 different fire brigades and 794 police departments cause it offers 'choice'. :?

But this is a small scale example that negates your catch-all solution to everything. Devolve everything down to state level, you're on about it constantly.

Surely you see the relationship between the town's problems and can relate them to a federal level.

88 wrote:That seems like something the People of Scranton should decide for themselves.

The "freedom" to starve to death on the street.

~ cue Wags posting some patriot YouTube montage, completely bereft of irony ~

Well they're out of money, they've got bills and no way to pay them. That's beyond partisanship, it's an economic reality. The solutions presented are unacceptable and they're not unique to Republicans or Democrats, they both employ them, or attempt to. No amount of slashing and burning will recover the situation to a satisfactory condition. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the politicians engaged in brinkmanship is stating the obvious.

The only logical way for the town to recover is to be absorbed into a larger tax base, it's impossible to solve locally. It's no different than Western New York or anywhere else. Scranton's problem is a national problem, I don't believe you don't see that.

Dr_Phibes wrote:I remember when I was an excited, wild-eyed revolutionary like Derron. Good times.

Fuckin a..a bunch of wild eyed pistol wavers who ain't afraid to die..and try to keep the boys from selling all the weapons they can scrounge..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19sKWLKgy98

Martyred wrote:

88 wrote:That seems like something the People of Scranton should decide for themselves.

The "freedom" to starve to death on the street.

~ cue Wags posting some patriot YouTube montage, completely bereft of irony ~

Good time for a protest song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTTsyk-pyd8

Martyred wrote:The "freedom" to starve to death on the street.

That's right, Marty. Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to fail.

Phibes wrote:The only logical way for the town to recover is to be absorbed into a larger tax base

Fancy way of saying that some other poor slug is going to be forced to pay to rectify dumbfuckery which he was entirely innocent of creating.

That'd rate pretty high on the immorality scale.


No, 88 is right.
This is Scranton's issue.

88 wrote: (I went ahead and added the information that the Mayor is a Democrat. I think the news writers must have inadvertently forgotten to mention that in the article).

Mind boggling how the print media is tolerating embarrassing amounts of unconscionable shoddy "journalism", on a daily basis, just to maintain their angle of slant.

poptart wrote:

Phibes wrote:The only logical way for the town to recover is to be absorbed into a larger tax base

Fancy way of saying that some other poor slug is going to be forced to pay to rectify dumbfuckery which he was entirely innocent of creating.

Of course you are assuming that the absorbing agency is or would be stupid enough to take on a financially and managerially challenged operation just for a likely underfunded tax base, with a shit ton of debt hanging over them. Hell yeah..come on bring your debt and idiot managers and come help drag our agency down.

Couple of school districts around here asked neighboring districts to absorb them. The answer was hell no..and don't ever come back to us again with such a fucked up idea. Get your own shit straight first.

Maybe Scrotum should just do what ever bankrupt public agencies do, file banko, fuck every creditor they have, watch their bond rating go away, which it probably all ready has, and start over...hopefully with all new managers and administrators to know what the fuck they are doing,and can tell the unions to go fuck themselves.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Well they're out of money, they've got bills and no way to pay them. That's beyond partisanship, it's an economic reality. The solutions presented are unacceptable and they're not unique to Republicans or Democrats, they both employ them, or attempt to. No amount of slashing and burning will recover the situation to a satisfactory condition. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the politicians engaged in brinkmanship is stating the obvious.

The only logical way for the town to recover is to be absorbed into a larger tax base, it's impossible to solve locally. It's no different than Western New York or anywhere else. Scranton's problem is a national problem, I don't believe you don't see that.

Exactly on the mark. Scranton's no different than the small cities in California that are declaring bankruptcy - they are beset with the same long-standing problems, which have nothing to do with the national Dem/Repug polemic.

I suppose a Repug mayor could take over and take a different approach - that being simply declaring bankruptcy, rather than this measure which actually keeps the city afloat for a few more moments.

poptart wrote:

Phibes wrote:The only logical way for the town to recover is to be absorbed into a larger tax base

Fancy way of saying that some other poor slug is going to be forced to pay to rectify dumbfuckery which he was entirely innocent of creating.

So you were opposed to the Wall Street and auto corporation bailouts...right?

88 wrote: I went ahead and added the information that the Mayor is a Democrat.

Why?

PSU wrote:So you were opposed to the Wall Street and auto corporation bailouts...right?

Of course.

The fact that you even float the idea that fully innocent taxpayers in... wherever, should be forced to foot the bill for Scranton's failure is evidence that you have no sense of morality whatsoever.

poptart wrote:The fact that you even float the idea that fully innocent taxpayers in... wherever, should be forced to foot the bill for Scranton's failure is evidence that you have no sense of morality whatsoever.

FTFY

isn't Joe Biden from Scranton? He must be so proud!

poptart wrote: The fact that you even float the idea that fully innocent taxpayers in... wherever, should be forced to foot the bill for Scranton's failure is evidence that you have no sense of morality whatsoever.

The fact that you are a taxpayer suggests that you are part of a group of people that make up an economy.

It's probably safe to assume that 20% overruns at the municipal level of 77,000 people aren't due to cocktail parties and union dog-fuckers sleeping in their back-hoes in a region where it's an epidemic.

If you have a point, feel free to make it.

Sorry Tart, I'll elaborate.

You're fucked.

Remember when Ditka got fired? How he used to run up and down the sidelines and yell and no one listened to him even though he used to be good? It's like that.

Any time now. We're all waiting.

Feebs, now you're posting like Bace... but with a little more sense of humor.

Hey, bro', us Americans down here have gotten into a little bind, you see.
16 trillion in debt and we need help.

Since you Canadians are part of a world economy, we demand you impose a 1% hike in your sales tax and say, a 5% hike in your property tax rate, to be applied to pay off our onerous debt.

Now little ol' us will just keep on livin' the good life down here - and I know that will have you smile as your new rates kick in.


tyvm!

What did Colin Powell say? 'You broke it, you buy it' or something like that?

If it seems like I'm evading something, I'm not, this all relates to consumer spending but that's a fundamental, something you hear about but it's boring, I'm trying to avoid using terms you hear on television, they go in one ear and out the other.
You guys wander too far off into your own world, you like pissing contests. You argue about rafters when you should be looking at the foundation. You're too caught up in exceptionalism, your heads are too far up your asses.

Economic rules do apply to you, you didn't invent the fucking things.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Economic rules do apply to you, you didn't invent the fucking things.

Indeed they do. Now what happens when you spend more money than you can ever hope to repay?

Determine what is right, maintain your values, take the practical route and keep your dignity. 'fuck them, let 'em rot!' doesn't strike me as particularly honourable.

88 wrote: So some really stupid central planners fucked up, leaving a giant shit and debt sandwich for the People of Scranton to eat, and the solution is to spend some more public jack?

I was ahead of you, but you've caught up. Posting pics of Stalin looking good didn't get me anywhere, so now I'm arguing for a mixed economy and if I can convince you of that, I'd then show out why that's futile in itself. Labour made a deal with the devil.

poptart wrote:

PSU wrote:So you were opposed to the Wall Street and auto corporation bailouts...right?

Of course.

The fact that you even float the idea that fully innocent taxpayers in... wherever, should be forced to foot the bill for Scranton's failure is evidence that you have no sense of morality whatsoever.

Where did I say they "should"? I don't think it's fair to them...but they'll have to do it either way...just as American taxpayers were saddled with the bailouts that I mentioned.

In the case of Detroit...you'd have to admit that it was a pretty sound investment, or you would if you were inclined to actually try and understand what happened.

poptart wrote:us Americans down here

What's this "us" you refer to?

88 wrote: In your worldview, does maintaining your dignity necessarily involve surrendering your liberty and property to a central government?

And, according to the values you maintain, would it better for almost all of the population (the ruling class excluded, of course) to have an existence that is somewhat "equal" and "adequate" according to whatever standard the central government decides to be the case, than it would be for almost all of the population (the impoverished excluded in this case) to have a much higher standard of living than if their lives were centrally planned for them?

My worldview is for you to advance your economy. You'll get there on your own, how you conduct yourself is your business.

Truth told, if you're a city planner with a shred of dignity, ability or uprightness, you're probably not working for the city of Scranton or their municipal development slush organizations. People like that don't last long in Scranton - either by choice, or by the leave of the infamously corrupt political machine that's there.

Sucks for those every day city workers, though. Must feel great to be a public safety employee tasked with endangering life and limb and to suddenly be a minimum wager - with your pension and benefits almost certainly on the outs.

88 wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:In the case of Detroit...you'd have to admit that it was a pretty sound investment, or you would if you were inclined to actually try and understand what happened.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Esplain how losing at least $40B so far is a pretty sound investment, Ricky.

Chrysler and GM have been repaying the loans at interest, buying back stock and looking for further growth amid successful reorganizations that have made them leaner and meaner. You suppose it would have been far better to let them fail, though? You'll have to explain that one to me - and Ricky, whoever that is.

Also, $40 billion was the projected loss when the $80 billion program got underway - now it's looking to be closer to 14. Meanwhile, at the start of the bankruptcy crisis, the auto industry had lost 400,000 jobs - 113,000 have been regained.

As you well know, these dire conditions came together during the Bush 2 years. The bailout was initiated during his watch, and brought through successfully under Obama. Styling it and the Wall Street bailouts as some kind of boutique solution promulgated by the Obama people is flat-out disingenuous.

Saving the auto industry was definitely a sound investment, even if that doesn't jibe with how things have been categorized for you in this election cycle. I'd also love to know - exactly what administration would not have initiated the auto bailout? Any administration would have.

PSUFAN wrote:Chrysler and GM have been repaying the loans at interest

By borrowing more money from the taxpayers, idiot.

PSUFAN wrote:

poptart wrote:

PSU wrote:So you were opposed to the Wall Street and auto corporation bailouts...right

Of course.

The fact that you even float the idea that fully innocent taxpayers in... wherever, should be forced to foot the bill for Scranton's failure is evidence that you have no sense of morality whatsoever.

Where did I say they "should"? I don't think it's fair to them...but they'll have to do it either way...just as American taxpayers were saddled with the bailouts that I mentioned.

You deny that you advocate forcing 'random' innocent taxpayers to foot Scranton's bill?

Ok - then what do you advocate?

Taxpayers will be paying for this, that's a simple statement of fact. There is no need or reason for you or I to "advocate" that...or not. I'll point something out to you, me being the American, you being the onlooker...sometimes we Americans have to pay taxes for things we don't support or advocate. Regrettable, but factual.

mvscal wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:Chrysler and GM have been repaying the loans at interest

By borrowing more money from the taxpayers, idiot.

By restructuring their companies and selling cars, nimrod.

PSU wrote:me being the American, you being the onlooker

You're making no sense with that.

I (same as you) am a U.S. citizen who pays U.S. taxes.

PSU wrote:There is no need or reason for you or I to "advocate" that...or not.

I somehow doubt that has been the attitude of people who have given their all to fight for people to live in freedom.

The "We're slaves to THE MAN no matter what - so let's lay back and spread 'em" attitude.

I never realized that the squish runs all the way to your core.


There's a choice.

88 wrote:The current Scranton fiscal calamity totals $16M. Scranton is a city of about 75,000 people with an annual operating budget of $77M. If you do the math, the $16M budget deficit amounts to about $213 per person. And you think that amount of prior overspending justifies absorbing Scranton into some other larger tax base (so it can presumably continue its spending ways) and thereby reduce the ability of the 75,000 People of Scranton to decide things for themselves? You are a seriously fucked up ideologue, dog. The People of Scranton should be able to sort out their problems on their own.

There ya go.

Absolutely no reason to bring other people into the equation - so that they can be used.

What choice is there, poppy? Let us know. It has nothing to do with my advocacy - I'm simply relaying a fact, one that your weak bluster has no effect upon. Be it via the courts or via agreements, any and all of the options or "solutions" available to Scranton will come via taxpayer dollars.

I just told you the choice.
It's a problem for the people in Scranton to handle.

Obviously.


Feebs is saying that taxpayers over in... bumfuckyville, who perhaps have never even heard of Scranton, should be forced to pay for the sins going on in Scranton.

I say that is absolutely wrong, it is absolutely immoral, and it is actually unfair to the people in Scranton, because as 88 pointed out, it reduces their ability to freely govern over the affairs of their own city.

Beyond that, it serves to sanction recklessness and incompetence, and it penalizes people who have been productive and have no skin in the game at all in the city which they are being forced to bail out.

I just told you the choice.
It's a problem for the people in Scranton to handle.

Obviously.

I guess at some point, you'll take a minute and think through this - or not, and you'll continue to provide comic relief. Scranton can not handle this. This problem is, without question, beyond their means. They have contractual obligations that - regardless of WHY they got here - have to be dealt with. They didn't just violate those obligations because they had a wealth of options. This is a desperate move that has absolutely no chance of success on any level.

The Scranton situation is actually very similar to the one playing out in Harrisburg, the city that houses the state capitol. Some people made some horrible decisions with city money, resulting in the city being unable to operate. The only "option" is to hold those people accountable and work on a solution. EVERY solution will involve taxpayer dollars - a simple matter of fact.

I know facts aren't necessarily your friends, poppy - pray on it and understanding may come one day.