they're public employees. pretty sure by law that information is published.

 

edit: actually it looks like they're just deemed public record, so a simple FOIA request would get the info. I think newspapers/websites just post it for the convenience of the public.

 

Why would people be against this? I want to know whatever every public employee makes. Keeps the government accountable for not paying people ridiculous salaries.

Well, I think the problem comes in when there are exact names attached.

 

For example... I recall a few years back, Tony Peraica published on the internet a list of all county employees by name, their position, time in position, and salary.

 

Now, if it was just "Employee #XXX678, Admininstrative Bulls***ter, 8 years, $60,000" or the like, I'd be 100% OK with that. Its the adding of the full name that I found to be too intrusive. You can get everything you are asking for out of the information without an actual name.

 

"Any and all means", doesn't mean illegal to me. I do not believe in the sacrifice of my rights here.

And I don't believe in enabling the cover-up.

And I don't believe in enabling the cover-up.

 

Which means you lose the right to complain when illegal means are used to uncover illegal means.

Honestly, I don't like it at all.

 

sorry, i post a question, word it poorly and then book.

 

Yes, I was referring to teacher names/salaries etc.

 

I guess I understand the point of the law and the benefits behind it. But I don't see why someone in Round Rock, TX or even Toyko, Japan can view the salary of my wife in Illinois. I feel like the rule should be, anyone who is a local taxpayer to the District, can come to the District's HQ, open a book, and see salaries during normal business hours. It shouldn't be published on the web for the entire world to see.

Two favorable economic numbers today...

 

UE claims dropped a lot from last report, down to 404k, from 441k. Expectations were for 425k, so this was a good surprise. Last week looks like an anomoly, as the 4 week moving average edged down to about 412k. Below 425k signals growth, 375k signals strong growth, typically. So the trend is still in the right direction.

 

Existing home sales jumped 12.3% in December, for the fifth gain in the last six months, and beating expectations significantly. They are now at the highest level since the tax credit expired in June. Prices declined 1%, so it looks like the price declines are slowing. Inventory is now at 8.1 months, versus 9.5 months previously, which is also a good sign. Foreclosures are still a looming issue, though new filings and new delinquencies have been falling steadily.

 

Great comparison of Illinois's 2 percentage point tax hike and how that compares to what other states are doing.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Main St. Anytown U.S.A.
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Great comparison of Illinois's 2 percentage point tax hike and how that compares to what other states are doing.

 

lol. was that supposed to convince me the tax hike was the right move?

lol. was that supposed to convince me the tax hike was the right move?

No, it's supposed to convince you to become a vigilante.

No, it's supposed to convince you to become a vigilante.

 

f*** yea

The tax hike is too much. That's around another 1500 dollars I don't have for my family now, and for a person that doesn't make 180k+ per year, like the politicians that passed it, that's a lot of money considering my we have a single income.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against tax hikes...what I am against is tax hikes that resolve nothing.

 

They will raise taxes, fees, and whatever else to get more money and be just as broke as they were before...and that's where the disconnect between the government and the people supporting the government comes in.

 

I would have NO problem with them raising taxes if they said, this not only balances the budget but creates a budget surplus in the future (and guaranteed it, versus merely claiming it). The issue is, they'll raise taxes by 70%, and spend 170% more than they raised them by, WHILE claiming they're cutting spending. In the end, we are in the SAME place as we were, but it's just costing me way more.

Edited January 21, 201115 yr by Y2HH

The tax hike is too much. That's around another 1500 dollars I don't have for my family now, and for a person that doesn't make 180k+ per year, like the politicians that passed it, that's a lot of money considering my we have a single income.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against tax hikes...what I am against is tax hikes that resolve nothing.

 

They will raise taxes, fees, and whatever else to get more money and be just as broke as they were before...and that's where the disconnect between the government and the people supporting the government comes in.

 

I would have NO problem with them raising taxes if they said, this not only balances the budget but creates a budget surplus in the future (and guaranteed it, versus merely claiming it). The issue is, they'll raise taxes by 70%, and spend 170% more than they raised them by, WHILE claiming they're cutting spending. In the end, we are in the SAME place as we were, but it's just costing me way more.

 

the real kicker is they are not cutting spending, they decided they will actually increase spending 2% a year.

the real kicker is they are not cutting spending, they decided they will actually increase spending 2% a year.

 

and they're ignoring that the pensions due is growing every year.

 

So in review - they've killed any incentive for business to come here (and stay here), they've taken more money from the people (whose spending said money would help businesses grow and hire new workers), and they haven't cut anything yet which would actually lower the deficit over the coming years.

 

Illinois government everybody!

the real kicker is they are not cutting spending, they decided they will actually increase spending 2% a year.

The real kicker is that effectively holding spending growth at 2% a year IS actually a spending cut in a growing economy.

The real kicker is that effectively holding spending growth at 2% a year IS actually a spending cut in a growing economy.

 

The real REAL kicker is that you believe they're only holding spending growth at 2% per year. You have to consider all the things they left out of that fuzzy math when the calculated what constitutes that spending growth...not that they'll ever let you see the equation they used or why they used it.

 

No, wait...that's not a kicker, it's something else entirely. It's the naivety they rely on. And you aren't naive from what I know of you...so what is it exactly that makes you continue to believe these people? The saying used to be, fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me. What is it then when it comes to the government telling us the same repeated lies, fool me 500,000 times, shame on me?

 

Now, that said, if what you said about this supposed "kicker" of yours is true, we should see drastic deficit decreases beginning next year AND in the years to come, in addition to outstanding debts being paid off. So now, how much would you like to bet neither happen?

Edited January 21, 201115 yr by Y2HH

Now, that said, if what you said about this supposed "kicker" of yours is true, we should see drastic deficit decreases beginning next year AND in the years to come, in addition to outstanding debts being paid off. So now, how much would you like to bet neither happen?

IF they don't hold to a 2% year over year increase, then it sure won't.

IF they don't hold to a 2% year over year increase, then it sure won't.

 

You mean WHEN, not IF.

Guys, guys, the real kicker is

 

Oh great, now another person wants us to switch back to the Gould standard.

The real kicker is that effectively holding spending growth at 2% a year IS actually a spending cut in a growing economy.

 

No, it really isn't. Spending is way too high and should be reduced at minimum 5% per year.

Guys, guys, the real kicker is

 

Lol, that was great

Oh great, now another person wants us to switch back to the Gould standard.

 

 

Boo.

 

No, really, boo.

Boo.

 

No, really, boo.

I'm 30 years old, my knees hurt, and I'm going to hit 60,000 posts within the next few hours. I think I've earned an awful pun or two.

2k5 really ought to like this one. Based on someone else's interpretation of the Wikileaks cables, it sounds like one big reason why the U.S. was willing to look the other way regarding the Swiss government, UBS, and the 20,000 or so U.S. tax cheats being helped by that bank, is that Switzerland agreed to take a few of the non-violent, non-controversial prisoners from Gitmo off of our hands in 2009.

 

So...that's the deal that gets exposed by all these leaks. Yeah.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41249093

 

Price Drop Points to Likely Double Dip in Housing Market

U.S. single-family home prices fell for a fifth straight month in November and could plumb new lows soon, a closely watched survey showed on Tuesday.

 

The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller composite index of 20 metropolitan areas declined 0.5 percent in November from October on a seasonally adjusted basis, though it was not as sharp as the 0.8 percent fall expected by economists.

 

Prices have fallen 1.6 percent in the past year, sharper than the 1.4 percent predicted by economists polled by Reuters.

 

Not really a surprise. No job = no money to buy a house or pay mortgage.

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41252294

 

Jobless Rise in 20 States as Workers Still Laid Off

 

The unemployment rate rose in 20 states last month as employers in most states shed jobs.

 

he Labor Department says the unemployment rate rose in 20 states and fell in 15. It was unchanged in another 15 states. That's nearly the same as in November, when the rate rose in 21 states, fell in 15 and was the same in 14.

 

The report is evidence that the job market is barely improving even as the economy grows. Most economists expect hiring to pick up this year, although the unemployment rate will likely remain high

 

Dan Rather investigates.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/h...e_b_813086.html

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41249093

 

 

 

Not really a surprise. No job = no money to buy a house or pay mortgage.

 

 

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41252294

 

 

 

Dan Rather investigates.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/h...e_b_813086.html

The jobs situation is definitely worrisome.

 

But the idea that the housing market is looking to double-dip is silly on its face. For one thing, in order to "double dip", there has to be a rise in the middle. What rise? The housing market has been stabilizing nicely, but that's it - no rise or real momentum, just a slow track towards stable.

 

Second, all the data points are saying that, for the last 6 months or so (since the tax credit expired, roughly), the housing market is doing exactly what you want it to at this point...

 

--Prices are declining still as more foreclosures hit the market, but only small declines. 1-2% when considering the high number of distressed properties is actually a good number, but not so great that you worry about a second bubble starting.

--Sales levels of existing homes have been on a continuous rise, which is also what you want.

--New foreclosure filiings and deliquencies have been slowly sinking, also good.

--New home sales and new construction starts remain very low, which is what you want, for the short term.

 

All the fundamental data shows that the market is healing and stabilizing. And whomever wrote that article for CNBC needs to go look up the term "double dip" because they clearly don't understand what it means.

 

Of course, long term, the biggest factor is still the jobs. Without a significant drop in UE (and so far, the drops have been there but somewhat lame), the housing market will probably just keep drifting sideways from here.