Just curious, what would you like to see them do to get the city back on track in terms of deficit while still running the city adequately?

 

This isn't a very valid question to ask someone that 1) doesn't have access to their books, and 2) didn't ask for the job.

 

I can start with this -- how come Chicago needs 50 aldermen, which is a part time job that pays a full time salary and pension benefits -- yet LA, which is what 50x as big as Chicago, only has 25?

 

Let's start there.

Until government figures out how to deal with pensions the way the private sector did 30 years ago any cost saving conversation is complete bulls*** and there is no debate

Well it is certainly the most important single item... but to say "any cost saving conversation is complete bulls***" is of course ridiculous. If you have one big problem and hundreds of other problems ranging from big to small too, you don't JUST fix the big one, and fixing the others isn't "bulls***".

 

Until government figures out how to deal with pensions the way the private sector did 30 years ago any cost saving conversation is complete bulls*** and there is no debate

By the way, there's a very good book out right now about how the private sector has basically looted retirement and pension funds and turned them into a new way to push executive compensation up.

This isn't a very valid question to ask someone that 1) doesn't have access to their books, and 2) didn't ask for the job.

 

I can start with this -- how come Chicago needs 50 aldermen, which is a part time job that pays a full time salary and pension benefits -- yet LA, which is what 50x as big as Chicago, only has 25?

 

Let's start there.

C'mon man, you're saying everyone is wrong without knowing what is right then. I understand not having every answer, it's not your fulltime job to have them, but if you are going to complain about a specific problem then at least have a few ideas of how to help solve it.

 

EDIT: Sounds a lot like the Occupy Wall Street protestors

 

And the second point is very interesting, does anyone have some history behind that offhand?

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by bigruss22

This isn't a very valid question to ask someone that 1) doesn't have access to their books, and 2) didn't ask for the job.

 

I can start with this -- how come Chicago needs 50 aldermen, which is a part time job that pays a full time salary and pension benefits -- yet LA, which is what 50x as big as Chicago, only has 25?

 

Let's start there.

 

you've tackled .3% of the deficit.

C'mon man, you're saying everyone is wrong without knowing what is right then. I understand not having every answer, it's not your fulltime job to have them, but if you are going to complain about a specific problem then at least have a few ideas of how to help solve it.

 

And the second point is very interesting, does anyone have some history behind that offhand?

 

This is what I know -- what Preckwinkle proposed -- and here I am defending people in unincorporated suburbs:

 

"Suburban commissioners were especially concerned about Preckwinkle's idea to institute a special tax on each of the estimated 100,000 unincorporated residents to help balance the budget, which had a projected shortfall of $315 million. The tax would amount to an average of $150 per household, Preckwinkle said today."

 

I'd be concerned, too. Considering this is just ONE of many fee increases and other tax hikes. Let's not forget the tolls are going to double, too. 150$ on each household just for that one line item? That's exactly what people need...less money for themselves.

 

Not for nothing, but that 150$ could be going to someones daughters or sons college funds...instead, it'll somehow end up being wasted by Government spending projects or making up for budget shortfalls they should have noticed 10+ years ago. And that's the worst part about it -- it's not even us that are being punished by these f***heads now -- it's our sons and daughters.

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by Y2HH

you've tackled .3% of the deficit.

 

Like I said, it's a start. Thanks for verifying it.

 

I know, we should just not tackle that .3% of the deficit -- and increase taxes instead -- that way we can tackle .1% of it on the backs of people we are already at the breaking point of being nickle and dimed out of their homes and apartments. You just ended this conversation by proving you have no interest in one.

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by Y2HH

Like I said, it's a start. Thanks for verifying it.

 

I know, we should just not tackle that .3% of the deficit -- and increase taxes instead -- that way we can tackle .1% of it on the backs of people we are already at the breaking point of being nickle and dimed out of their homes and apartments. You just ended this conversation by proving you have no interest in one.

 

My alderman has a huge amount of area and population to cover. I'm not sure doubling that amt. of area and losing even more responsiveness is the best use of money.

 

edit: i'm trying to give you an idea of just how little shaving off 10-15% of these salaries really does. If we want to make a case for how to solve the cities finances, fine, but you are making an emotional argument about how you hate politicians and therefore they should make no money. Rahm does pay property taxes and sales taxes and income taxes. He does see this. If we are going to make the case that rich people don't feel tax increases, I'll gladly take that and run with it. Hello buffet rule.

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by bmags

My alderman has a huge amount of area and population to cover. I'm not sure doubling that amt. of area and losing even more responsiveness is the best use of money.

 

We don't have the money, so yes, it is.

 

Again, spending money you don't have doesn't work. Our local government outgrew itself...thus needs to unoutgrow itself from the top down now.

My alderman has a huge amount of area and population to cover. I'm not sure doubling that amt. of area and losing even more responsiveness is the best use of money.

 

edit: i'm trying to give you an idea of just how little shaving off 10-15% of these salaries really does. If we want to make a case for how to solve the cities finances, fine, but you are making an emotional argument about how you hate politicians and therefore they should make no money. Rahm does pay property taxes and sales taxes and income taxes. He does see this. If we are going to make the case that rich people don't feel tax increases, I'll gladly take that and run with it. Hello buffet rule.

 

Not true. I don't think politicians shouldn't get paid well. They're just paid TOO well, and they know it.

 

And yes, I hate politicians, because I actually know some in RL.

We don't have the money, so yes, it is.

 

Again, spending money you don't have doesn't work. Our local government outgrew itself...thus needs to unoutgrow itself from the top down now.

 

We have a 3.1 billion dollar budget, we are spending 625 more than that. Saying "it's not the best use of money" is perfectly fine. We have 3.1 billion in tax receipts, and using some of that on a local neighborhood representative is an alright use of money.You won't tackle the debt without tackling the structural issues.

My alderman has a huge amount of area and population to cover. I'm not sure doubling that amt. of area and losing even more responsiveness is the best use of money.

 

edit: i'm trying to give you an idea of just how little shaving off 10-15% of these salaries really does. If we want to make a case for how to solve the cities finances, fine, but you are making an emotional argument about how you hate politicians and therefore they should make no money. Rahm does pay property taxes and sales taxes and income taxes. He does see this. If we are going to make the case that rich people don't feel tax increases, I'll gladly take that and run with it. Hello buffet rule.

 

Whatever the case may be -- my answer isn't to further increase the burden on regular people when they can least handle more of a burden -- as opposed to the "f*** our sons and daughters futures, because we are f***ing morons that don't know how to spend responsibly."

 

The worst part about this is we aren't f***ed...the next generation is. And nobody gives a s***.

We have a 3.1 billion dollar budget, we are spending 625 more than that. Saying "it's not the best use of money" is perfectly fine. We have 3.1 billion in tax receipts, and using some of that on a local neighborhood representative is an alright use of money.You won't tackle the debt without tackling the structural issues.

 

So guess what -- spend 625 million less.

 

The people CANNOT afford further tax and fee increases no matter HOW you try to spin this.

This is what I know -- what Preckwinkle proposed -- and here I am defending people in unincorporated suburbs:

 

"Suburban commissioners were especially concerned about Preckwinkle's idea to institute a special tax on each of the estimated 100,000 unincorporated residents to help balance the budget, which had a projected shortfall of $315 million. The tax would amount to an average of $150 per household, Preckwinkle said today."

 

I'd be concerned, too. Considering this is just ONE of many fee increases and other tax hikes. Let's not forget the tolls are going to double, too. 150$ on each household just for that one line item? That's exactly what people need...less money for themselves.

 

Not for nothing, but that 150$ could be going to someones daughters or sons college funds...instead, it'll somehow end up being wasted by Government spending projects or making up for budget shortfalls they should have noticed 10+ years ago. And that's the worst part about it -- it's not even us that are being punished by these f***heads now -- it's our sons and daughters.

I get the impact of these fee hikes, probably more than most 21 yr olds, but shouldn't we be looking more towards rectifying the situation rather than still blaming the past? That's more of what I am trying to get at, we are in a s***ty situation and how do we make the best of it? What is the best action going forward to make sure that the next few generations aren't f***ed?

 

And that should include discussion about feeing/taxing the hell out of people too, but be constructive with the discussion otherwise it's pointless.

Some of "the people" cannot, some of "the people" can, but it will impact their lives, some of "the people" can without any impact whatsoever on their life.

I get the impact of these fee hikes, probably more than most 21 yr olds, but shouldn't we be looking more towards rectifying the situation rather than still blaming the past? That's more of what I am trying to get at, we are in a s***ty situation and how do we make the best of it? What is the best action going forward to make sure that the next few generations aren't f***ed?

 

And that should include discussion about feeing/taxing the hell out of people too, but be constructive with the discussion otherwise it's pointless.

 

Oh, the next general IS f***ed...there is no way around it now.

 

The local government has outgrown itself, plain and simple. Will the fix be painless? Nope.

 

But we can't keep things going like this unless they decide everyone's going to get foreclosed on and raise our taxes to the point where we can't afford to do anything but pay taxes and fees (which we are well on our way to doing).

That 625 million represents teachers policeman fireman maintenance and trash services onto the unemployment ranks. Thus, balance.

Some of "the people" cannot, some of "the people" can, but it will impact their lives, some of "the people" can without any impact whatsoever on their life.

 

That's fine if it's a payroll tax...but it's not.

 

So those that "cannot" are f***ed. And because of that, they will need help when they didn't before...and because of that, those that "can, but it will impact their lives" will be asked for more, thus becoming those that can't...

 

So, in essence, the government itself is *helping* create this "class war", is it not?

That 625 million represents teachers policeman fireman maintenance and trash services onto the unemployment ranks. Thus, balance.

 

Why does the 625 million represent only the most important stuff?

 

How come it doesn't represent the millions of dollars Daley's sons stole? Or some other connected politicians aid, or friends, who are making 90k a year to never show up at work? Do we think that this sort of thing is no longer going on? LOL.

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by Y2HH

So, in essence, the government itself is *helping* create this "class war", is it not?

 

Absolutely.

Why does the 625 million represent only the most important stuff?

 

How come it doesn't represent the millions of dollars Daley's sons stole? Or some other connected politicians aid, or friends, who are making 90k a year to never show up at work? Do we think that this sort of thing is no longer going on? LOL.

 

Again, how prevalent do you actually think that is, compared to a 625 million dollar deficit. If that 625 million could be corrected by that stuff, it would be an easy fix. This is a pretty fair budget consisting of a LOT of cuts EVERYWHERE. I suggest you look at it.

Again, how prevalent do you actually think that is, compared to a 625 million dollar deficit. If that 625 million could be corrected by that stuff, it would be an easy fix. This is a pretty fair budget consisting of a LOT of cuts EVERYWHERE. I suggest you look at it.

 

I'm not saying SOME of the steps being taken are avoidable...but I don't have to like it. Especially since it's never ending hikes, every single year.

 

And how prevalent is it? LOL. Seriously.

 

In a understated word -- it's SO prevalent it'd make your head spin. It's not only prevalent, it's COMMON. I know a LOT of City workers, and ALL of them know someone doing something illegal.

 

The corruption of the Chicago government is so deep that I bet you actually COULD cut 500 million out of that deficit if you could uncover it all...and I bet Vegas would give me 0 odds on it, since they're probably in on it. Do you actually doubt that our local government isn't that corrupt?

Edited October 25, 201114 yr by Y2HH

Again, how prevalent do you actually think that is, compared to a 625 million dollar deficit. If that 625 million could be corrected by that stuff, it would be an easy fix. This is a pretty fair budget consisting of a LOT of cuts EVERYWHERE. I suggest you look at it.

I agree.

 

Something else to consider, though... part of the problem that the city and county (and state) have is that certain legal protections for union contracts are impenetrable, they cannot be changed. The city has already been slapped down on this on multuple fronts in the courts. So some of this has to be done legislatively, and others of it has to be done in future times. That limits what they can do.

 

Preckwinkle is trying to play that poker game with her unions - take the unpaid days or I'll just lay off however many I am allowed to.

 

Again, how prevalent do you actually think that is, compared to a 625 million dollar deficit. If that 625 million could be corrected by that stuff, it would be an easy fix. This is a pretty fair budget consisting of a LOT of cuts EVERYWHERE. I suggest you look at it.

 

I'm guessing there's similar misconceptions as we see with the federal budget and people thinking foreign aid is 10-15% or some ridiculously high number.

I agree.

 

Something else to consider, though... part of the problem that the city and county (and state) have is that certain legal protections for union contracts are impenetrable, they cannot be changed. The city has already been slapped down on this on multuple fronts in the courts. So some of this has to be done legislatively, and others of it has to be done in future times. That limits what they can do.

 

Preckwinkle is trying to play that poker game with her unions - take the unpaid days or I'll just lay off however many I am allowed to.

 

You agree on nothing because this shows you have little clue as to what's going on around you.

 

The amount of money being ripped off Chicago is EASILY in the hundreds of millions. Easily. Because TONS of people are doing it. 100 bucks here, 500 bucks there, maybe a couple thousand over there...and these are REGULAR City workers. As for an easy fix to correct it?! MY. ASS. It would mean bringing down at least HALF the workers, across the board...none of which will turn themselves in or take the fall for it.

 

Good luck uncovering DECADES of built in corruption that appears so normal that it's actually "book clean", despite being totally illegal.