StrangeSox Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) It's the worst in the union. Yes, worse than California. Edit: The problem is, what the local governments are doing is counter productive to what Obama's administration is attempting to do. While he's attempting to ease the burden on the people, the local governments are simply stealing what Obama's trying to give them. Yes, I'm defending Obama's current vision...it's proper for the time...but it's being undermined by people like General Rhammel. That's what's been happening a lot with employment. The private sector has slowly been adding jobs, but state and local government have been cutting massively the whole time, which is why we've had barely any gains in 3 years. If state and local hadn't cut employees, we'd be at 7% unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) I know that about Illinois, the city as well? Fair to say then that "costs of additional borrowing" might well be fairly extreme compared to the national inflation rate? Their bonds were downrated in 2010. I don't know how it compares to other cities: http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/dept...ing_Ratings.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) There is no doubt he inherited a mess from Daley...but as a leader, he has to realize this is a piss poor time to lean on your people to dig you out. The governments job, IMO, should be to assist people during bad times...not burden them. You burden them during the good times...which they ALWAYS fail to do. General Rhammel will be no different. Tax and spend during good times...tax and spend during bad times. While this is an understandable position...there is the "Wacker Drive/Columbus Drive" argument. Do you remember that one? Either CDOT could do all three in a row and it would've taken 8 years, or they do all three simultaneously and it takes 3. Yes, it hurts. Yes, it's a true pain in the ass. But it's done quicker. I don't disagree with you that raising prop taxes and water bills, etc is a real burden and it could throw some into foreclosure. You aren't wrong. But, if the city is in that bad of shape, borrowing more isn't the answer either. Because of this, he may only be a one term mayor...ok, democratic machine and wealthy family...he'll be mayor again. but he's pissing a lot of people off anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 06:12 AM) Another Chicago homeowners property tax increase. "Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Thursday defended his decision to authorize a $41 million school property tax increase — the second tax-to-the-max increase during his first year in office." --- "Coming just one year after he authorized the Chicago Public Schools to raise property taxes by a whopping $150 million." What is so baffling about this to me, and it's not that they can't use the money...I'm sure they can, it's that they're making the property bust worse by levying more taxes/fees on people who are barely getting by as it is. While I can afford it...I know people that CANNOT afford tax increase after tax increase and keep their homes. Let's keep in mind this guy just doubled everyones water bills...and they double again this year. Yes, double. Yea the tax increases are total bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 29, 2012 -> 06:12 AM) Another Chicago homeowners property tax increase. "Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Thursday defended his decision to authorize a $41 million school property tax increase — the second tax-to-the-max increase during his first year in office." --- "Coming just one year after he authorized the Chicago Public Schools to raise property taxes by a whopping $150 million." What is so baffling about this to me, and it's not that they can't use the money...I'm sure they can, it's that they're making the property bust worse by levying more taxes/fees on people who are barely getting by as it is. While I can afford it...I know people that CANNOT afford tax increase after tax increase and keep their homes. Let's keep in mind this guy just doubled everyones water bills...and they double again this year. Yes, double. I'm thinking about getting a meter for my house. Heard it is way cheaper then the non-meter cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 06:10 PM) I'm thinking about getting a meter for my house. Heard it is way cheaper then the non-meter cost Yep, you are subsidizing higher amount users if you are on the lower end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 06:10 PM) I'm thinking about getting a meter for my house. Heard it is way cheaper then the non-meter cost That depends on how much water you use...and eh...at the moment it's not way cheaper. I use a lot of water. I not only have a 18' pool out back, but I water my lawn multiple times per week, not to mention laundry. A friend of mine, who has no pool and never waters his lawn, pays an average of 27$ a month on his metered account. As it stands, I pay 40 a month un-metered. It's simply not enough of a cost savings to chance it...at least not yet. Edited July 3, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 My bill in La Grange just doubled to $82 (sewer service and water) thanks to Rahm's increase. The village had a nice little note on the bill that said words to the effect of "Sorry, talk to Rahm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I wanted to be the b**** that posted post #1 on page 1,000. Could it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Damn. I'm such a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 09:34 PM) Damn. I'm such a troll. What's it like to live under a bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I dunno. /checks under my roof, er I mean bridge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 The ongoing meltdown over Chris Rock's 4th of July tweet is pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 where I quit reading In a time where a black kid can’t walk to the corner store without getting shot at point-blank range right in the chest, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 03:17 PM) where I quit reading I'll give you that the article's a bit over-the-top, but you still made it through almost the whole thing. At least you've saved yourself from the comments section which has chipped away a little bit of my faith in humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 It was a stupid comment with the expected reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) It was a stupid comment with the expected reaction. Someone clicked on an article about "offensive chris rock July 4 tweet" and was surprised by a controversial comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) It was a stupid comment with the expected reaction. It was a factual comment and it was funny. Outrage and barely-masked to naked racism is, sadly, an expected reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 LGBT magazine "The Advocate" has not endorsed a candidate for President in its 45 year history and has not endorsed a politician in any race in a couple decades. Here is there endorsement for Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a leader of undeniable accomplishment, vision, and integrity on LGBT rights. His opponent Mitt Romney betrays equality on numerous issues and aligns himself with a faction of the Republican Party that does not include equality among its declared ideals. [...] By saying aloud, “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” in a televised interview on ABC, he has sparked conversation domestically and internationally. While he is our president at home, globally he’s an icon, a symbol of the promise of America, of the promise of equality. Obama may be the most prominent man on the planet ever, given the pervasiveness of modern media and his anomalous and historic nature as the first black American president; he is surely the single most recognizable head of state on the globe. By virtue of his unique position, his endorsement of marriage equality is not merely rhetoric. His words constitute action. On the very face of it, his statement is enormous, and has the power to move millions in a way that a statement from no other person could have. [...] He has approached many of our challenges with intellect and foresight, though the long game was not often apparent to many, including this publication when we argued for a quicker pace for change. Obama deftly ended the military’s 17-year-long “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, allowing enough military leaders to reject the policy before pushing for repeal so that there was little room for Republican opposition. He has directed the Justice Department to not defend aspects of the extraordinarily discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, calling it unconstitutional and urging its repeal. Now five federal judges have declared parts of DOMA unconstitutional. And in every speech, at every opportunity, Obama describes LGBTs as his brothers and sisters, full members of our society. In college commencement addresses, in his address to the NAACP, in an “It Gets Better” video message to teenagers, at the National Prayer Breakfast, he has called for respect, dignity, and equality for LGBT people. At an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2011 the president said, “No country should deny people their rights because of who they love, which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.” If we assume that words mean nothing, then we’ve forgotten the lesson of the damage done by a president who largely refused to utter the term AIDS during his administration, and how desperately we ached for him to acknowledge the humanity of those dying of the disease. [...] We cannot expect any president to be the balm for all our ills, but Obama has demonstrated through word and deed that he is capable of understanding and tackling the issues, with foresight and intellect, that affect a minority population, particularly the last group of people it’s still legally permissible to deny rights to in the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 After enacting a school voucher program to funnel state education funds to religious schools that teach evolution isn't true because the Loch Ness Monster exists, one Republican Horrified to Discover Christianity Isn't the Only Religion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 6, 2012 -> 01:32 PM) It was a stupid comment How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 7, 2012 -> 09:53 PM) How so? It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. It was also a comment designed to do exactly what it did...get both sides of the stupid fest to emerge and go to verbal war with each other on the Internets. So, in that regard, it was a successful comment. As B&B would say, what you have here are the opportunistically offended, and the stupid racists going head to head. Edited July 10, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. We need to stop living in the past when we celebrate the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. It was also a comment designed to do exactly what it did...get both sides of the stupid fest to emerge and go to verbal war with each other on the Internets. So, in that regard, it was a successful comment. As B&B would say, what you have here are the opportunistically offended, and the stupid racists going head to head. The stupid racists are the ones that are offended and melting down, though. I just sorta chuckled when I first saw it, then laughed when I saw the OUTRAGE!!! reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) We need to stop living in the past when we celebrate the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. Most people celebrating it have no idea what they're actually celebrating. But let's not pretend it's some sort of a whites only holiday, because at the time it originally occurred slavery still existed. A lot of opportunity and growth emerged for a lot of people/races because of that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts