Financial News

[StrangeSox]

I learned a new word yesterday, and think it's appropriate here: anecdata.

[Y2HH]

I learned a new word yesterday, and think it's appropriate here: anecdata.

 

Dumb, and it shows you're as clueless as most here.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Dumb, and it shows you're as clueless as most here.

 

I will readily admit to being happily ignorant wrt to Cook County and Chicago politics, budgets and corruption.

 

Still, "everyone knows a guy..." isn't exactly a rigorous method of coming up with "hundreds of millions in fraud"

[Y2HH]

I'm done with this conversation.

 

You're all right.

 

There is little to no corruption in Chicago politics.

 

We are hemorrhaging almost no real money on said corruption, too. You're all right, and I'm very wrong, because all I have is "anecdotal" evidence, the overused word play on Soxtalk.

 

I'll say it again, you're right...there's almost no corruption in Chicago politics. I take back everything I said and admit how wrong I am for thinking the words Corruption and Chicago fit together.

 

Honestly, you're all making me laugh...but in a sad way, because you actually believe it.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

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

 

At one point you flipped out on me for saying that untargeted budget cuts are a dumb idea, but this is exactly why.

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Plus they each get something like $1.5 million to spend in their wards too, in addition to all of their salaries and expenses.

[Y2HH]

At one point you flipped out on me for saying that untargeted budget cuts are a dumb idea, but this is exactly why.

 

They CAN be a dumb idea, yes. But when something has grown out of control, it's nearly impossible to do targeted cuts without costing yourself your elected position.

[StrangeSox]

They CAN be a dumb idea, yes. But when something has grown out of control, it's nearly impossible to do targeted cuts without costing yourself your elected position.

 

...so we're back to cutting teachers, police and firefighters.

[Y2HH]

...so we're back to cutting teachers, police and firefighters.

 

Actually, we ARE cutting police and firefighters, RIGHT now. Of course, you don't even know it, do you? So...now that I've killed that talking point on you, now what do you have to say?

 

Before you ask how, I'll tell you -- attrition. Chicago police and firefighters are retiring...and since they're NOT hiring new ones, you get what they call cuts. Every month officers and fighters retire, and every month 0 are hired. These "cuts" are a politicians best friend, because they're invisible and they don't have to announce it.

 

Nonetheless, every month that goes by, there are less police and firefighters than there were the month before. Even with Rahm's promise to hire 200 more officers, the attrition rate FAR exceeds that. And now we're talking about officers with 20 years of experience (and pay scale) vs new hires, which is still a cost savings.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Actually, we ARE cutting police and firefighters, RIGHT now. Of course, you don't even know it, do you?

 

Vaguely, sure. It gets mentioned on NPR from time to time. As I said, though, I don't live in Chicago or Cook county so I don't actually follow it.

 

So...now that I've killed that talking point on you, now what do you have to say?

 

When bmags pointed out that cutting $625M means cutting police teachers, etc. you asked "but why does it have to be that?"

 

If you have to do across-the-board cuts, it has to be. You've argued that, politically, there's really no other choice. So, to balance the budget with cuts, you necessarily have to cut teachers, police etc. It's not a talking point but a simple illustration of the problems, both for real people and politically, of just cutting your way to balance.

 

[StrangeSox]

Even with Rahm's promise to hire 200 more officers, the attrition rate FAR exceeds that. And now we're talking about officers with 20 years of experience (and pay scale) vs new hires, which is still a cost savings.

 

IIRC that's turning out to mostly be eliminating desk jobs and moving those officers back on to the streets.

[Y2HH]

Vaguely, sure. It gets mentioned on NPR from time to time. As I said, though, I don't live in Chicago or Cook county so I don't actually follow it.

 

 

 

When bmags pointed out that cutting $625M means cutting police teachers, etc. you asked "but why does it have to be that?"

 

If you have to do across-the-board cuts, it has to be. You've argued that, politically, there's really no other choice. So, to balance the budget with cuts, you necessarily have to cut teachers, police etc. It's not a talking point but a simple illustration of the problems, both for real people and politically, of just cutting your way to balance.

 

I'm just saying these tax increases are hurting regular people at this point...that's all.

 

I know they have some very tough decisions to make, and even tougher cuts...I get that. I know EVERYONE in every City across this country has their hard times ahead...and it sucks.

 

Doesn't mean I can't b**** about it.

[Y2HH]

IIRC that's turning out to mostly be eliminating desk jobs and moving those officers back on to the streets.

 

No, I think these are actual new hires. I know they're actually doing a few upcoming academy classes..

[bmags]

I'm done with this conversation.

 

You're all right.

 

There is little to no corruption in Chicago politics.

 

We are hemorrhaging almost no real money on said corruption, too. You're all right, and I'm very wrong, because all I have is "anecdotal" evidence, the overused word play on Soxtalk.

 

I'll say it again, you're right...there's almost no corruption in Chicago politics. I take back everything I said and admit how wrong I am for thinking the words Corruption and Chicago fit together.

 

Honestly, you're all making me laugh...but in a sad way, because you actually believe it.

 

nobody is saying that there is none. But if you are talking about solving the deficit and all you are coming up with is slashing politicians pay and that friend of yours who doesn'ts how up to work some days, then it's not a serious discussion about solving the deficit.

[southsider2k5]

Vaguely, sure. It gets mentioned on NPR from time to time. As I said, though, I don't live in Chicago or Cook county so I don't actually follow it.

 

 

 

When bmags pointed out that cutting $625M means cutting police teachers, etc. you asked "but why does it have to be that?"

 

If you have to do across-the-board cuts, it has to be. You've argued that, politically, there's really no other choice. So, to balance the budget with cuts, you necessarily have to cut teachers, police etc. It's not a talking point but a simple illustration of the problems, both for real people and politically, of just cutting your way to balance.

 

The biggest problem is that this City/County/State were so poorly run that they were increase taxes when things were good. Now that things are bad, there is no room left to increase revenues. If they had been responsible, things wouldn't be nearly this bad.

[bmags]

The biggest problem is that this City/County/State were so poorly run that they were increase taxes when things were good. Now that things are bad, there is no room left to increase revenues. If they had been responsible, things wouldn't be nearly this bad.

 

Totally agree.

[Y2HH]

nobody is saying that there is none. But if you are talking about solving the deficit and all you are coming up with is slashing politicians pay and that friend of yours who doesn'ts how up to work some days, then it's not a serious discussion about solving the deficit.

 

It's not a friend of mine...

 

Problem with this type of fix is I don't think the way to solve this deficit by hurting people that can least afford to be hurt right now. Targeted tax increases COULD help, but you can't just keep hurting those that are barely making it by without FURTHER escalating the issue with poor people needing help. All that will do is CREATE even more poor people who then need even MORE help.

 

Did I just advocate somehow raising taxes on the rich? Yes, I did. As i said, I can afford these nickel and dime raises (for now at least), but a LOT of people can't. In addition to the cuts that they need to make and the corruption they need to CONTINUE targeting, such as the administrators of the Police/Fire pensions LOSING money on real estate bets yet keeping their jobs...

 

And what's this I read the other day about people being allowed to collect teachers pensions because they worked on a board for teachers or something? s*** like that HAS TO STOP. Maybe it had something to do with the police board...not sure, but I know I just read it.

[StrangeSox]

It was in the repub thread.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

 

OK. Don't bother trying to argue real points, just assume everyone is clueless but you. Because yeah, I know nothing about how city politics works. Keep telling yourself that.

 

And keep deluding yourself into thinking that simply cleaning out some dirty city workers is going to miraculously come to a 625M savings. That, is clueless. Patronage and corruption are embedded in Chicago city politics, obviously, and no one other than your straw man is saying otherwise.

 

 

I'm done with this conversation.

 

You're all right.

 

There is little to no corruption in Chicago politics.

 

We are hemorrhaging almost no real money on said corruption, too. You're all right, and I'm very wrong, because all I have is "anecdotal" evidence, the overused word play on Soxtalk.

 

I'll say it again, you're right...there's almost no corruption in Chicago politics. I take back everything I said and admit how wrong I am for thinking the words Corruption and Chicago fit together.

 

Honestly, you're all making me laugh...but in a sad way, because you actually believe it.

 

Yes, we are all saying that there is little or no corruption. Find me someone, somewhere, anywhere in here who has said anything like that. I'll buy you a drink if you can.

 

SS2K5 has it right - the problems are too large and too deep to think that a few cuts, or even making the city government pretty clean, is going to do it. And now, because of the BIGGEST problems (which are about how the city was run financially, not about Joe Garbage Truck Manager who gets some extra money he shouldn't), the city has to raise revenues at the most inopportune time.

 

[Y2HH]

the city has to raise revenues at the most inopportune time.

 

And no matter how much they raise it won't be enough, because all they're doing is hurting people that cannot afford to be hurt right now...and creating a snowball effect in the process.

[NorthSideSox72]

And no matter how much they raise it won't be enough, because all they're doing is hurting people that cannot afford to be hurt right now...and creating a snowball effect in the process.

Maybe. Revenues from property tax overall are staying close to flat, and the increased fees on things are targeted to specific activities, none of which are necessities. No doubt they will have a negative effect on people's budgets, but it seems to me they did a decent job of keeping it focused in a way that does less harm. The sales tax is actually going to go down this year and next, eventually back to where it was before Stroger's idiocy.

 

[Balta1701]

And no matter how much they raise it won't be enough, because all they're doing is hurting people that cannot afford to be hurt right now...and creating a snowball effect in the process.

Sonofa...we've created a Keynesian!

[Y2HH]

Sonofa...we've created a Keynesian!

 

I'm just angry that these politicians are endlessly nickle and diming people to the point that they're becoming a large part of the reason why people are broke or falling to pieces financially.

 

And meanwhile, things get worse.

[StrangeSox]

Sonofa...we've created a Keynesian!

 

I was thinking the same thing, and wrt to ss2k5's post as well.

[NorthSideSox72]

I was thinking the same thing, and wrt to ss2k5's post as well.

SS2K5 has been pretty consistent in saying that in this economy, tax cuts are a mistake, as are tax increases, until the economy begins to recover a bit.