OT: Public pay & benefits

[all]

CAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.

But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?[/quote]

I am confused? are you agreeing with me CAR? Have we reached that tipping point? I love your “take your ball and go home arguments!” They are my absolute favorite type. Maybe you should move to greece if you want to realize your socialist utopia.

jp, I agree with you. It is all about moderation, and it really is that simple. I think we are out of the moderate bounds in this state.

have we reached this tipping point when a majority of the voting populace decides it is more profitable to legislate their pay rather than go out and make it themselves.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?[/quote]

I am confused? are you agreeing with me CAR? Have we reached that tipping point? I love your “take your ball and go home arguments!” They are my absolute favorite type. Maybe you should move to greece if you want to realize your socialist utopia.

jp, I agree with you. It is all about moderation, and it really is that simple. I think we are out of the moderate bounds in this state.

have we reached this tipping point when a majority of the voting populace decides it is more profitable to legislate their pay rather than go out and make it themselves.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?[/quote]

I am confused? are you agreeing with me CAR? Have we reached that tipping point? I love your “take your ball and go home arguments!” They are my absolute favorite type. Maybe you should move to greece if you want to realize your socialist utopia.

jp, I agree with you. It is all about moderation, and it really is that simple. I think we are out of the moderate bounds in this state.

have we reached this tipping point when a majority of the voting populace decides it is more profitable to legislate their pay rather than go out and make it themselves.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?[/quote]

I am confused? are you agreeing with me CAR? Have we reached that tipping point? I love your “take your ball and go home arguments!” They are my absolute favorite type. Maybe you should move to greece if you want to realize your socialist utopia.

jp, I agree with you. It is all about moderation, and it really is that simple. I think we are out of the moderate bounds in this state.

have we reached this tipping point when a majority of the voting populace decides it is more profitable to legislate their pay rather than go out and make it themselves.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?[/quote]

I am confused? are you agreeing with me CAR? Have we reached that tipping point? I love your “take your ball and go home arguments!” They are my absolute favorite type. Maybe you should move to greece if you want to realize your socialist utopia.

jp, I agree with you. It is all about moderation, and it really is that simple. I think we are out of the moderate bounds in this state.

have we reached this tipping point when a majority of the voting populace decides it is more profitable to legislate their pay rather than go out and make it themselves.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.[/quote]

Funny, only one thing you mention there actually has any merit: military protection of sea lanes. Historically, the railroads were built and run by capitalists not the government. Energy generation and distribution was built by capitalists not the government.

It wasn’t until FDR that major infrastructure projects were done by the government…and many of those could not be done today because of the overbearing weight of union labor.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.[/quote]

Funny, only one thing you mention there actually has any merit: military protection of sea lanes. Historically, the railroads were built and run by capitalists not the government. Energy generation and distribution was built by capitalists not the government.

It wasn’t until FDR that major infrastructure projects were done by the government…and many of those could not be done today because of the overbearing weight of union labor.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.[/quote]

Funny, only one thing you mention there actually has any merit: military protection of sea lanes. Historically, the railroads were built and run by capitalists not the government. Energy generation and distribution was built by capitalists not the government.

It wasn’t until FDR that major infrastructure projects were done by the government…and many of those could not be done today because of the overbearing weight of union labor.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.[/quote]

Funny, only one thing you mention there actually has any merit: military protection of sea lanes. Historically, the railroads were built and run by capitalists not the government. Energy generation and distribution was built by capitalists not the government.

It wasn’t until FDR that major infrastructure projects were done by the government…and many of those could not be done today because of the overbearing weight of union labor.

[meadandale]

[quote=CA renter]
Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.[/quote]

Funny, only one thing you mention there actually has any merit: military protection of sea lanes. Historically, the railroads were built and run by capitalists not the government. Energy generation and distribution was built by capitalists not the government.

It wasn’t until FDR that major infrastructure projects were done by the government…and many of those could not be done today because of the overbearing weight of union labor.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them. . .?[/quote]

Lol, CAR, these “Libertarian Idahoans” must be aware that they’re not safe from their own many “bretheren” who have stockpiled their collections of personal weapons (some automatic) in their upright safes, ground safes and underground bunkers. Didn’t you know? They’re all getting ready for the “apocalypse” in 2012 :=[

One slightly sideways look or random drinking binge and all h@ll could break loose in one of those “idyllic” towns or mountain communities up there :=!

The state of Idaho is THE favorite destination and retirement haven for former disgruntled law enforcement personnel from everywhere (who likely took a [mental] disability retirement) and other social misfits who have “checked out” of mainstream society (or were formerly arrested in other states for possessing unlicensed firearms, possessing loaded firearms without a permit, etc).

[Author]

Posts