OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]your goals are not mutually exclusive…just because we screwed up on banking industry claw backs (which you will find few on this post who will disagree), does not mean that we do not have to deal with the public sector unions. And as Brian has framed the conundrum (I can not believe I am agreeing with brian), necessitates either tax increases or benefit cuts. Even though you refuse to admit it (I am sure you or your spouse is hoping for a generous government dole), cuts need to be made. Or you can tax the rest of us into destituteness…

Frankly I am tired, and I think others are as well, of you not owning up to your self interest in this matter. My self interest is clear. I do not want to be taxed one more red dollar…how about you CAR?

One more note. Just because I seek more contributions and and end to public unions, does not mean that I want abusive pay of public servants. I want them to be compensated in line with the demand for the job. And if hiring well qualified fireman or policeman is as hard as you say it is, than pay them well. But the numbers of those who want these jobs does not bear your desired salaries, as indispensable as you say they are…

Is that enough parenthetical statement…I think I set a record.[/quote]

You must have missed my post regarding suggestions for fixing our budget.

Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.

BTW, we’ve been through this before on hiring police and firefighters during the bubble. There was a severe shortage of qualified recruits during the bubble. I heard that some police departments had to allow former gang members to sign up because they couldn’t find enough recruits without a criminal/gang history.

I know fire departments were sending representatives to colleges with Fire Academies to hand out applications and offer signing bonuses because they couldn’t find enough qualified recruits.

What people don’t seem to understand about public safety is that recruiting and training is VERY, VERY expensive. Fire and police departments cannot afford high turnover rates because of these expenses and because these jobs value **experience** over formal education or other qualifications. They cannot afford to have Johnny-come-lately types who will leave the moment something more lucrative (like flipping houses or peddling mortgages) comes up. This is whey they try to attract employees with long-term benefits which the more dependable, security-minded employees like. They WANT the employees with a lot of experience under their belts, because these are the most valuable employees. This is not the tech industry.

What was happening during the bubble was that other departments were poaching recruits after other departments had spent the time and money hiring and training them. There were too few recruits to go around, and I know this for a fact.

The stories you hear about “recruits lining up around the corner” are for **recruit** positions. These positions are only opened when departments cannot find enough candidates with the qualifications required for the job (education, experience, academy training, etc.). These recruit positions cost the departments a lot of money because they need to do ALL of the training (most fire departments hire people with at least 1-2 years of experience and paramedic certification, not “recruits”). Only large departments can afford to have these positions/training academies, BTW. Smaller departments do not have them, so no “lines around the block” for their open positions, especially when the economy is strong.

——————

As Los Angeles tries to add 1,000 officers in five years to the smallest big-city police department in the nation, it has found there haven’t been enough David Gameros to go around.

The LAPD and police departments around the country are engaged in an intense competition over an increasingly limited pool of suitable people interested in becoming cops.

In Los Angeles, the department is fortifying its recruitment efforts in its drive to beat out other departments and attract the elusive recruit. The department has increased its full-time recruitment team from two to 12. It is offering a $1,000 cash reward to any employee who brings in a successful recruit. And recruiters are hitting the college job-placement circuits.

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/02/local/me-recruit2

[briansd1]

CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.

Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?

BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.

And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.

[briansd1]

CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.

Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?

BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.

And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.

[briansd1]

CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.

Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?

BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.

And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.

[briansd1]

CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.

Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?

BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.

And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.

[briansd1]

CA renter, assuming your solutions will work, they will take time to implement.

What do we do in the mean time? The budget needs to be balance right now.

Also your solution might work for California, but what about other states that have huge deficits also?

BTW, you California solutions includes tax increases. And how do you charge employers for the costs of immigration? That would be a Federal thing so the State would not get the revenue.

And do you propose discriminating against certain American citizens because their parents are/were unauthorized immigrants? That’s not the American way.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.
[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.

And one more thing to consider. I remember you were in favor of bailing out banks b/c the whole system would collapse. They got their money. They are slow in releasing their inventory, taking the loss and adjusting their books. AND very few are lending.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.
[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.

And one more thing to consider. I remember you were in favor of bailing out banks b/c the whole system would collapse. They got their money. They are slow in releasing their inventory, taking the loss and adjusting their books. AND very few are lending.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.
[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.

And one more thing to consider. I remember you were in favor of bailing out banks b/c the whole system would collapse. They got their money. They are slow in releasing their inventory, taking the loss and adjusting their books. AND very few are lending.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.
[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.

And one more thing to consider. I remember you were in favor of bailing out banks b/c the whole system would collapse. They got their money. They are slow in releasing their inventory, taking the loss and adjusting their books. AND very few are lending.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]
Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.
[/quote]

I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.

And one more thing to consider. I remember you were in favor of bailing out banks b/c the whole system would collapse. They got their money. They are slow in releasing their inventory, taking the loss and adjusting their books. AND very few are lending.

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?

[briansd1]

[quote=jpinpb]
I think you have it backwards, brian. Wall Street has been relying on us. They made money off our stupidity and they are being bailed out by the taxpayers while cuts are made.
[/quote]

Ok. That’s where we differ.

As a society, we greatly benefited from Wall Street. Without Wall Street and the lending they created, our economy would have been a fraction of what it is now.

Without credit cards, retailers would suffer, restaurants would close and the economy wouldn’t be as vibrant.

Without Wall Street, America would not be the capitalist society it is today.

BTW, CA renter complains about the 7%-9% annual returns that Wall Street did not deliver, but she forgot that relying on those returns allowed the compensation largesse to begin with.

Another thing that CA renter did not address is layoffs. As she admitted before, the revenue of the bubble years, combined with anticipated returns on investments allowed state and local governments to go on a spending binge (government spending grew much faster than population and inflation).

How about rolling back spending to the pre-bubble years and mandating that government spending not increase faster than population growth + inflation?

[Author]

Posts