OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[CA renter]

Like I’ve suggested before…I’m sure most public workers would be happy to roll back their compensation to 1995 levels. But in order for them to maintain their ~1995 purchasing power, we’d have to see asset prices fall to 1995 levels. That means “the rich” would take some pretty significant losses. Not only that, but we should restore ~1995 tax rates in order to correct all the imbalances as well.

In other words, let’s ALL go back to ~1995 levels.

Would you agree to those terms?

[briansd1]

CA renter, we can only move forward. We can never go back.

You keep on saying that public employees should be immune from economic vagaries because their benefits are “guaranteed.”

Nothing is guaranteed. Sacrifices should be shared. It’s clear that the voters want public employees to share the pain.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/costa-mesa-moves-to-layoff-nearly-half-its-employees.html

On immigration, I believe that you are wrong. Those children of immigrants are here and not going anywhere. So we should educate them like all other children. What good does it do to tag them for exclusion?

Remember that education is provided by public employees. If you can prevent certain children from attending school, would you layoff teachers to cut the budget? If not, there won’t be any savings.

You may want to bill the Federal government or employers for immigration costs. Good luck with that. In the mean time, there’s no money. And state and local governments are still in deficit and need to cut costs now.

I think that you’re too focused on protecting public employee benefits. If you want a better society, how about some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable — the new immigrants and their children? The reality is that, like it or not, unauthorized or documented, they are part of our population and are here to stay.

[briansd1]

CA renter, we can only move forward. We can never go back.

You keep on saying that public employees should be immune from economic vagaries because their benefits are “guaranteed.”

Nothing is guaranteed. Sacrifices should be shared. It’s clear that the voters want public employees to share the pain.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/costa-mesa-moves-to-layoff-nearly-half-its-employees.html

On immigration, I believe that you are wrong. Those children of immigrants are here and not going anywhere. So we should educate them like all other children. What good does it do to tag them for exclusion?

Remember that education is provided by public employees. If you can prevent certain children from attending school, would you layoff teachers to cut the budget? If not, there won’t be any savings.

You may want to bill the Federal government or employers for immigration costs. Good luck with that. In the mean time, there’s no money. And state and local governments are still in deficit and need to cut costs now.

I think that you’re too focused on protecting public employee benefits. If you want a better society, how about some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable — the new immigrants and their children? The reality is that, like it or not, unauthorized or documented, they are part of our population and are here to stay.

[briansd1]

CA renter, we can only move forward. We can never go back.

You keep on saying that public employees should be immune from economic vagaries because their benefits are “guaranteed.”

Nothing is guaranteed. Sacrifices should be shared. It’s clear that the voters want public employees to share the pain.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/costa-mesa-moves-to-layoff-nearly-half-its-employees.html

On immigration, I believe that you are wrong. Those children of immigrants are here and not going anywhere. So we should educate them like all other children. What good does it do to tag them for exclusion?

Remember that education is provided by public employees. If you can prevent certain children from attending school, would you layoff teachers to cut the budget? If not, there won’t be any savings.

You may want to bill the Federal government or employers for immigration costs. Good luck with that. In the mean time, there’s no money. And state and local governments are still in deficit and need to cut costs now.

I think that you’re too focused on protecting public employee benefits. If you want a better society, how about some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable — the new immigrants and their children? The reality is that, like it or not, unauthorized or documented, they are part of our population and are here to stay.

[briansd1]

CA renter, we can only move forward. We can never go back.

You keep on saying that public employees should be immune from economic vagaries because their benefits are “guaranteed.”

Nothing is guaranteed. Sacrifices should be shared. It’s clear that the voters want public employees to share the pain.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/costa-mesa-moves-to-layoff-nearly-half-its-employees.html

On immigration, I believe that you are wrong. Those children of immigrants are here and not going anywhere. So we should educate them like all other children. What good does it do to tag them for exclusion?

Remember that education is provided by public employees. If you can prevent certain children from attending school, would you layoff teachers to cut the budget? If not, there won’t be any savings.

You may want to bill the Federal government or employers for immigration costs. Good luck with that. In the mean time, there’s no money. And state and local governments are still in deficit and need to cut costs now.

I think that you’re too focused on protecting public employee benefits. If you want a better society, how about some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable — the new immigrants and their children? The reality is that, like it or not, unauthorized or documented, they are part of our population and are here to stay.

[briansd1]

CA renter, we can only move forward. We can never go back.

You keep on saying that public employees should be immune from economic vagaries because their benefits are “guaranteed.”

Nothing is guaranteed. Sacrifices should be shared. It’s clear that the voters want public employees to share the pain.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/costa-mesa-moves-to-layoff-nearly-half-its-employees.html

On immigration, I believe that you are wrong. Those children of immigrants are here and not going anywhere. So we should educate them like all other children. What good does it do to tag them for exclusion?

Remember that education is provided by public employees. If you can prevent certain children from attending school, would you layoff teachers to cut the budget? If not, there won’t be any savings.

You may want to bill the Federal government or employers for immigration costs. Good luck with that. In the mean time, there’s no money. And state and local governments are still in deficit and need to cut costs now.

I think that you’re too focused on protecting public employee benefits. If you want a better society, how about some solidarity with the poorest and most vulnerable — the new immigrants and their children? The reality is that, like it or not, unauthorized or documented, they are part of our population and are here to stay.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with brian here that we can’t go back. As to the illegal-immigrant issue, the vast majority are working in CA, whether legally taxed or “under the table.” Due to federal law, any children they have while in the US are citizens.

Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here, this is not something, we, as voters can do anything about, except to elect congress people who will regularly and vociferously go to bat for CA monetarily-wise in our nation’s capitol. Meantime, city and county counsels are constantly suing the state to fund unfunded mandates and confiscated property-tax (teeter) funds and the State’s AG’s office is constantly suing the federal government for reimbursement of these unfunded mandates. These never-ending lawsuits have been going on for many years.

These are the only individuals in positions to do something about the problem, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with brian here that we can’t go back. As to the illegal-immigrant issue, the vast majority are working in CA, whether legally taxed or “under the table.” Due to federal law, any children they have while in the US are citizens.

Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here, this is not something, we, as voters can do anything about, except to elect congress people who will regularly and vociferously go to bat for CA monetarily-wise in our nation’s capitol. Meantime, city and county counsels are constantly suing the state to fund unfunded mandates and confiscated property-tax (teeter) funds and the State’s AG’s office is constantly suing the federal government for reimbursement of these unfunded mandates. These never-ending lawsuits have been going on for many years.

These are the only individuals in positions to do something about the problem, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with brian here that we can’t go back. As to the illegal-immigrant issue, the vast majority are working in CA, whether legally taxed or “under the table.” Due to federal law, any children they have while in the US are citizens.

Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here, this is not something, we, as voters can do anything about, except to elect congress people who will regularly and vociferously go to bat for CA monetarily-wise in our nation’s capitol. Meantime, city and county counsels are constantly suing the state to fund unfunded mandates and confiscated property-tax (teeter) funds and the State’s AG’s office is constantly suing the federal government for reimbursement of these unfunded mandates. These never-ending lawsuits have been going on for many years.

These are the only individuals in positions to do something about the problem, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with brian here that we can’t go back. As to the illegal-immigrant issue, the vast majority are working in CA, whether legally taxed or “under the table.” Due to federal law, any children they have while in the US are citizens.

Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here, this is not something, we, as voters can do anything about, except to elect congress people who will regularly and vociferously go to bat for CA monetarily-wise in our nation’s capitol. Meantime, city and county counsels are constantly suing the state to fund unfunded mandates and confiscated property-tax (teeter) funds and the State’s AG’s office is constantly suing the federal government for reimbursement of these unfunded mandates. These never-ending lawsuits have been going on for many years.

These are the only individuals in positions to do something about the problem, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with brian here that we can’t go back. As to the illegal-immigrant issue, the vast majority are working in CA, whether legally taxed or “under the table.” Due to federal law, any children they have while in the US are citizens.

Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here, this is not something, we, as voters can do anything about, except to elect congress people who will regularly and vociferously go to bat for CA monetarily-wise in our nation’s capitol. Meantime, city and county counsels are constantly suing the state to fund unfunded mandates and confiscated property-tax (teeter) funds and the State’s AG’s office is constantly suing the federal government for reimbursement of these unfunded mandates. These never-ending lawsuits have been going on for many years.

These are the only individuals in positions to do something about the problem, IMO.

[briansd1]

That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…

[briansd1]

That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…

[briansd1]

That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…

[briansd1]

That’s pretty much it, bearishgurl. There’s not much we can do about the immigrants already here. They are us and we need to treat them that way.

We could cry all we want about what might have been and what could be; but the reality is that we’ve got to make do with what we have.

What could be is for the future. We should be most concerned with what can be fiscally achieved right now.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Although I do agree with CAR that all levels of government in CA could be cut by =>25-30% if we didn’t have illegal immigrants here[/quote]

That would mean commensurate layoffs of teachers, police officers, prison guards, etc…

[Author]

Posts