American attitudes, where are we at today.

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Sorry... but fat, dumb and happy is how to rule. And we are

Back on page 1, this sums it up. As "bad" as it is now, we still have it pretty damned good. Our poor often have luxuries that weren't even dreamed of 50 years ago. In large part because we are saving the bill for our kids and grandkids to pick up. We better enjoy it. The correction will come at some point. The housing market "correction" was nothing compared to what's coming. All you need is a calculator to figure it out.

The problem with our political system is that they all know it's coming. But they don't want to be the ones responsible for the correction, so they kick the can down the road. It's like a twisted game of musical chairs. And it's our fault. If a politician said, "Elect me. We are living beyond our means, and I'm going to start cutting up the credit cards," he would be rode out of town on a rail. Instead we will elect the guy that we think will give us whatever we want, never mind if we can afford it. We get the leadership that we deserve.

Our elected officials are only part of the problem though. They come and go, and we do have the opportunities to vote them out. It's the unelected beurueacrats that are the real problem. They were never meant to be in their current capacity according to our constitution. The elected representatives on the other hand- that system is working mostly as designed. That system is meant to be slow and tedious. It should be very hard to "get things done" or "make change." Our founding fathers were wise enough to know that more bad than good can come from the power to govern if left unchecked.

I think a large part of the problem with people today is the lack of critical thinking. People go with what what they think sounds good, or repeat what they hear without verification. This is true for both sides. Our media is largely to blame. Journalism is on it's death bed. How many times must the media alter a story to meet the narritive before they should be completely discredited? Yet people still tune in.

I also agree that we have chased many good people away from politics, and I don't blame them. It will be our loss.

In reply to Boost_Crazy:

I give you four internets for that sir!

Boost_Crazy wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

Sorry... but fat, dumb and happy is how to rule. And we are

The problem with our political system is that they all know it's coming. But they don't want to be the ones responsible for the correction, so they kick the can down the road. It's like a twisted game of musical chairs. And it's our fault. If a politician said, "Elect me. We are living beyond our means, and I'm going to start cutting up the credit cards," he would be rode out of town on a rail. Instead we will elect the guy that we think will give us whatever we want, never mind if we can afford it. We get the leadership that we deserve.

Illinois just elected a governor who basically said that--I think before the election he said something to the effect "people won't like what I do and I will be very unpopular, but they are necessary actions if the state wants to keep afloat". I think he is going to do it, and although I worry about some of the social programs that will likely be cut, I think it unfortunately needs to be done because of the hole this state is in. And it is hard to be mad at him, considering he used $25 million of his own money for his campaign, and is also one of the biggest philantrhopists this state has.

I know Dubya Bush bashing is what all the cool kids do, but here's when I picked up a new respect for the man: in an interview way back when he was asked how long the War on Terror would last. His response: he had no idea and furthermore could not say what would constitute a 'win'. Now that's honesty.

Of course the next day all the infotainment outlets were screeching at the tops of their lungs and he issued a half hearted 'clarification' obviously designed just to shut them up. That's what is really wrong with people and by extension this nation and the world as a whole: no one wants to hear the truth. They'd rather have a President who will, in the words of the Fleetwood Mac song, 'Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5HkuhSEnPQ

In reply to mtn:

I love how the rest of the berkeleyers who were happily running the state's economy into the ground with our past governor(s) are suddenly right alongside him nodding and jumping on his "reform" bandwagon. He's not all fairy dust and unicorn farts, though.

Insert Flounder about how it pays to be his friend and in his inner circle and how he's under-handedly de-funding unions.

Then there's a jackass in congress, on the ways and means committee who's responsible for trillions of dollars and his mileage reimbursement claims are off by 90,000.(Edit: Because he couldn't possibly have intentionally committed fraud.) Among many other typical dishonest politician things; underhanded political backscratching, crooked real estate deals, etc... oh well, at least he resigned...

Now I'm all worked up and floundering like a sweaty toothed madman... THROW THE BUMS OUT!!!!

mtn wrote: Illinois just elected a governor who basically said that--I think before the election he said something to the effect "people won't like what I do and I will be very unpopular, but they are necessary actions if the state wants to keep afloat". I think he is going to do it, and although I worry about some of the social programs that will likely be cut, I think it unfortunately needs to be done because of the hole this state is in. And it is hard to be mad at him, considering he used $25 million of his own money for his campaign, and is also one of the biggest philantrhopists this state has.

I am astonished that the 95% of your state that isn't Chicago managed to elect such a person. And yes, you guys have a very deep hole to dig yourselves out of. Sincerely signed, your neighbor that seems to carry a budget surplus each year.

In reply to The_Jed:

Quick question, how or why in the actual berkeley is your state government funding unions in the first place?

This has been an interesting read

I am very impressed that this remained civil.. most threads of this nature do not. Keep up the good work

I think it stems from, no matter what side of the political spectrum you may or may not fall, we're all sick of this E36 M3.

I blame yellow #5

yamaha wrote:

mtn wrote: Illinois just elected a governor who basically said that--I think before the election he said something to the effect "people won't like what I do and I will be very unpopular, but they are necessary actions if the state wants to keep afloat". I think he is going to do it, and although I worry about some of the social programs that will likely be cut, I think it unfortunately needs to be done because of the hole this state is in. And it is hard to be mad at him, considering he used $25 million of his own money for his campaign, and is also one of the biggest philantrhopists this state has.

I am astonished that the 95% of your state that isn't Chicago managed to elect such a person. And yes, you guys have a very deep hole to dig yourselves out of. Sincerely signed, your neighbor that seems to carry a budget surplus each year.

Bruce Rauner quote:

Bruce Rauner said: Mitch Daniels in Indiana was the best governor in America for eight years. I've gone to Indianapolis to study with him.

The_Jed wrote: In reply to mtn: I love how the rest of the berkeleyers who were happily running the state's economy into the ground with our past governor(s) are suddenly right alongside him nodding and jumping on his "reform" bandwagon. He's not all fairy dust and unicorn farts, though. Insert Flounder about how it pays to be his friend and in his inner circle and how he's under-handedly de-funding unions.

I actually know a guy--acquaintance of an acquaintance type of deal--who was backing him the whole way, and he was in a government position. About a month after he was elected, this guy was fired due to cuts.

I dunno, can't be any worse than we have seen in the past. At least our last governor won't end up in prison like the one before him. And the one before that. And the one 3 before that, and the one 3 before that.

I'm trying to think of a way to write out my thoughts without devolving into swear laden, hate filled frothing rantyness and failing.

Grizz wrote: I'm trying to think of a way to write out my thoughts without devolving into swear laden, hate filled frothing rantyness and failing.

As long as you state why you feel that way and don't direct it to board members, have at it!

In reply to yamaha:

The state government doesn't fund the unions, workers, like myself, who pay union dues fund them. Rauner is diverting those payments from the union to a state agency's operations budget.

Union = defunded, worker = over taxed.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/17/illinois-governor-bruce-rauner-unions-labor

Rauner-"Let's enforce my idea until a judge decides whether or not we should enforce my idea." :

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/20/illinois-bruce-rauner-union-fair-share-dues

In reply to The_Jed:

I suppose that I should change my avatar picture. I made it 4 or 5 years ago based on the picture you used to use as yours. Now that you are beer, mine just looks like a grumpy guy.

He's making all of these cuts when, if he had reinstated, or made permanent, the temporary income tax increase there would be a lot more revenue to help fill the fiscal gap.

Of course, since he made $60,100,000 in 2013 (up from $53,000,000 in 2012) he's saving just over $750,000 in personal taxes by letting it expire, assuming his income has stagnated.

Instead he'd rather target people that make less than 10% of what he would SAVE in income taxes, since there are nearly 13 million little people he can squeeze.

In reply to T.J.:

I am a grumpy guy.

In reply to The_Jed:

LOL, aren't we all when it really comes down to it?

I wonder how many politicians/decision makers in federal government donate or go without pay?

It sounds like a lot to you or me since the governor's salary is around $177,000 but, in reality, that is .295% of his 2013 income.

Which is akin to me, who made a whopping $54,000 last year, taking on a job that pays an annual salary of $159.30 and saying, "Nah, just keep it." while somehow still making $54,000 or more.

But, to answer the question, I would assume none.

Appleseed wrote: I think it stems from, no matter what side of the political spectrum you may or may not fall, we're all sick of this E36 M3.

Dead on target. I'm disgusted with the whole process and the shrieking from both ends of the political spectrum. I don't recall who said it first, but the gist was 'a really good decision pisses off everybody'. That means meeting in the middle, or compromise. Unfortunately no one in government wants to do that; if they do it means they are not gonna last long because the way out there party base is going to find a way to get rid of them.

The_Jed wrote: He's making all of these cuts when, if he had reinstated, or made permanent, the temporary income tax increase there would be a lot more revenue to help fill the fiscal gap. Of course, since he made $60,100,000 in 2013 (up from $53,000,000 in 2012) he's saving just over $750,000 in personal taxes by letting it expire, assuming his income has stagnated. Instead he'd rather target people that make less than 10% of what he would SAVE in income taxes, since there are nearly 13 million little people he can squeeze.

It doesn't quite work that way, he didn't save nearly that much. Now that is a different argument (our tax codes are way to berkeleying complex), but just pointing it out.

Dude also donated $19 million over a 10 year period to various non-profits. http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/155021/rauners-charitable-giving-veers-left-and-right

Depending on the source (and why I'm not stating it as fact since I can't verify it without going through his tax returns that were published, and that is just boring) made $60 mil in 2013, paid $17 mil in federal and state taxes, and donated an additional $10 mil to charity (not sure what charity means).

Not trying to say he's a saint, and I'm not trying to defend his every action. But IMHO, he is the best chance this state has.

In reply to mtn:

I hope you're right.