Election Perspectives

Yep, especially when those amounts are piled on top of spending for a discretionary war and tax cuts to nowhere Cheney/Bush kicked in. The 2009 legislation you referred to saved jobs and did not really create many for sure. I suppose that that's political but, all of those unemployed teachers, state government bureaucrats (or highway department employees), firefighters and police would have looked real shiny on the unemployment roles.

So when Republican had out of control spending from 2001-2006 they get the blame. Fair enough, the party of "fiscal responsibility" was horribly irresponsible.

Why do other Congresses not get the same blame R4C? How many of those recessions had a democratic controlled congress responsible for the spending?

(Hint, I posted a link to that question in response to your "When were Republicans responsible for certain legislation when their sister's boyfriend was sick at 31 Flavors")

...I suppose that that's political but, all of those unemployed teachers, state government bureaucrats (or highway department employees), firefighters and police would have looked real shiny on the unemployment roles. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Those sentiments are representative of the canards offered by apologists for the "stimulus" package crammed through by Pelosi's congress, which in part involved sending money to profligate states with no accountability. That was simply an enabling action, ensuring that more bailouts will soon be necessary.

There was a better way. The U.S. government could have loaned states money conditioned upon said states agreeing to meaningful reform of out-of-control public sector pay, pension, and benefits packages. The problem is that many state legislatures are virtually owned by the public sector unions. These people end up essentially negotiating with themselves and their own lobbyists!

It's no wonder the situation is so out of control, and that we're on course to have to send hundreds of billions more dollars to states that seem hell-bent on hurtling toward catastrophic busts.

Just take a look at this:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ops_98581.html

Of course that's one of the most egregious cases, but it's one of hundreds of such examples around the country. We can't afford any more of this sort of stuff.

Another famous example involves unionized California prison gaurds making over $100K/year. Prison guards! I mean, really -- how much intelligence and training could it possibly take to be a prison guard?

One reform measure that's been suggested is to allow states to file for bankruptcy, like cities and counties. Then they could renegotiate ruinous and unsustainable union contracts and unfunded pension liabilities. The mere existence of the possibility of bankruptcy might serve to bring unions with massive senses of entitlement to the table. That may sound like a radical step, but doing nothing will obviously help bring about more crises.

What's abundantly clear is that we can no longer afford to just let political hacks buy votes with other people's money.

Too many politicians view the private sector the way the Huns viewed a city -- something to be sacked and plundered.

But there are states like Texas where the Governor won't take federal funds.

But there are states like Texas where the Governor won't take federal funds. Originally Posted by Txn5inThick

Texas didn't? Hmmm, looks like Perry's rhetoric got in the way of the facts (again):

http://www.txstimulusfund.com/

Cap'n, the RealClears (Markets, Politics, Sports, Religion) are owned by Forbes, Inc. and do have a conservative, but not radical, outlook much as could be expected, given the ownership. I don't have a problem with them because they typically don't stray next to the deep right field foul pole. But, they're offering opinions. The facts are that those people who are presently employed in the areas I stated earlier would have been out of their jobs, regardless of your opinion or mine as to whether or not they should have been employed in the first place.

Oh!..Sorry...thought this was the "Erection Perspective" thread...

The facts are that those people who are presently employed in the areas I stated earlier would have been out of their jobs, regardless of your opinion or mine as to whether or not they should have been employed in the first place. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

No, that is not a fact -- it is your opinion.

You have no way of knowing how many people in those categories would have been laid off if the federal government had not sent more money to the states. The numbers may have been (and probably were) greatly exaggerated by those advocating big spending packages.

Do you seriously believe that it's OK to just send trainloads of money to profligate states with no accountability? As I said earlier, that's just enabling behavior. It's like handing more booze to an alcoholic and telling him it's OK to put off rehab for a few years.

As I suggested in my previous post, there were better ways to handle this. Just blindly sending money with no accountability does nothing more than kick the can down the road and create a continuing need for more bailouts of irresponsible states. That should be obvious to everyone.

Are you going to defend the Democrats no matter what they do?

If so, that's just blind partisanship. Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh!..Sorry...thought this was the "Erection Perspective" thread... Originally Posted by txcwby6

Well, all you have to do is open up a page with a list of threads and throw a couple of those tiny little rubber darts at your screen. You're bound to hit an "erection perspective" thread!

So, the fact that they would have lost their jobs without an infusion of cash to the states has no bearing? Are you advocating returning to 35+ pupils in a classroom, fewer police, firefighters, pothole fixers? I guess since they are not financial advisors, investment bankers or other alleged captains of industry they should just be left hanging out?

Don't have time to re-read all of the newer posts but i will side with CaptainMidnight on this last set of posts, just throwing money at the States is not going to do anything constructive. Unfortunately just throwing money at things is about the only thing our way too large Fed Gov does well!

Just look how that turned out in Iraq, no accountibility for our tax dollars and it got badly wasted. Mostly by our own Corporations there to help "rebuild" Iraq.

So, the fact that they would have lost their jobs without an infusion of cash to the states has no bearing? Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Instead of continuing blithely on, please re-read my previous post.

That is not a fact, it is your opinion. No one has any idea whether states would have laid off many employees. Absent a big federal infusion, most states would probably have done what they always do -- declare some sort of emergency, borrow more money, and jack up every little tax they can think of. When union bosses and state legislatures think a big windfall might be coming their way, scare scories abound.

Are you advocating returning to 35+ pupils in a classroom, fewer police, firefighters, pothole fixers? Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I advocate no such thing. Again, if all else fails please read my previous post. I briefly described a better way to solve today's problem while putting us in better shape for the future. You can't just endlessly throw taxpayers' money into a black hole. That's just nuts. We've been doing that for too long and we're just about at the end of the line.

Unfortunately just throwing money at things is about the only thing our way too large Fed Gov does well! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

True that!

[hijack]Hi, Waco! Love your college football threads! The only reason I haven't participated lately is that my favorite team collapsed this year. It's very depressing. (You may recall that I'm a UT Austin alum.) I sure had fun discussing college football five years ago on ASPD, though![/hijack]

One may argue that the TARP was not handled as well as it should have been, but I think we can all agree that some type of rescue package for the financial sector was urgently necessary in the fall of 2008. Imperfect as it was, it did prevent a worse calamity.

On the other hand, the $862 billion February 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a misnomer if there ever was one) was irresponsible, wasteful, and completely unnecessary. Provisions such as extentions or expansions of unemployment compensation could have been passed as stand-alones. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Doubtful on the first hand, plain insanity on the second. TARP may or may not have been needed. That depends on your view of whether the international banking system was truly on the verge of collapse and whether a better remedy would have been to either nationalize the bank temporarily or run them through quick pre-packaged bankruptcies. Either of the latter options would have eliminated the moral hazard issue and taken out the current ownership and management, who were guilty of gross irresponsibility.

The stimulus bill was flawed in two respects -- it was two small and it was not as well designed as it should have been. But it was indisputably necessary. Without those expenditures, the liquidity trap would have only grown worse and aggregate demand would have been much lower. Hence the economy would have been in much worse shape. Double the size of the stimulus and have it much more directed at direct spending, and the recovery would have been quicker and more powerful. The short term debt would clearly have been higher, but tax receipts would rebound quicker and the debt could be paid down much more quickly as a result of the stronger economy.

CaptainMidnight is under the thrall of economists wedded to the now discredited Efficient Market Hypothesis. But for those who want a clear explanation of what happened and what should be done, Joe Stiglitz book, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy, is a great read. Yes, he's a Nobel Prize winning Economist (probably one of the two best economist working in the U.S. today, in my estimation), but his explanations are well written and clear even if you have a limited economics background. Well worth reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Freefall-Ameri...0127701&sr=8-1

states agreeing to meaningful reform of out-of-control public sector pay, pension, and benefits packages. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Speaking of complete horseshit, this is beyond belief. A starting school teacher in Texas makes $27,320 a year. In my local school district, they pay $100/ Mo. (on a ten month contract) over the minimum. Anybody want to go work for $28,320???

http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5860

Out of control my ass. Its just fucking unbelievable that people can even spout this shit with a straight face, much less that there are fools that will believe it.

TTH, thanks for glossing over my question. More of the same from you.

So, rather than address the concern/question of a prison guard who makes $100,000K per year WITH a pension that continues pay at that rate you bring up some East Texas sticks school district as your alternate example.

God help your clients.

Glad to know East Texas didn't make the cut as having anything to do with anything, Bolt.

Cap'n, heads explode when both sides of the mouth attached to them are used to speak simultaneously. You can't have it both ways....your "nobody knows for sure since they didn't actually do it" rationale as it relates to how you think the "prolifigate" states should have handled the shortfall makes no sense since the majority of states Constitutionally have balanced budget ammendments. And, with regards to "tiny rubber darts," I'm sorry that they didn't come from places other than Forbes and the State of Texas's vewy own web site. I don't need to keep a list of sites to prop up my "opinions," since I tend to use facts instead of what all us ol' boys "know." Guess Warren Buffet is misguided, too....hmmmmmm.

It certainly isn't a valid argument to say that no public workers are overpaid by citing one particular position in one particular part of one particular state. His statements also don't seem to be rooted in reality. How many other jobs coming out of college with just a 4 year degree pay $28K per year on a yearly contract basis with only 187 work days required? How many other jobs have guaranteed pay increases with additional education and years of service?

http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/texas.html
http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state
http://teacherportal.com/salary/Texas-teacher-salary
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=2147485382

The problem is when unions artificially prop up wages to unreasonable AND unsustainable levels by making deals with government entities. Gray Davis was recalled in CA for his handling of the union state workers there by giving them sweetheart deals. Problem is the governator couldn't break the contracts and now look at the shambles the state is in financially. They are a PERFECT example of CM's point. NOTHING was fixed because the government bailed ouhttp://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-statet the state for the time being. Had they not been given the money and been forced to deal with the shit storm their DEMOCRAT governer and DEMOCRAT controlled statehouse caused years ago perhaps they could have resolved the issue with little or no lay-offs. Perhaps a pay cut to more reasonable pay for state of CA employees would allow for everyone to keep their jobs. Had they been forced to govern and make hard decisions for the benefit of the people and not the re-election campaign perhaps no stimulus would be needed. Or, as CM pointed out, bail them out now BUT require it to either be paid back or gifted in exchange for real reform.

I have managed to allow all my employees to keep their jobs. I have NEVER had to lay anyone off. I structure a compensation system that is fair for the work performed and education level required so that when times get tough I am not crying out for bailout money to keep all of my employees paid. I may be younger than many here in this discussion but I have 18 years experience running my business though two recessions. NEVER one layoff. Do people get rich in my industry? Not really unless they save up, as I did, and open their own stores. But if they put in the effort they can make a pretty good living with little or no education.

We aren't talking about state cops and prison guards and fire fighters that require a masters degree in criminal justice or mechanical engineering. Pay should be comensurate with education required and the available potential employee base. A state paid accountant should not make 30%-50% more than their private sector counterparts AND get a huge defined benefit pension to boot. It doesn't make good financial sense and it will be the death of our current financial system unless something is changed. Private companies realized years ago and made moves to defined contribution programs instead of defined benefit. Governments MUST be forced to do the same.

So, rather than address the concern/question of a prison guard who makes $100,000K per year WITH a pension that continues pay at that rate you bring up some East Texas sticks school district as your alternate example. Originally Posted by Boltfan

$70,000 a year for a pension is might generous for a prison guard. I swear, you people will believe anything some fucking fool on the radio says, I guess. The average salary for a prison guard in Texas is $30,100. (47th in the nation, for what that's worth.)

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...anks-47th.html

And I'll save you the embarrassment of your next fucked up guess. The average salary of ALL government employees in Texas is just $37,365.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/...ernment_salary at fn 7

If that's "out of control," I'm a monkey's uncle. Starting secretaries with a high school degree make more than that at any law firm.

And for the record, the salary scale for teachers isn't just for poor rural school districts in East Texas, it's for all school districts in the State. Most district supplement a small amount, but very few can afford to supplement much. The average salary for a teacher in Texas is only $41,744.

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

That figures includes wealthy districts like Highland Park, not just poor rural districts. Again, hardly "out of control."