Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I have no idea what any of that means. 

 

you take a proposed budget as meaning anything useful at all in reality, which is okay

 

work with a few of them in various areas and you see how totally meaningless they are

 

budgets have to be handed in, but they are rarely serious in implementation

 

 

and a government budget submitted in 2019 is extremely understating expenses

Edited by row_33
  • Replies 10.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

you take a proposed budget as meaning anything useful at all in reality, which is okay

 

work with a few of them in various areas and you see how totally meaningless they are

 

budgets have to be handed in, but they are rarely serious in implementation

 

 

and a government budget submitted in 2910 is extremely understating expenses

Projections this far out are usually quite useless.

Posted
10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Projections this far out are usually quite useless.

 

you beat me to the edit punch   :D
 

actually i wouldn't be surprised to see budgets this year that project to "breakeven" by 2910 the way things are going these days....

 

 

Posted
Just now, row_33 said:

 

you take a proposed budget as meaning anything useful at all in reality, which is okay

 

work with a few of them in various areas and you see how totally meaningless they are

 

budgets have to be handed in, but they are rarely serious in implementation

 

 

I’m not sure you understand. Your state government cannot print money! They have to balance their budget each year or the checks will bounce. Yes, they have a working budget that acts as a framework for spending through the fiscal year (just like you do at home) but at the end of the year the state government cannot borrow or print money if they’ve over spent. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And that’s the core problem. The federal government can run a deficit. Your state government cannot. If teachers need more pay, and maybe they do, then the state government has to find it in their balanced budgets to find the money or raise state income tax.

Naw, it's just simpler to send in the Federal Reserve and kick some ass.

Posted
11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure you understand. Your state government cannot print money! They have to balance their budget each year or the checks will bounce. Yes, they have a working budget that acts as a framework for spending through the fiscal year (just like you do at home) but at the end of the year the state government cannot borrow or print money if they’ve over spent. 

 

 

okay sure, a state budget is fully balanced on paper and fact every single year....

 

i'm well aware of what a budget is supposed to do, and i'm well aware of how it is rigged to meet goals and hide things to make it work.

 

and it has to be produced, that's life, but it's not any reliable indicator fiscally

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

okay sure, a state budget is fully balanced on paper and fact every single year....

 

i'm well aware of what a budget is supposed to do, and i'm well aware of how it is rigged to meet goals and hide things to make it work.

 

and it has to be produced, that's life, but it's not any reliable indicator fiscally

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean we can't expect to triple parking revenues for the next fiscal year?

Posted
18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You mean we can't expect to triple parking revenues for the next fiscal year?

 

 

i can balance any budget, the deficit is the real problem, one without the other is kind of meaningless.

 

 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

My wife is a teacher. Education is supposed to be funded by the STATE not federal government. If you’d like teachers to make more money then lobby your STATE government.

 

Tibs is an idiot, but he's not entirely wrong. The Federal government could conceivably fund a teacher pay increase through grants/reimbursements/etc. to the states. They cannot directly give the money to the teachers, but no state government is going to turn down free federal money to placate their teacher's unions.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Tibs is an idiot, but he's not entirely wrong. The Federal government could conceivably fund a teacher pay increase through grants/reimbursements/etc. to the states. They cannot directly give the money to the teachers, but no state government is going to turn down free federal money to placate their teacher's unions.

And in doing so, the Feds would in fact take more control and increase their influence in programs that should be run and controlled by the states.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

And in doing so, the Feds would in fact take more control and increase their influence in programs that should be run and controlled by the states.

 

True. Just like with federal highway funds, it becomes leverage to get the states to adopt federal directives.

Posted

of the 20 adults working full time in the prior generation, 18 were teachers in the public system

 

they whined and complained the entire time for every family get together, a dozen times a year

 

it never ends....

 

 

i thought it was a good living, they cared and i respect that they coached sports (without pay in Canada) for most of their career, still don't see why they insisted on a martyr complex 100% of the time.

 

Posted
Just now, Koko78 said:

 

True. Just like with federal highway funds, it becomes leverage to get the states to adopt federal directives.

"I can't drive 55".

Posted
43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

"I can't drive 55".

 

?

 

Was listening to that song on the way into work this morning.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

?

 

Was listening to that song on the way into work this morning.

I had a similar instance when I pulled on to "Baker Street". It was almost like it was coming from my GPS.

Posted
On 3/25/2019 at 1:32 PM, snafu said:

I don't think anyone noticed, but during all the commotion of  this past weekend, Gillibrand announced her candidacy.

Nice judgment exhibited right there on her part -- especially since she already announced it on March 17th.

 

Yesterday announcement:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kirsten-gillibrand-presidential-announcement-democratic-primary-trump-hotel-new-york_n_5c97da3be4b0a6329e180a82

 

March 17 announcement:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/im-running-president-york-sen-kirsten-gillibrand-formally/story?id=61732255

 

Oh WAIT!!, she also announced back in January:

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/15/678292493/new-york-sen-kirsten-gillibrand-announces-2020-presidential-run

 

 

Maybe she will announce her candidacy every Sunday until someone, anyone, notices.

 

 

 

Maybe THIS will get her noticed.

 

2 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Not only can the Federal Reserve order it but they can enforce it too.

Is the idiot now suggesting that teachers work for minimum wage? :lol: 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Nanker said:

 

 

 

 

I too work out in shirts that plainly represent peoples general disinterest in me... Good god she's thirsty for someone, anyone to care...

Posted
2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Tibs is an idiot, but he's not entirely wrong. The Federal government could conceivably fund a teacher pay increase through grants/reimbursements/etc. to the states. They cannot directly give the money to the teachers, but no state government is going to turn down free federal money to placate their teacher's unions.

Oh brother! Don’t people understand that this is totally borrowed money? The federal government is running huge deficits every year! Sure the feds can put a pay increase on the credit card but why stop with teachers? Let’s just have the feds give EVERYONE more printed money?  Oh yeah...that’s where hyper inflation comes from!

Sheeesh

Posted
2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Tibs is an idiot, but he's not entirely wrong. The Federal government could conceivably fund a teacher pay increase through grants/reimbursements/etc. to the states. They cannot directly give the money to the teachers, but no state government is going to turn down free federal money to placate their teacher's unions.

 

I have family in education and not a single one of them gives a rats ass about the unions. In this area at least, the unions do nothing but protect bad teachers. True education reform would look like making the schools competitive in some way (major reason why school choice is, in my opinion, a good idea) to encourage teachers to actually try. I know three kinds of teachers- the sucky teachers who do as little as possible but toe the party line so they stay in place. The good teachers who go above and beyond (two of my sisters match this category) but end up bogged down by the administration and all the stupid restrictions (not to mention the influence of sucky teachers) and the good, former teachers who got burned out because they had to put up with all the ***** and couldn't handle it. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Oh brother! Don’t people understand that this is totally borrowed money? The federal government is running huge deficits every year! Sure the feds can put a pay increase on the credit card but why stop with teachers? Let’s just have the feds give EVERYONE more printed money?  Oh yeah...that’s where hyper inflation comes from!

Sheeesh

 

Yes, much of the federal budget is borrowed. We all know this. We've all known it for decades. Thanks for making sure we know it...

 

This is purely political pandering in a sadly transparent effort to buy votes and endorsements, same with the reparation bullschiff.

 

33 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I have family in education and not a single one of them gives a rats ass about the unions. In this area at least, the unions do nothing but protect bad teachers. True education reform would look like making the schools competitive in some way (major reason why school choice is, in my opinion, a good idea) to encourage teachers to actually try. I know three kinds of teachers- the sucky teachers who do as little as possible but toe the party line so they stay in place. The good teachers who go above and beyond (two of my sisters match this category) but end up bogged down by the administration and all the stupid restrictions (not to mention the influence of sucky teachers) and the good, former teachers who got burned out because they had to put up with all the ***** and couldn't handle it. 

 

I highly doubt Harris gives two schiffs about the teachers themselves. She is pandering to their unions for their money (and, of course, to proclaim how pro-union she is to the idiot masses.)

×
×
  • Create New...