That's one way to save the taxpayer a few bucks!

[Maddog]

You tell us Maddog.

He has none. The Council won't let him raise taxes, and I am sure he would be arrested if he had the city manager start writing hot checks. Guess he could try to get a loan, but at this point, I really don't see anyone loaning him money.

Thanks for proving austerity doesn't work.

I don't know if he implimented austerity before this point. I know he tried to raise taxes, but the council wouldn't let him. I'm guessing they have exhausted all forms of debt, so spending more is no longer an option either.

They had austerity for 3 years. Their Right wing policies failed dramatically

Doherty is a Democrat. The city council is comprised of Democrats.

Perhaps they are right wind Democrats. Face it, they are broke now, and austerity is not even the right word. Self inflicted poverty is a better desciption.

[Guest]

He has none. The Council won't let him raise taxes, and I am sure he would be arrested if he had the city manager start writing hot checks. Guess he could try to get a loan, but at this point, I really don't see anyone loaning him money.

Thanks for proving austerity doesn't work.

I don't know if he implimented austerity before this point. I know he tried to raise taxes, but the council wouldn't let him. I'm guessing they have exhausted all forms of debt, so spending more is no longer an option either.

They had austerity for 3 years. Their Right wing policies failed dramatically

Doherty is a Democrat. The city council is comprised of Democrats.

Perhaps they are right wind Democrats. Face it, they are broke now, and austerity is not even the right word. Self inflicted poverty is a better desciption.

You don't get it. Reps and Dems are the same coin.

The same shitty flawed imperialistic coin.

Nothing will change until you fuck that coin off. The 1% and military won't allow you to get rid of the coin.

[Maddog]

Got it. So one party wants to borrow more, while the other wants to borrow less, but they actually want the same. Because increased spending, and decreased spending are actually the same thing. More control over the states and less control over the states mean the same thing. I'm guessing you think pouring gas and water on a fire is the same thing as they are both liquids.

[Guest]

Got it. So one party wants to borrow more, while the other wants to borrow less, but they actually want the same. Because increased spending, and decreased spending are actually the same thing. More control over the states and less control over the states mean the same thing. I'm guessing you think pouring gas and water on a fire is the same thing as they are both liquids.

Both borrow MORE. One says it will borrow less.

Look how GWB and the Reps turned a surplus into a huge defict.

Look how the Reps lost $2.3TRILLION of Pentagon money...

Look at the security measures foisted on US citizens after 9/11.

You sad cunts can ONLY see the Dem fuck ups but NEVER EVER MENTION Rep fuck ups.

Why is that? Why did borrowing under Reagan rise so dramatically?

[Maddog]

Got it. So one party wants to borrow more, while the other wants to borrow less, but they actually want the same. Because increased spending, and decreased spending are actually the same thing. More control over the states and less control over the states mean the same thing. I'm guessing you think pouring gas and water on a fire is the same thing as they are both liquids.

Both borrow MORE. One says it will borrow less.

Look how GWB and the Reps turned a surplus into a huge defict.

Look how the Reps lost $2.3TRILLION of Pentagon money...

Look at the security measures foisted on US citizens after 9/11.

You sad cunts can ONLY see the Dem fuck ups but NEVER EVER MENTION Rep fuck ups.

Why is that? Why did borrowing under Reagan rise so dramatically?

I think Bush and Congress spent way too much money. Reagan never had a republican congress, so he was quite limited in his ability to control spending. So if I think Bush's spending of X was bad, you should not be surprised that I find Obama's spending of 5X to be more distasteful.

[wutang]

Law will require them to pay certain bills,

But isnt he defying a court order by not paying them the contracted rate - hence the contempt of court motion by the Union. The Judge said he could not make any cuts until a 'trial' has been concluded**.

The arguement that the city officials had no choice to do it is bullshit at best, especially when both sides have outlined revenue sources to be utilised. Its politically motivated... and no doubt a cover for their real agenda, to enforce cuts ("oh look we cant agree on what to do, best shaft the public sector workers then")


** no doubt the courts will sanction cuts, just not as extreme as this move, with the Unions ratifying them. As the workers are not allowed to strike legally (thats that American 'Liberty' in action) according to the Judge, its a case of whether they have the will to go outside the 'official' channels.

[Maddog]

Law will require them to pay certain bills,

But isnt he defying a court order by not paying them the contracted rate - hence the contempt of court motion by the Union. The Judge said he could not make any cuts until a 'trial' has been concluded**.

The arguement that the city officials had no choice to do it is bullshit at best, especially when both sides have outlined revenue sources to be utilised. Its politically motivated... and no doubt a cover for their real agenda, to enforce cuts ("oh look we cant agree on what to do, best shaft the public sector workers then")


** no doubt the courts will sanction cuts, just not as extreme as this move, with the Unions ratifying them. As the workers are not allowed to strike legally (thats that American 'Liberty' in action) according to the Judge, its a case of whether they have the will to go outside the 'official' channels.

Legally they have to pay everyone, yet the amount of money in the treasury is not enough to do that. I'm not a lawyer Wu, but I know that 100 grand wont pay a million bucks in bills, no matter what your political ideaolgy is.

[Maddog]

The Times-Tribune, quoting City Business Manager Ryan McGowan, reported that as of Monday the city had $133,000 in cash, but owed $3.4 million in vendor bills. One of those bills was health insurance, McGowan said.

Somebody is not going to be paid this month. At least not in full. Way above my pay grade to figure out who gets paid much less than the law says they should.

[Guest]

Got it. So one party wants to borrow more, while the other wants to borrow less, but they actually want the same. Because increased spending, and decreased spending are actually the same thing. More control over the states and less control over the states mean the same thing. I'm guessing you think pouring gas and water on a fire is the same thing as they are both liquids.

Both borrow MORE. One says it will borrow less.

Look how GWB and the Reps turned a surplus into a huge defict.

Look how the Reps lost $2.3TRILLION of Pentagon money...

Look at the security measures foisted on US citizens after 9/11.

You sad cunts can ONLY see the Dem fuck ups but NEVER EVER MENTION Rep fuck ups.

Why is that? Why did borrowing under Reagan rise so dramatically?

I think Bush and Congress spent way too much money. Reagan never had a republican congress, so he was quite limited in his ability to control spending. So if I think Bush's spending of X was bad, you should not be surprised that I find Obama's spending of 5X to be more distasteful.

Obama hasn't spent 5 times GWB (2001-9) To suggest so is ridiculous but you would agree most of the bonds agreed were pre Obama which did mature during his reign.

Do you want him to default on Bush's loans?

[wutang]

Legally they have to pay everyone, yet the amount of money in the treasury is not enough to do that. I'm not a lawyer Wu, but I know that 100 grand wont pay a million bucks in bills, no matter what your political ideaolgy is.

Thats a problem for the City Officials to deal with (again, both sides have suggested means to raise the revenue so the 'we haz no choice' is disingenuous).... the workers shouldnt be expected to just accept it.

[Cactus Jack]

So what's the solution Maddog?

[Maddog]

Got it. So one party wants to borrow more, while the other wants to borrow less, but they actually want the same. Because increased spending, and decreased spending are actually the same thing. More control over the states and less control over the states mean the same thing. I'm guessing you think pouring gas and water on a fire is the same thing as they are both liquids.

Both borrow MORE. One says it will borrow less.

Look how GWB and the Reps turned a surplus into a huge defict.

Look how the Reps lost $2.3TRILLION of Pentagon money...

Look at the security measures foisted on US citizens after 9/11.

You sad cunts can ONLY see the Dem fuck ups but NEVER EVER MENTION Rep fuck ups.

Why is that? Why did borrowing under Reagan rise so dramatically?

I think Bush and Congress spent way too much money. Reagan never had a republican congress, so he was quite limited in his ability to control spending. So if I think Bush's spending of X was bad, you should not be surprised that I find Obama's spending of 5X to be more distasteful.

Obama hasn't spent 5 times GWB (2001-9) To suggest so is ridiculous but you would agree most of the bonds agreed were pre Obama which did mature during his reign.

Do you want him to default on Bush's loans?

Debt is growing at the fastest rate since WWII. Spending is way up. You do the math and tell me what the increased rate of spending is. It was a simple analogy, not a financial statement.

[Cactus Jack]

So what is the solution Maddog?

[Maddog]

Legally they have to pay everyone, yet the amount of money in the treasury is not enough to do that. I'm not a lawyer Wu, but I know that 100 grand wont pay a million bucks in bills, no matter what your political ideaolgy is.

Thats a problem for the City Officials to deal with (again, both sides have suggested means to raise the revenue so the 'we haz no choice' is disingenuous).... the workers shouldnt be expected to just accept it.

It is their problem. A problem I don't have an answer for. Scranton is already a depressed area, and raising taxes will simply push people to cheaper areas. I think he is trying to buy time without laying off huge numbers of city workers. Legally, I think he can fire half the workforce tomorrow. Not sure that is a good solution either.

So far, I have seen dozens of posts about what he shouldn't do. Not one describing what he should do.

[Maddog]

So what's the solution Maddog?

posting.php?mode=quote&f=20&p=535845