Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is NO difference between public and private unions.
STOP. RIGHT. THERE.
No need for anyone to read your post any further; until you learn the fundamental difference between a private and public sector union, and why the former is fundamentally opposed to the general welfare of a city's populace, their democratic principles, and financial well-being, there really is no way to even approach a conversation. The knowledge and context understanding gap is too far apart to bridge, and it does not favor you.
Your other statements are clearly ludicrous, and expose your total lack of understanding of both economics, and reality:
"The idea that public employees are somehow limited because taxes pay their wages is a fallacy."
"Unions, public or private, are as legitimate as stock dividends and bonuses."
"If a municipality cannot afford to pay its workers a fair wage then the municipality has failed in its fiduciary responsibility. No one is guaranteed cheap social services."
I only hope that you are never anywhere near elected office; to claim that the taxpayer's financial concerns are subservient to that of the civil workers is lunacy. You can go back to reading Workers' Socialist Daily and hope that Castro somehow makes a return, good luck with that.
Debt is a stock concept, budget deficit/surplus is a flow concept.
I could have a deficit in one year (spending greater than income) and yet I could have a positive net worth (assets greater than liabilities).
Hence, a city with debt can have a surplus. Think of Corporation X, which has a stock of debt say $1 billion. Heck, let's even say it has a net worth of $10 billion. But in any given year, its net income could be positive or negative.
Uh, the debt was taken on because there was a cash flow issue at one point, which necessitated borrowing. Simply because you are net cash flow positive in one year does NOT mean that there is a genuine "surplus," it means that in a single year, the municipality is cash flow positive.
Any rational politician, seeing that the already insane pension costs are going to continue increasing exponentially, will either lobby to have them changed, or set aside the "extra" dollars now to cover them.
The problem is that the public workers want everything; they want raises for PAST years, they want raises from now forward, and they want their pensions and retirement benefits increased. That is just not going to happen, and the only fools who claim that it will are either mike the idiot mulgrew or some other public union official moron. The adults in the room know that it isn't going to happen, but di bozo needs to pander lest the 350,000 public workers go berserk.
The pols have created this worker class wholly dependent and demanding of their so-called "rights" on the backs of the rest of us, but the gravy train is finally being halted across the country, which is why it will also stop in NYC.
From an accounting standpoint this is wrong. Debt is a liability that has to be serviced. The cost to service it is an expense that has to be covered. If the entity paying the debt can cover it's operating expenses and the debt service, and it has money left over, it has a surplus. Companies do this all the time.
People seem to have this irrational moral aversion to debt. Debt is a tool. I compare it to fire. If you use fire correctly, it can do lots of good things. If you use it incorrectly, it can kill you. Debt is the same way.
If the city is borrowing to cover operating expenses, it would be bad. If the city borrowing to do things like infrastructure it will be using for decades, this is good, since allows the payment for the infrastructure to be spread out over the period it will be used, and generating economic activity leading to either direct revenue or tax revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadisonR
Uh, the debt was taken on because there was a cash flow issue at one point, which necessitated borrowing. Simply because you are net cash flow positive in one year does NOT mean that there is a genuine "surplus," it means that in a single year, the municipality is cash flow positive.
From an accounting standpoint this is wrong. Debt is a liability that has to be serviced. The cost to service it is an expense that has to be covered. If the entity paying the debt can cover it's operating expenses and the debt service, and it has money left over, it has a surplus. Companies do this all the time.
People seem to have this irrational moral aversion to debt. Debt is a tool. I compare it to fire. If you use fire correctly, it can do lots of good things. If you use it incorrectly, it can kill you. Debt is the same way.
If the city is borrowing to cover operating expenses, it would be bad. If the city borrowing to do things like infrastructure it will be using for decades, this is good, since allows the payment for the infrastructure to be spread out over the period it will be used, and generating economic activity leading to either direct revenue or tax revenue.
Debt is an essential part of capitalism. Funds are being raised by debts.
All major companies issue debt as well. Businesses obtain capital to expand by issuing debt.
not all major companies have debt. Quite a handful have zero debt. Even more have little debt.
The rates are so low, it can be advantages to leverage the cheap money around.
All major companies issue corporate paper. Its the main security issued. There's far more debt that equity (stocks) that's issued. Its how the capitalist system works.
If the debt markets were frozen, the economy would collapse. Even companies like Apple and WalMart issued debt.
No need for anyone to read your post any further; until you learn the fundamental difference between a private and public sector union, and why the former is fundamentally opposed to the general welfare of a city's populace, their democratic principles, and financial well-being, there really is no way to even approach a conversation. The knowledge and context understanding gap is too far apart to bridge, and it does not favor you.
Your other statements are clearly ludicrous, and expose your total lack of understanding of both economics, and reality:
"The idea that public employees are somehow limited because taxes pay their wages is a fallacy."
"Unions, public or private, are as legitimate as stock dividends and bonuses."
"If a municipality cannot afford to pay its workers a fair wage then the municipality has failed in its fiduciary responsibility. No one is guaranteed cheap social services."
I only hope that you are never anywhere near elected office; to claim that the taxpayer's financial concerns are subservient to that of the civil workers is lunacy. You can go back to reading Workers' Socialist Daily and hope that Castro somehow makes a return, good luck with that.
Are you currently being treated for mental health issues?
Taxpayer's have no "financial concerns" as relate to their paying taxes. They can regulate their personal budgets and expenses. Taxes are a requirement of running any government. You either have enough or you don't. You can't get a "bargain". Municipalities have absolutely no right to ask their employees to work for unfair wages.
You suffer from a serious misconception. Public service is NOT CHARITY. It's just another kind of employment. No "special" rates.
And what is this deep seated obsession with and fear of Communism that you have? IT really is quite irrational. Do you believe that Communism is dangerous? Are you aware that some of the most financially stable and well functioning economies are socialist countries?
You ignorance is getting boring. You embody everything that is wrong with this country and I, for one, am done dealing with your close minded uninformed viewpoints.
Are you currently being treated for mental health issues?
How about stop throwing personal attacks into every post, moron?
Quote:
Taxpayer's have no "financial concerns" as relate to their paying taxes.
Huh? What does this idiocy mean? That the taxpayer should just gladly pay whatever rate the politicians decide? Have you ever worked a day in your life in the private sector? Does not sound like it.
Quote:
They can regulate their personal budgets and expenses. Taxes are a requirement of running any government. You either have enough or you don't. You can't get a "bargain".
No one is asking "for a bargain," stop the strawman nonsense. What the taxpayers resent is having to pay above-market rates for workers, and to pay for the benefits of public union workers granted those benefits by politicians receiving their promises to vote for them if they continue to increase them. Funny how the far leftists like this extol democracy, and despise vote-buying by businesses, but but but when public union workers do it, its suddenly acceptable.
Quote:
Municipalities have absolutely no right to ask their employees to work for unfair wages.
What people like this don't understand is that government's role is to provide SERVICES, NOT JOBS, to the public at large, in the most efficient manner from a cost and time perspective possible.
That means if EZ pass allows the total replacement of all toll collectors by performing that task at a fraction of the cost, then the government is required to do so. If subway workers are demanding salaries and benefits that exceeds the level requisite to their job duties in the private sector, than the city is required to refuse them. The politicians' fundamental role is to provide services to the taxpayer, not jobs for a selected class of people in cushy jobs who've promised to vote for these politicians.
Quote:
You ignorance is getting boring.
You should talk, and your juvenile posting style laden with childish insults in every post has reached its end. You are now ignored after this post.
Quote:
You embody everything that is wrong with this country and I, for one, am done dealing with your close minded uninformed viewpoints.
Good, does this mean you'll leave it? Awesome, one less welfare cheat/public union employee whiner demanding ever higher money from me and other taxpayers.
For the rational a fantastic piece can be found here which nicely sums up the disaster - and utter lunacy - that was the decision to allow public workers to form unions and collectively bargain against the interests of the general public:
All major companies issue corporate paper. Its the main security issued. There's far more debt that equity (stocks) that's issued. Its how the capitalist system works.
not true. I work in this industry & that is not true. get you facts straight.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
