dmarc117 Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yeah, I'm constantly telling our executive team about their salary limits. maybe you should if it bothers you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Pretty soon California will just open up to Vegas style casinos. The big players (Harrah's, Wynn, etc.) already own tons of land and are ready to have the trucks rolling and the construction begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 Pretty soon California will just open up to Vegas style casinos. The big players (Harrah's, Wynn, etc.) already own tons of land and are ready to have the trucks rolling and the construction begin. daley is considering a casino in the city now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 daley is considering a casino in the city now Which will never happen how he is presenting it. A casino with no rooms or nice restaurants. Basically a oversize bingo hall so he doesnt "hurt the other restaurants and hotels". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 maybe you should if it bothers you. Oh, you commies and your class warfare. You'll never get it, will you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I know Philadelphia is in trouble...but I don't know how bad the entire state is doing... we're pretty much..if not completely broke here in Philly... but don't tell anyone that because nobody wants to believe it... I knew about California, Michigan, New Jersey and Arizona...but I didn't know about some of the others.. In other news, some in CA plan on building a $1 billion staduium to attact the NFL to the LA market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 In other news, some in CA plan on building a $1 billion staduium to attact the NFL to the LA market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 In other news, some in CA plan on building a $1 billion staduium to attact the NFL to the LA market. Without a cent of public funds, so it isn't very relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Without a cent of public funds, so it isn't very relevant. where is the money coming from?... the last thing that is needed in Cali is a new stadium.... building a new stadium is really short sighted right now and the location decision is horrid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Without a cent of public funds, so it isn't very relevant. That would be different. Saw a quote from Ahnold about public funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 the thing i dont get is the unions for all the city and state workers. look you guys are not gonna get paid what you were getting paid. your pensions are ridiculous and cant be funded. get your heads out of the sand. your paychecks dont come from wonderland. dont expect sympathy if you strike cause we are all feeling the pain. Funny you mention this because here in Milwaukee several months ago the County Executive announced a 35 hour work week for city employees due to budget shortfalls. The Union for those workers sued and were able to stop the order. Walker had warned them that if they don't take the 35 hour week their could be layoffs later on. Sure enough, at the end of October he announced layoffs to cover said budget shortfalls. Of course the union got all mad and started blaming Walker - the same man who told them it was coming if they didn't accept the 35 hour work week (till the end of the year, I believe)! I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure 35 > 0. Long story short, the rest of the County Board (most of them tax and spend liberals) ended up cutting more fat from the budget to prevent the layoffs. However, the plan (for the layoffs) has only been canceled for now as their are more shortfalls to cover. Link: http://www.allbusiness.com/government/gove...13356860-1.html The larger point I'm trying to make is that while EVERYONE else has to sacrifice, somehow the unions think they don't have to. And don't get me started on Mercury Marine in Fond Du Lac... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The larger point I'm trying to make is that while EVERYONE else has to sacrifice, somehow the unions think they don't have to. Everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Everyone? dude, lose the violin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Hold on there - I agree about the spending problems. Politicians are like drunken sailors. That said, when Minnesota was running a surplus a few years back, it was the Republicans and anti-tax people screaming that they wanted refunds, which they got. That should have gone into a rainy day fund so don't put all the blame on politicians, some of the blame belongs with the shortsighted voters too. Happened in Montana as well. We had a budget surplus a few years back. The left side of the aisle wanted to increase funding to state programs to unprecedented and unsutainable levels. The right side pushed for, and got, tax rebates. I kept asking why the state couldn't have a savings account for years that had a deficit but discovered that was not a popular opinion with either side of the aisle. there is a lot of truth in all of this, but I will say that tax rebates once the books for the fiscal year are closed out are a lot easier to undo the following year than expanded government spending. it's a matter of simply not writing the checks the next year, versus cutting jobs, cutting salaries, cutting services, etc. may explain why almost all of the states on that list of he ones in the most trouble are blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 the last thing that is needed in Cali is a new stadium.... Why would pumping $1B worth of economic stimulus into the stumbling CA economy be a bad thing? Wouldn't it create thousands and thousands of jobs, as well as millions and millions of dollars in ongoing tax revenues? Assuming it does cost $1B to build, and say $700M is spend within the borders of CA, wouldn't that equate to some massive sales taxes for this broke state? Sometimes, you have to invest money in order to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Everyone? They always chip away at the bottom of the pyramid first. Those people are expendable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 dude, lose the violin I'm not the one playing Mozarts Requiem for the Sacrifice. tosberg and you have both said unions need to suck it up because everyone has had to sacrifice. I'm just trying to be accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) may explain why almost all of the states on that list of he ones in the most trouble are blue. But it doesn't explain why the States with most of the highest unemployment are red. Could it be that they didn't spend any money to help the people, therefore have the highest unemployment, but aren't in trouble with the budget? http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm updated in October Edited November 13, 2009 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) But it doesn't explain why the States with most of the highest unemployment are red. Could it be that they didn't spend any money to help the people, therefore have the highest unemployment, but aren't in trouble with the budget? http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm updated in October umm, michigan 15.3, california 12.2, nevada 13.3, rhode island 13.0, DC 11.4, oregon 11.5....oh ok, there's one, south carolina 11.6. Edited November 13, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 DC 11.4, Is that a new state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Is that a new state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) But it doesn't explain why the States with most of the highest unemployment are red. umm, michigan 15.3, california 12.2, nevada 13.3, rhode island 13.0, DC 11.4, oregon 11.5....oh ok, there's one, south carolina 11.6. Looks like in double digit unemployment there are 8 blue states in trouble and 6 red states in trouble. Alabama California Florida Georgia Illinois Kentucky Michigan New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Oregon Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee So it's almost 50/50 red/blue, but supposedly the red states have the better approach. You would think almost all the states in double digits would be blue. And this is ONLY going by the 2008 election results. NC is normally a red state. Here's the 2004 election map. http://www.cjcs.com/tib/wp-content/uploads...mapredblue1.png I'm not going to edit the above states according to the 2004 election results, unless you really want me to. Edited November 13, 2009 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Is that a new state? DC is a pretty decent place to buy crack and get AIDS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The Pew Center on the States Issues Report Urging Nevada and Nine Other States to use Caution in Decisions that Could Prolong Rather than Shorten the Recession By Ed Vogel, Las Vegas Review-JournalMcClatchy-Tribune Regional News Nov. 12, 2009--CARSON CITY -- A national think tank warned Nevada legislators today against making decisions that could prolong rather than shorten the recession. The Pew Center on the States issued a report that identified Nevada as one of 10 states that, like California, face daunting state government budget problems because of the recession. The analysis, "Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril," noted that these states account for more than one-third of the nation's population and economic output, and how they handle their crises will affect how fast the nation recovers. In reviewing why some states are suffering more than others, the Pew analysis found that the 10 states tend to rely heavily on one type of industry, have a history of persistent budget shortfalls or face legal constraints making it difficult to implement major changes, such as tax increases. Many require a supermajority vote for passing tax increases or budget bills. Also, several state legislatures were unable to enact long-term fixes. Instead, they asked voters or governors to make the call, or used accounting gimmicks to put off the hard choices until later. "Decisions these states make as they try to navigate the recession will play a role in how quickly the entire nation recovers," said Susan Urahn, managing director of the nonprofit Washington, D.C-based think tank. But during a telephone news conference, Urahn said she was not offering state governments solutions on what they should do to provide essential services. "The national economy may turn the corner, but states face tough times in the next three years," Urahn said. "Lawmakers need to make decisions that do not impede that recovery. The states need to figure out how to raise revenue and make cuts and that is a political challenge in many states." It might be five years before the economies in states like Nevada recover, Urahn said. She said Nevada legislators thought for too long that gaming was recession-proof and that as a result "Nevada is going to suffer longer than any other state." There was nothing in the Pew study itself to back up that assertion. The report's conclusions that recovery will take years, however, reflect what Nevada economists have been saying for several months. The problem is that Nevada's economy hinges on discretionary spending and housing growth, they said. The national recession curbed visits to the state, and slumping tourism has meant double-digit declines in taxable sales for much of the last year. Also, with new-home sales dropping from well over 3,000 units a month at their 2005 peak to fewer than 500 homes a month now, construction employment across Nevada has plummeted from to 84,400 from 125,000. Overall, joblessness has soared to 13.9 percent in Las Vegas and 13.3 percent statewide. That's the nation's second-highest unemployment rate, after Michigan's 15.3 percent. Economist Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in October that improvement in the state's economy will lag national recovery, because consumers must begin traveling and spending en masse again before Las Vegas revives. In August, Schwer suggested that the national slump in discretionary spending could be permanent, as consumers abandon expensive habits and hew to their newfound thrift. Applied Analysis, a local research firm, reported in August that its conservative estimates show double-digit unemployment lingering across Nevada into the third quarter of 2011. Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, R-Reno, disagreed that state government's financial problems are due mainly to the decline in gaming. "It is not just gaming," she said. "It is construction and the decline in the (population) growth rate. We had the highest growth rates in the country for years. It will make it a bit slower for Nevada to recover." Pew's report said Nevada's economy has not been this bad since 1931, when cowboy legislator Phil Tobin introduced the bill to legalize gaming. "Today the state that set up an industry to dig out of one economic disaster is in a new crisis, and this time gambling is largely the cause," the report said. "Travelers nervous about the economy have put off trips to Nevada; those who do come are spending less." Urahn noted that five commissions over the years have recommended that the Nevada Legislature implement a broad-based business tax, but such a tax never has been implemented. The Legislature's Interim Finance Committee is about to fund another tax study, which will make recommendations for consideration by the Legislature when it next meets in 2011. Critics already have predicted that tax increases will be among the recommendations. The Pew report predicts Nevada will face a $3 billion state government budget deficit by 2011. Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, earlier predicted a $2.4 billion shortfall. Gansert said the shortfall could be $3 billion, which she noted is about 40 percent of the two-year $6.9 billion budget approved in June. "Last session we tried to contain the size of government," she said. "I know we will do the same in 2011. We have to keep education intact, but you can't have everything. We are going to look at significant reductions." Hmmm, states are in trouble because they were unwilling to raise certain taxes, largely to satisfy voters.....imagine that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) Hmmm, states are in trouble because they were unwilling to raise certain taxes, largely to satisfy voters.....imagine that it has nothing to do with spending and bad budgeting? Edited November 13, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.