Another idiot, who can't make a point without lying. California's infrastructure was suffering from seriously deferred maintenance before Brown started as Governor. He's basically a pragmatic problem solver with a democratic legislature to back him up, unlike the starve the beast inneffective morons that preceded him.
This is from 2010, before Brown came back to govern California again.
Regardless, it is mathematically impossible to let people retire in their mid 50's at 90%+ of their final pay FOR LIFE with our demographics. The automakers in Detroit found that out the hard way.
Some people can't even make a point without lying. THe only people who retire in their mid fifties with a high percentage of their salary are police and firemen. Probably something like 10% of govt workers who receive part of their compensation in the form of a pension, are in this category of "safety workers" that can retire so early. I guess the military get a similar deal. Funny, I don't hear you complaining about them.
If you have to lie in such an over the top way to make your point, it means you don't actually have a point.
By the way, nobody was stopping you from becoming a cop if you think it's such a wonderful deal.
THe other thing that I've explained over and over to you guys, is that most govt workers contribute to their pensions out of their pay. Then their employers and the state or fed govt kick in another 10K or whatever, per year. It's a form of compensation, that's there in part because the people are committing themselves to a service job, that has a limited upside. It's only in the past 2 or 3 decades when the private sector has lost a lot of it's potential, that so many now complain about those government workers taking home the big bucks.
A pretty good exploration of the topic of ice increasing in the antarctic: https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
IT can be boiled down to a simple question. Is it a fact that the ocean around Antarctica has increased in temperature in recent decades or not ?
One simple fact ? Is it a lie.? Or is i the truth ? Interestingly the right wing trolls are able to avoid this, by assuming it's a lie and quickly moving on to something else. Amazing isn't it ? Here we are in an age when we can have a computer in our pocket that's more powerful than one that took up an entire room 50 years ago, but we can't fucking agree on whether this is true or not ?
. The reality is the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica has shown strong warming over the same period that sea ice has been increasing. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean (specifically the region where Antarctic sea ice forms) has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it's warming faster than the global trend. This warming trend is apparent in satellite measurements of temperature trends over Antarctica:
This is during the time frame when antarctic ice mass has icreased. SO is the water temperature increase a lie or or is it a fact ?
Here's another tribute to Pat.net's biggest idiot assclown using his own source.
Hahaha. Sums up his trolling on this topic very well.
Wouldn't the authors conclusions mean that the black 2015 line should be crossing all the other ones ?
I guess he's adding the north and south poles together to reach his conclusion. Maybe he should look into why it's often referred to as "climate change."
Hey, somebody has to produce content for Fox news.
You can frame it it terms of the most basic economics. Supply and demand. Fox news, their sponsors and their audience represent a very serious demand for this kind of thing.
Funny though about tobacco. It does kind of mess up their (the Heartland Institute's) credibility, just a little.
In fact prices were actually lower during most of the period that QE was in effect.
You probably mean higher. Higher prices equate with lower interest rates. Certainly when the fed put a floor under prices with their own buying and guaranteed buying for a while, the effect was higher prices.than without that action.
Yes, comparing prices to how much lower they would have been if QE were not occurring is pretty much guess work.
The low interest rates are the result of incredible historically high demand to loan the United States money. There is NEVER a shortage of buyers. Ever.
I seriously question this. Even you have acknowledged (what you claim is only a small) price difference at auction of 10 and 30 year treasuries due to QE, you somehow claim to know that without QE prces would have been only a little lower at those key auctions. YOu don't actually know exactly how much, but what you also can't know is the effect on price trends and the international financial market psychologicalfactors. Having the fed there as a guarantor of how high the price will be, makes a difference that i consider very significant, although I won't make absolute assertions of exactly how significant.
The Japan precedent existed, and therefore or maybe for a host of other reasons, markets accepted that the Fed could do this without it being overly risky. These events and their psychological impact are very difficult to quantify.In hindsight it certainly appears to have put a floor under certain markets, including housing - which was somewhat fragile at the time.
OR put it this way: It was a strong green light to the one percenters (and their money managers) in the know.
Those who think the fed has manipulated this economy have two massive problems to account for:
1. No change in the rate of inflation unless you want to admit inflation actually moderated after QE.
Well, we can't really talk about the change in inflation, compared to if the Fed had not done QE. Would there have been deflation without QE ? Can we answer that ? Possibly another recession without the psychological benefit of a virtual guarantee of a low interest rate outlook out to the horizon ?
That is, we know how little inflation there has been with QE, but we don't know what housing, the stock market, currency markets and general inflation would have been without QE. Put it this way: There are good reasons why QE was done, and it wasn't just to make banks more profitable.
In my view, QE was very possibly just as big a part of the governments efforts to pull us out of the great recession (or whatever you want to call it) as the stimulus and bailouts were. THe fact is that you can not pinpoint data showing any particular way that two variables are correlated. But that, or asserting that no obvious correlation exists doesn't prove much.
As usual I appreciate Bellingham Bill's digging deeper and still taking in his thoughts (mostly his good questions).
I'm thinking of becoming a republican so that when I read this stuff I can just start humming that Bobby Mcfarren song.
The book looks a little intriguing. I might read it, just for the optimism, talking about the imminent abundance that technology will soon bring. Maybe a little of that optimism will rub off on me.
The Dems have been neutered as a force since the late 60s riots and Vietnam killed LBJ's Great Society sales job. As the author said, we're living in NixonLand now and have been since 1969 when the squares rejected the freaks at the polls.
I agree with this, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the typical republican who not only denies how far to the right we've drifted, they'll whine until the cows come home about how liberals are messing things up and how the liberals dominate the media and education and it has to be stopped before the US descends further in to ruin. They think even now, the problem is those damn liberals. Hell, who are the liberals in government ? There's Bernie Sanders. Ummm,...who else ?
That's a nice-looking man. I hope you didn't use all your straw building it.
actually errc is correct here, the main left rallying position is $15 minimum wage, but all that is is a rent subsidy in disguise.
Errc suggested that democrats think a little more taxes are the answer to everything. I have to agree with HC that this is totally a BS strawman. Believing that higher taxes on upper increments of income are or will eventually be necessary (which I'm pretty sure you agree with BB), is no where close to saying that higher taxes solve all systemic problems.
Let's face it, raising taxes on upper increments of income is closer to a solution than lowering taxes on upper increments of income, which is closer to a republican idea of a panacea than raising taxes are to progressives.
Having said that, yeah Errc is right that there are deeper systemic problems, and I appreciate your (BB) bringing it back to the question of housing policy, and "rents" in general, which was also the point that that commie liberal hydrocarbon was making.
I'm wondering whether Bgamall is putting a lot of thought into the ways in which ongoing compensation has to be doled out to all of the actors that were supposedly hurt or whose family members supposedly died in the Bombing. I think if I was one of those actors, I would want to move on, and stop having to play those roles, unless I was well enough compensated. And yet they are asked to comment on the sentencing, and so on, in this never ending elaborate farce.
Also, I'm wondering about the one who lost a leg, who has commented on the sentence. Did she have a fake leg put on for the fake bombing, or was it that she was actually compensated to have an amputation affter the fact in order to make the whole thing more realistic ?
I feel like the time Bgamall spends exploring these issues is time well spent. Somebody has to work to keep everyone honest, right ? We have to have citizens who are willing to perpetuate these absurd conspiracy theories online, in case one day such a bizarre conspiracy actually occurs.
He he he. No Mr. Marcus, I want you to pay for my retirement, like I pay for yours. You can cut it and dice it any way you choose, but you can never make it fair. Think of that 70 year old widow working at Burger King to make ends meet, and you have the audacity to take part of her salary just so you can retirement at age 55 with a 100% salary, while not contributing a dime towards her retirement. Pathetic, disgraceful, immoral, extortion and unfair. No other way to describe it.
THe only taxes she pays are ones that go to social security and medicare. And since she's retirement age, I don't really know whether she still does. But I know she doesnt pay any taxes that go to anything other than SS and medicare.
Your nonsense doesn't even make sense as a troll. Some of the Foxbots on this site I've been known to call red necks or hillbillies. You're worse. You're probably a trust fund asshole that hasn't done an honest days work in your life. Spouting anti government worker propaganda, because you're afraid your wealth wont last indefinitely theough future generations and that it might be taxesd away, paying people that think this country deserves better than a bunch or gated communities for the rich and third world status.
You're a moron, troll and proud of it.
As long as the rich aren't affected by this, I don't see what the problem is. This is how the government is supposed to get it's funding, not by taxing the rich.
American 15-year-olds continue to turn in flat results in a test that measures students' proficiency in reading, math and science worldwide, failing to crack the global top 20.
The Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, collects test results from 65 countries for its rankings, which come out every three years. The latest results, from 2012, show that U.S. students ranked below average in math among the world's most-developed countries. They were close to average in science and reading.
We educate everyone in this country, and we have a cultural problem in which our poor are not generally motivated to go work at improving themselves in school. That's not the only problem, but it's a big part of the reason for our average scores being as bad as they are.
My question is what you have not answered....Why can't we all have the same wages, benefits and pensions? why do I have to pay for yours, but you don't pay for mine? Why is that fair?
I didn't respond to it specifically because it's retarded.
Let's say you are a guy that works in financial services making 90K and I'm a teacher making 50K with an extra 7K in deferred pcompensatyion (also several thousand of my 50K gets contributed along with the 7k to my pension fund). And my job is a government service job paid for with taxes, and your job is paid from this years profits that your job presumably contributes to.
And then let's see, Lat's say you live in the same state as I do. You want to know why 11 cents of your taxes go towards that 7K of my salary, while your higher pay is not structured in a way that defers 15% of your pay in your private sector job, and you aren't paid with taxes..
"Why is that fair?" You're question must be why is is fair that government pays anyone's wages, not why is it fair that some of the compensation is deferred.
Higher wages would attract the bad teachers too, because they know once they get in they can never get fired.
Right. . This ignores the fact that they have to have qualifications and compete against many others to even get the job. Not to mention that tenure is only given after a teacher proves themself to not be a dud.
You're living in lala land
Seriously ? You think a majority (more than 50%) of American cops are corrupt or stealing peoples assets ?
Hell, I don't even think a majority of cops are total assholes, which is more debatable, I think. That is I'm more likely to be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
People actually believe in supply and demand. As in allow the wages to rise and fall with supply and demand. Not set an artificial union negotiated wage and then let people only enter at that job,
if for the same job as a cop, someone is willing to come in for 1/2 that price and the gubmnt accepts, than that is the market.
Funny how someone's view of market is so distorted .
Sure. With cops and teachers you're just going to take who ever will do the job for the least pay. I really wish that I thought you guys were trolling me, and that you weren't THAT stupid.
This is America man. Believe it or not we have pretty damn good public education for everybody. Yeah, we don't do real well with the bottom 25% (socioeconomic) or so. And we also have a high majority of police that arent corrupt. Those assinine shootings and asset seizures are done by a small minorty. I would like to see it shrink.
If you believe in markets, and in market pricing mechanisms (supply and demand) then you believe that setting the price high for police and teachers, would bring heavy competition for those jobs, guaranteeing that those making the hiring decisions have extremely qualified and very high quality applicants to choose from. Which is far more important than the question of how you deal with a very small a small percentage who can't cut it, but don't quit, even after many attempts at support and additional training are made. But yes, in large districts they could do better dealing with those that have complaints pending against them etc.
I get it that you guys don't understand that a pension is simply deferred compensation. If a teacher pays 8% of his 50K salary into a pension and the district (and state) pays another 15% in, that's no different than paying him 57.5K. Fact is, health insurance is a much bigger benefit.
Wrong. We want everyone to have that same lucrative deal, not just a lucky few. I pay for your pension, I want you to do the same for mine. What can be fairer?
Again. I wish I thought you were kidding, or trolling.
IF you believe that police and teachers are overpaid then we should see a surge in good students going in to teaching, and that would only serve to improve the profession.
ARe you suggesting to friends and family, "Go in to teaching ! It's a great deal, and a great lifestyle ! " I don't think so.
The truth is that unions have far less impact than you think, with some exceptional cases. IF you look in to what the AVERAGE teacher is paid in this country you have to realize that unions have made only a small difference. The difference they have made hasn't come close to raising compensation close to a level where teaching is a highly preferred college major. Until it does, the market is not saying that teachers are way overpaid.
Funny how the same people who usually seem to believe in markets have nothing to say about whether the concept of supply and demand applies to government jobs.
God forbid we have a job market compensation/wage supply and demand situation such that we get quality people in public service jobs such as police and teachers.
That is the problem-the definition of robber barons has moved from big business entirely to unions mostly. The unions are the modern day robber barons holding all of us hostage and forcing us all to pay more money out of our hard earned money so they can live comfortably off our wages.
Another dim witted idiot, who thinks that someone earning 50K with a pension is stealing from him.
You think lowering the pay for that job to 20K or 30K is good for you ? How can you be so clueless ?
Yeah yeah, there are cops and teachers who make a little more. But so ? If you want millions of college educated folks to work their way up to making six figure incomes in their prime (in finance, accounting, law, management or healthcare the private sector), then why shouldn't teachers and cops make 60 or 70 percent as much ? Teachers often have masters degrees. Cops and firemen risk their lives. Many cops have thankless jobs.
Sounds like sour grapes that you didn't do better in your career, even though you could have been a cop or a teacher if you think it's such a great living. I understand it's tough out there. But what kind of asshole wants to bring others down, just because he's had a tough time ?
Funny how the feminazis, unions all have the same mindset. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Back then when women and children could be tossed on the road with no options, alimony and child support was a good idea. Same for unions, when you were forced to work at slave wages with no protections-either work or die of hunger.
What kind of moron roots for the pendulum swinging back ?
Government expenditures on jobs is a massive part of our GDP. IT provides a huge part of the demand to the private sector. One more fact that appently alludes you.
100% pay and benefits upon retirement at 55. Lots and lots of time offs, sick days, and vacations. This was why Greece failed,
IT's also a very small minority of govt unions jobs and military. YOu can only get that deal for high risk jobs for working 35 years, some of which aren't tha high risk. They pay in to it out of their salary, but yeah, it's another 10 or 15K per year in (deferred) compensation, on top of what they contribute in to their own pensions. Oh my god, someone is decently compensated out there ? WE can't have that. We need for all Americans to be broke, that's what our economy needs.Only then can our standard of living drop as fast as you apparently want it to.
Those who make the wealth should keep the lion's share of it. For example, miners should make more money than mine owners because the miner's are the only ones producing wealth.
Do you not even realize that a system like that simply cannot exist or function? Don't you remember soviet union collapsing because of theories exactly like the one you preaching?
The fall of soviet communism, was not about overpaying workers. It was a highly dysfunctional communist system.The evidence almost always contradicts what you say.
Not that you ever learn, but...
Marcus you complain about pay for professors, and it is a valid point.
No I don't.
I complain about administrative bloat at UC schools. Professors wages have probably dropped in real terms over the past 30 years.
The average is much lower now, because they have a lot of part time non tenured people and TAs teaching a lot of classes.
PLease try to comprehend what I say, before responding.
Good government wages raises all wages.
The rich hate this one trick!
Yes, very true.
And not that long ago, government wages were not considered especially good. They had good benefits, which were seen as almost (but not quite) making government wages overall as good as private sector jobs. But as private sector pay, and the number of good private sector jobs has decreased in a relative way, and pensions have been all but totally eliminated from corporate jobs, all of the sudden all the right wing foxbots and hillbillies are screaming "HOW COME THOSE COPS, FIREMEN GARBAGE MEN AND BUS DRIVERS ARE SO DAMN OVERPAID ?!"
Meanwhile it never occurs to them that (as you say) rooting for government employees to be paid less in response to disingenuine right wing anti-tax propaganda is actually rooting for all of our standards of living (per person real wages) to drop even more than they already have.
It's very hard for me to fathom the level of stupidity it takes to not get this. Maybe it's the envy of those rich retired firemen that blinds them to the obvious.
IT would be good for California, and it's probbly necessary. But I'd like to see it paired with some forced school administrative spending reductions, and I don't know how the government might do that. Especially at the public college level, administrations are bloated. Professors pay hasn't gone up at a rate above inflation, but adminstrative costs have gone to the moon.
Maybe the answer would be for the state to invest the resulting increase in revenues in online branches to the UC schools. Forcing the physical schools to keep costs down. OF course that trend is in motion anyway, but if the state got behind it, it would be powerful.