Jim was asserting that IL's fiscal state as a whole was troubling, which is true, my comment was that Will County appears to be on a better trajectory than the state, which you assumed correctly.

Ultimately, this thread that Jim started is about the appearance of rampant union excess. While this certainly does happen I don't see that's the case with this story. Collective bargaining on it's own isn't evil. By my read the union is just trying to keep pace with the times. Government workers aren't the free market. My corporation has to answer to shareholders, the county to voters who have a much different formula for earned value.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;1023786

And as I said before, it's the package that's the consideration. Health Insurance is the same thing as money. If you want me to pay more for my insurance you'd better give me a raise to compensate or after years of stagnation I'm getting a pay

-spence[/QUOTE]

Insanely hypicritocal considering what is going on with Obama Care .
You have to be joking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is so wrong. The public sector employment stability is and has been far greater than that of the private sector. But the free market requires every bit as much stability as does government. It is, in fact, a major reason a free market people instituted the form of government the Founders gave us. And the responsibility they gave it for producing good, stable money as well as creating predictability in laws and regulations is the very responsibility our government is shirking. And that is a major reason why the "economy" is sluggish and employment is too low and wages are shrinking. And why government workers need to partake of the pain that government is causing.

seems to be the model for what you described as "got nothing-ism"....continually throw out absurd conjecture and act as though you are really smart...never offering any facts to back up your assertions...just arrogance and condescension carry the argument out ad nauseum....in the case of lick, maybe a few distasteful, childish insults...but not much more

Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."


Jonathan Turley recently ("actual" Constitutional Law Professor who "actually" respects the Constitution)

"The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid."


predictable responses.....

Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, called the alleged problems with the Affordable Care Act implementation and Obama's actions, "hyperventilating and contrary to historical fact."

Exercising presidential judgment when executing laws is precisely what the Constitution requires, Lazarus said, and delays in implementing the health care law do not constitute a refusal to do so.


Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said he was not concerned that Obama was circumventing Congress so he would delay his signature health care law, but had real concerns about presidential overreach on war powers and surveillance issues. "Everything we're talking about today is laughable in the face of these problems," Nadler said.


you can't argue right and wrong......facts and fiction.....with people who cannot either accept or acknowledge the existence or importance when promoting their agenda....

it is "stupid" :uhuh:

seems to coincide with the construction of a(another) casino...casino tax revenue will be important once all of the cigarette smokers die.....if Exeter RI got a casino tomorrow, they'd be the fastest growing "city" in RI for quite sometime...

the New Bedford mayor was on 10 News Conference last weekend, he was asked why casinos and pot distribution centers weren't at the top of the list for economic development in New Bedford....he has some excellent...obvious...answers

here in RI...our governor declared on a previous 10 News Conference that gay marriage would be the catalyst for economic development in RI....I think RI unemployment rate just ticked back up....

this is where we are at.....frightening...:uhuh:

[QUOTE=spence;1023786

And as I said before, it's the package that's the consideration. Health Insurance is the same thing as money. If you want me to pay more for my insurance you'd better give me a raise to compensate or after years of stagnation I'm getting a pay

-spence[/QUOTE]



so we'll just raise the minimum wage :uhuh:

Gimme gimme gimme.

Earth to Spence. Since 2008, median wages are down, and medical costs are way up. Most people, therefore, have not seen wage hikes to offset their out-of-pocket medical costs.

Your union folk here certainly seem to embrace your "you better give me a raise or else" socialist dogma, don't they? What if they didn't do a good enough job to get a raise? Or in the case of a public entity, what if (1) not enough money exists to give them a raise, and (2) the citizenry can not absorb additional tax hikes?

Spence, it would be great if no one ever saw a decrease in take home wages. But we are several years into the worst recession since the Great Depression. This isn't the roaring 1920's. The private sector has sure reflected that (except in the case of CEOs). If wages for the entire taxpayer base are down significantly since 2008, by what logic must public employees be immune from that?

When you have less money, you need to spend less. That's not advanced calculus.

Detbuch -

"Wages are down on average in the private sector. Investment is down in the private sector. How does the public sector rate increases?"

Here's how - because when public unionized employees get raises, that ensures that more union dues get funnelled to Democratic political candidates who are pro-union.

In a rational world, Spence would freely concede that when the collective citizenry has less wealth to spend, then those who serve the citizenry (their employees) need to accept comparable wage decreases. That's clearly unfortunate, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.