Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
I like how you exclude Illinois from being a liberal utopia because it doesn't meet your bullshit parameters.

The "liberal utopias" of New York and California have four the America's ten largest cities. All of those cities grew. Hell New York City is booming, gaining 100,000 people per year.

Everyone is fleeing the tyranny of liberalism!! Ahhh!!!!

I tipped my hat to Seattle (rainy and depressing, and Starbucks sucks) and Chicago (murder capital USA). But looking not only at this data but other pieces of evidence I've linked on here before, it's no secret: people are leaving high taxed, economically crappy areas for better economic opportunity and lower cost of living.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
California has the 8th largest economy in the world -- yeah, that's compared to other nations. New York comes in at around #16. I think they are doing OK.

For how long? They're bankrupt, unfunded liabilities for decades to come, highest property taxes in the country, losing more people than gaining, and have the highest debt of any state in the country. California is the US' version of Greece.

Eventually the tech dorks will figure out they can run their business just as efficiently or better in Teas, Arizona, or Washington and move there, increase their profits, and offer lower costs of living for their employees.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
For how long? They're bankrupt, unfunded liabilities for decades to come, highest property taxes in the country, losing more people than gaining, and have the highest debt of any state in the country. California is the US' version of Greece.

Eventually the tech dorks will figure out they can run their business just as efficiently or better in Teas, Arizona, or Washington and move there, increase their profits, and offer lower costs of living for their employees.

Bankrupt? Not anymore. California is actually back on track fiscally after on being the verge of disaster and they did it by wait for it ... voting for a progressive income tax through a ballot amendment. Something I hope Illinois will do as our state constitution requires a flat tax.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
Bankrupt? Not anymore. California is actually back on track fiscally after on being the verge of disaster and they did it by wait for it ... voting for a progressive income tax through a ballot amendment. Something I hope Illinois will do as our state constitution requires a flat tax.

We don't have a revenue problem in Illinois, we have a spending problem. The citizens have answered the call once and paid an extra two percent. They don't need more money. They need to stop pissing money away.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
We don't have a revenue problem in Illinois, we have a spending problem. The citizens have answered the call once and paid an extra two percent. They don't need more money. They need to stop pissing money away.

My take on Illinois politics in a couple of paragraphs:

First off yes the citizens of Illinois have answered the call.

I am no fan of General Assembly Speaker Michael Madigan. He is a Democrat and while I tend to vote Democrat I don't see any pro middle class legislation coming of Springfield as this guy has frequently tried to cut education spending, has shot down recent attempts at a minimum wage increase, and it was only after huge public outcry did he bring marriage equality up for a vote.

We don't need anymore revenue in Illinois. We can however get the same amount revenue in a different manner with a progressive tax freeing up more money for middle class hopefully increasing consumer spending and creating more jobs.

I call them like a see them and Madigan is no progressive. He does just enough to keep the union bosses happy. As long as he controls the Democrat Party things won't get better in Illinois. I am normally against term limits because term limits just makes the lobbyist that offer jobs to politicians after they are out of office that much more powerful but I might support them to shake things up and get more progressive leadership in Springfield. I still worry about the long term affects of term limits as it like I said give lobbyist even more power.

I would hardly consider Illinois a liberal utopia as we have a flat income tax. Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation and while it makes sense on some levels because of tourism. However a sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation as it disproportionately hurts the poor.

I am personally am unsure of how I am voting for the state elections in 2014. I am very happy with my state senator as he got some stuff done for our youth football program in terms of red tape when it came to getting our new scoreboard installed at the park district but I may vote Republican if I like a candidate for state office or do a write in as the Democrat Party in the state has not pursued an agenda of improving the jobs and economy in Illinois.

An aside: I wasn't big on Rahm Emanuel but I have sort to warmed up to him slightyly. After more research most of the school closings that had me outraged were at schools half empty and were too ineffecient to keep open but I am still disappointed he fired the former chief of police because of pressure from the cops because that chief wasn't a Chicago guy. The last couple years under Daily saw a major drop homicides and they ballooned under Emanuel before droping in 2013. He'll have to make more progress for in reducing homicides before I vote for him as mayor.
 
Last edited:

Black Irish

Wise Guy
Messages
3,769
Reaction score
602
My take on Illinois politics in a couple of paragraphs:

First off yes the citizens of Illinois have answered the call.

I am no fan of General Assembly Speaker Michael Madigan. He is a Democrat and while I tend to vote Democrat I don't see any pro middle class legislation coming of Springfield as this guy has frequently tried to cut education spending, has shot down recent attempts at a minimum wage increase, and it was only after huge public outcry did he bring marriage equality up for a vote.

We don't need anymore revenue in Illinois. We can however get the same amount revenue in a different manner with a progressive tax freeing up more money for middle class hopefully increasing consumer spending and creating more jobs.

I call them like a see them and Madigan is no progressive. He does just enough to keep the union bosses happy. As long as he controls the Democrat Party things won't get better in Illinois. I am normally against term limits because term limits just makes the lobbyist that offer jobs to politicians after they are out of office that much more powerful but I might support them to shake things up and get more progressive leadership in Springfield. I still worry about the long term affects of term limits as it like I said give lobbyist even more power.

I would hardly consider Illinois a liberal utopia as we have a flat income tax. Chicago has the highest sales tax in the nation and while it makes sense on some levels because of tourism. However a sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation as it disproportionately hurts the poor.

I am personally am unsure of how I am voting for the state elections in 2014. I am very happy with my state senator as he got some stuff done for our youth football program in terms of red tape when it came to getting our new scoreboard installed at the park district but I may vote Republican if I like a candidate for state office or do a write in as the Democrat Party in the state has not pursued an agenda of improving the jobs and economy in Illinois.

An aside: I wasn't big on Rahm Emanuel but I have sort to warmed up to him slightyly. After more research most of the school closings that had me outraged were at schools half empty and were too ineffecient to keep open but I am still disappointed he fired the former chief of police because of pressure from the cops because that chief wasn't a Chicago guy. The last couple years under Daily saw a major drop homicides and they ballooned under Emanuel before droping in 2013. He'll have to make more progress for in reducing homicides before I vote for him as mayor.

I don't think this as big a problem as you and others may believe. So many politicians could cash out and become high rolling lobbyists at any time. Why don't they? There has to be a compelling interest that keeps them in office rather than succumbing to the siren song of lobbyist $$$. In a word, it's power. And that, to my mind, is exactly why we need term limits. We need to move these status hungry people out of the halls of power before they become so entrenched that they don't do anyone any good. I'm usually not in favor of simplistic sentiments like "if both sides are against it then it must be a good idea," but in the case of term limits, I'm inclined to feel that way. The fact that neither side of the political spectrum will touch tern limits with a ten foot pole makes me think it's an idea whose time has come. I've been in favor of it for awhile, and nothing I've seen lately has convinced me otherwise.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Bankrupt? Not anymore. California is actually back on track fiscally after on being the verge of disaster and they did it by wait for it ... voting for a progressive income tax through a ballot amendment. Something I hope Illinois will do as our state constitution requires a flat tax.

A few CA cities have already declared bankruptcy, and it's only a matter of time until the state implodes and begs the feds for a bailout. They finally have enough cash to pay their day to day bills, but that's not the whole story. Go research their debt and unfunded liabilities and tell me on paper they don't look like Greece.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
We don't need anymore revenue in Illinois. We can however get the same amount revenue in a different manner with a progressive tax freeing up more money for middle class hopefully increasing consumer spending and creating more jobs.

What break would the middle class receive with a progressive tax system? The flat rate was increased, I believe in 2011, from 3% to 5% for everyone and it was scheduled to adjust back down to 3.75% in 2015. The chart below (proposed by a State Rep Jackobsson) suggests the only beneficiary of a lower rate would be individuals with an income below $18k per year. The "middle class" is taxed .25%-2.25% more than they would with the flat tax of 3.75%. This is a money grab, plain and simple.

progressive-tax-table.jpg
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
What break would the middle class receive with a progressive tax system? The flat rate was increased, I believe in 2011, from 3% to 5% for everyone and it was scheduled to adjust back down to 3.75% in 2015. The chart below (proposed by a State Rep Jackobsson) suggests the only beneficiary of a lower rate would be individuals with an income below $18k per year. The "middle class" is taxed .25%-2.25% more than they would with the flat tax of 3.75%. This is a money grab, plain and simple.

progressive-tax-table.jpg

I don't agree with the exact tax brackets here and if this is the plan that goes on the ballet I probably wouldn't vote for it. My understanding was there were several versions of a progressive tax plan for Illinois.

The rates though are lower for people than those making under 18k. Remember everyone rather you'd be a millionaire or someone who makes 18k everyone pays the exact same rate on that 1st $18k. So by that bracket someone making 36k would 3% on the first 18k and 4% on the next 18k, an average rate of 3.5% less than the flat 3.75%. I believe someone earning $50k would be paying a little bit over 3.75% when you average it out. An individual earning $54k would pay 4% which is not a dramatic increase.

I would not be in favor of a money grab beyond the temporary rates we currently have and would have to research anything prior to November. I would take revenue of everyone paying the 5% temporary rate and match that revue in a more progressive tax bracket. Not exactly sure what that it would come out to.
 

magogian

New member
Messages
1,467
Reaction score
155
Ugh, Illinois.

It isn't a revenue issue but a spending issue.

The personal and corporate tax increases that went into effect have brought in over a $1 billion more a year yet:
"The state finished the fiscal year on Sunday $6.1 billion in the red. But Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka said Monday that the backlog of unpaid bills to schools, agencies, hospitals and businesses was expected to grow by $1.4 billion by next month. The state collected $1.3 billion in unexpected tax revenue in the spring from residents selling assets before new tax laws took effect, allowing the state to end the fiscal year in a better position than it otherwise would have. But Ms. Topinka warned that the windfall was a one-time occurrence and did nothing to address the state’s budget problems. Her office estimates unpaid bills will rise to $7.5 billion in August and to nearly $9 billion by December."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/illinois-deficit-is-growing-despite-tax-windfall.html?_r=0
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

It was an interesting read...but I recommend someone send this guy some Kleenex and some cheese...

maybe I've lost my ability to discern levels of vitriol and methods of attack, but it seems to me Wendy Davis is not even in the same zip code w/ Sarah Palin in terms of smear campaign...also, whats with this weird-assed tone like the same people skewered Sarah Palin...and they are all republicans...What? That said, yea I agree WTF is up with the double standard...this stuff will all be dredged up, but it seems a little more than fact finding...needs to be outed, so that part I can give a nod...

as a side note...when discussing polling and policy...since when does 68% evoke use of the descriptor "Just"....just 68% is like saying only 2/3 ...it is just a moronic thing to try to do...glass house progressive boy should think long and hard about the margins on progressive/liberal agenda items lately...60% is a pipe dream for anything Obama.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Thus the thought experiment...the guy is firmly on the right and most of the links are to attacks on Palin as reference cor what if it happened to Davis...as far as the percentages...again he's pulling for the right but used honesty and being facetious ness
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Thus the thought experiment...the guy is firmly on the right and most of the links are to attacks on Palin as reference cor what if it happened to Davis...as far as the percentages...again he's pulling for the right but used honesty and being facetious ness

ah...wait...lemme get the hook outta my lip...I see sowell articles and such above now...should have known. If he'd only have used italics...:) You'd think how outrageous it was would have been a hint too...but then again...
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I am a PA native. PA is not what I would call conservative, or Obama unfriendly. PA has one of the most comprehensive medication programs for the indigent I've ever seen. The folks you are about to see likely voted Democrat for either or both Federal and State level elections. So with that in mind...

WTAE-PA: Pennsylvania Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs From ObamaCare - YouTube

NO ONE saved 2500 bucks here...We don't know if they kept their doctors, but based on the comments by the benefits rep, this coverage is not "the same" so they didn't keep their insurance either...this was a group policy...not some "inferior" plan, so save the BS.

The rollout was an indication of how incompetent this administration is, and what lies in store for "healthcare" management...the video above is an indication of the impact of non-stop politics vs serious policy-making.

...despite efforts to paint Obamacare as such...this will never be a silk purse...
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I am a PA native. PA is not what I would call conservative, or Obama unfriendly. PA has one of the most comprehensive medication programs for the indigent I've ever seen. The folks you are about to see likely voted Democrat for either or both Federal and State level elections. So with that in mind...

WTAE-PA: Pennsylvania Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs From ObamaCare - YouTube

NO ONE saved 2500 bucks here...We don't know if they kept their doctors, but based on the comments by the benefits rep, this coverage is not "the same" so they didn't keep their insurance either...this was a group policy...not some "inferior" plan, so save the BS.

The rollout was an indication of how incompetent this administration is, and what lies in store for "healthcare" management...the video above is an indication of the impact of non-stop politics vs serious policy-making.

...despite efforts to paint Obamacare as such...this will never be a silk purse...

I got some issues with the rollout and the law itself even though I did sign up in December successfully (with some headaches) after being kicked off my parents insurance when I hit age 26.

I have not watch the video I will when I get to a PC and am not using my phone as I would like to see what it entails.

Small business though were exempt from the employer mandate. The law gives small businesses a tax credit if they decided to provide insurance to their employees but if the insurance is to expensive even with the small business tax credit why don't the small business owners just send their employees to the exchanges where they can get the subsidies to help pay for the insurance.

Like I said haven't watch the video yet but it seems suspicious when small business were exempted from the employer mandate. I do applauded small business trying to do right and provide coverage to their employees but if it is to expensive why not send the employees to the exchange and give them raises with the money you save by not providing them insurance. Seems like a win/win. Small business owner saves on providing for his/her employees, and the employees get a raise and government subsidies to help them pay for coverage.

I think it would be a huge economic boon though if we would find some other mechanism that gets away from the employer provided insurance model. I think it would save business's money and would make hiring easier. I also think it would increase entrepreneurship. I really think we needed to get away from the employer provide insurance model rather it be through single payer or a more conservative route like health care savings accounts / vouchers given based on income level that could be used according to the individuals choice.

Edit: Watch the youtube video a company that small is clearly exempt from the employer mandate.
 
Last edited:

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,262
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
I turn 28 in a few weeks, granted it'll be for like the 8th time, but still....
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I got some issues with the rollout and the law itself even though I did sign up in December successfully (with some headaches) after being kicked off my parents insurance when I hit age 26.

I have not watch the video I will when I get to a PC and am not using my phone as I would like to see what it entails.

Small business though were exempt from the employer mandate. The law gives small businesses a tax credit if they decided to provide insurance to their employees but if the insurance is to expensive even with the small business tax credit why don't the small business owners just send their employees to the exchanges where they can get the subsidies to help pay for the insurance.

Like I said haven't watch the video yet but it seems suspicious when small business were exempted from the employer mandate. I do applauded small business trying to do right and provide coverage to their employees but if it is to expensive why not send the employees to the exchange and give them raises with the money you save by not providing them insurance. Seems like a win/win. Small business owner saves on providing for his/her employees, and the employees get a raise and government subsidies to help them pay for coverage.

I think it would be a huge economic boon though if we would find some other mechanism that gets away from the employer provided insurance model. I think it would save business's money and would make hiring easier. I also think it would increase entrepreneurship. I really think we needed to get away from the employer provide insurance model rather it be through single payer or a more conservative route like health care savings accounts / vouchers given based on income level that could be used according to the individuals choice.

Edit: Watch the youtube video a company that small is clearly exempt from the employer mandate.

well...I'm guessing he didn't send them to the exchanges for the same reason I didn't...because it was worse, or not yet achievable for his employees for myriad of reasons...so instead of dealing with distracted/preoccupied employees who are freaking out...he solved the problem. Most small businesses are carrying their folks for at least the next year until there are a few more answers than questions...and the Small bus group policies they are using are not coming from exchanges, but rather their cost structure has been SIGNIFICANTLY impacted by the laws...good for you getting what you need...glad you are happy with it...count yourself 1 among literally thousands who see it the other way...

Edit: If that's the owners only business...agreed, probably so.

doesn't change the fact there is nothing cheaper/better here...the coverage is worse with higher overall costs...the group plans would logically be cheaper and better than individual plans...the group plan these guys are on now is compliant with ACA, and is far worse and more expensive than what they had...so what do you expect on the exchanges...if you think the subsidy is the answer...that's ridiculous...who pays for that? Healthcare did not get more affordable...and we'll see about "available"...there's statutory availability...then there are the practical logistics...
 
Last edited:
Top