CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[the urban politician]

..

[the urban politician]

^ Sorry, but just no

We’ve got two billionaires with two very different philosophies. I prefer one over the other, although yes he’s not running for office but we’ve already covered that. I’m more interested in the candidate that is running, it’s folks like you who keep going back to KG

It’s that simple. Your personal axe to grind to keep trying over and over to dissect me and unveil some sort of major philosophical hypocrisy just isn’t going to work, dude….

[sentinel]

One of you provides cogent, logical reasoning in your opinion, based on reality. The other just says "Nope, you're wrong, I'M right. Ha!"

Rauner tried to force the state of Illinois into bankruptcy FOR NO REAL REASON. Pritzker is actually paying down the state's backlog of bills, cleaning up the messes of many former politicians. Regardless of whomever the GOP candidate is in the IL gov race, and barring some miraculous GOP candidate who has an ACTUAL plan to fix a lot of the state's outstanding issues, I think I'm sticking with Pritzker, but that's just me..

[the urban politician]

^

That’s like your opinion dude

No surprise that the guy who is a blatant Democrat provides “cogent, logical reasoning” to another partisan.

This is getting old, my friends. And getting us nowhere.

The Democrat machine fucked this State royally and you keep voting for them, reaching endlessly for a new reason. It’s all good, but you have me convinced of literally nothing except that you are brainwashed for life.

I leave you again with this. NONE of this has changed in the 7 and 1/2 years since this post was made:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

donkeys and elephants both make stinky farts.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

like really, really stinky farts.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^

That’s like your opinion dude

No surprise that the guy who is a blatant Democrat provides “cogent, logical reasoning” to another partisan.

This is getting old, my friends. And getting us nowhere.

The Democrat machine fucked this State royally and you keep voting for them, reaching endlessly for a new reason. It’s all good, but you have me convinced of literally nothing except that you are brainwashed for life.

I leave you again with this. NONE of this has changed in the 7 and 1/2 years since this post was made:

Hey, no one said Democrats are perfect, far fucking from it. But state Republicans have no platform, other than reducing taxes...which begs the question, how will things get funded then? Any idea? You seem to think that the 'other side' you so cherish has answers, what are they? What did Rauner propose that was so radically better than what Democrats offer?

Do I believe that a two-party system is severely flawed? Absolutely!! But no one is offering a viable solution, so then, what do??

[the urban politician]

^ Before you move forward in a new direction, you have to hit the brakes.

The Springfield legislature is so one sided that they will never let a Republican Governor do anything. That is the problem, and you will just keep denying that that is effectively the real reason why a Republican Governor will not achieve anything. Not because they don’t have ideas. Of course they have a vision, but that vision is DOA with a completely one party/machine dominated legislature.

So that is where we are. This discussion is meaningless because you guys pretend that there is Democracy in Illinois but there isn’t. There is one party rule, and this nonsense that the minority party has no “ideas” is a blatant falsehood.

To be honest, why the fuck do you guys even bother to vote? Why don’t we just declare this State a kingdom and put in place a benevolent monarch of your choosing and get it over with? It would be much easier and more honest than voting for the same fucktards over and over and then expecting something to change.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

To be honest, why the fuck do you guys even bother to vote? Why don’t we just declare this State a kingdom and put in place a benevolent monarch of your choosing and get it over with? It would be much easier and more honest than voting for the same fucktards over and over and then expecting something to change.

Multiple people in this thread have explained the times they voted for either party. Who was the last Dem you voted for in a statewide election? Maybe don’t call others “partisan” while you openly refuse to vote for the other party.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Before you move forward in a new direction, you have to hit the brakes.

The Springfield legislature is so one sided that they will never let a Republican Governor do anything. That is the problem, and you will just keep denying that that is effectively the real reason why a Republican Governor will not achieve anything. Not because they don’t have ideas. Of course they have a vision, but that vision is DOA with a completely one party/machine dominated legislature.

So that is where we are. This discussion is meaningless because you guys pretend that there is Democracy in Illinois but there isn’t. There is one party rule, and this nonsense that the minority party has no “ideas” is a blatant falsehood.

To be honest, why the fuck do you guys even bother to vote? Why don’t we just declare this State a kingdom and put in place a benevolent monarch of your choosing and get it over with? It would be much easier and more honest than voting for the same fucktards over and over and then expecting something to change.

Even when the same party controls both the executive and the legislature there is negotiation involved. East coast Republican governors, who are popular mind you, do so extensively with their quite powerful Dem legislatures. To pretend there is no model for this just because Rauner was an incompetent a-hole doesn't match reality. Illinois is not Indiana and you can't govern like it is if you happen to win the governorship.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by k1052

Even when the same party controls both the executive and the legislature there is negotiation involved. East coast Republican governors, who are popular mind you, do so extensively with their quite powerful Dem legislatures. To pretend there is no model for this just because Rauner was an incompetent a-hole doesn't match reality. Illinois is not Indiana and you can't govern like it is if you happen to win the governorship.

Illinois isn't New Hampshire or Massachusetts.


I'll be honest, I've never encountered such a leftist environment in my life. And with the Democrats gerrymandering in full force, this state will be left with almost zero Republican representation in Springfield, so the issues will only get worse.

[the urban politician]

I voted for Dems several times before but we need to keep the discussion local and not talk about national politics.

I didn’t vote for Pritzker but I have voted for Hillary and Obama. I have only lived in Illinois since 2013 so I have not had a chance to vote in too many elections.

Anyhow, on a local level I am 100% opposed to the Illinois political machine. I pretty much see no virtue in them whatsoever. Sorry, just where I stand

[MayorOfChicago]

I would have supported the amendment for progressive taxes but I hate how they screamed that TAXES WILL GO DOWN FOR 97% of people. I'm an accountant. The first $10,000 of income would be taxes at 0.20% lower rate than the current rate and then 0.05% lower from $10,000 to $100,000 and then rates would get higher.

So. That 97% of people had a chance to save a yearly maximum of $65 under this plan. It was literally written just to be able to say "your taxes went down".

You want to be fair? Fine, do 1% for the first $10k. 2% up to $40K 3% up to $75K, 4% up to $100K and then 5% up to $250k, 6% up to $500K and 7% above $500k.

something that mattered.

Also, I refused to vote for that amendment because if we pass that one then I wanted the amendment to be able to re-examine pensions to have been put to a vote. They refused to even put that one to a vote.

The current pensions as they were passed 15, 20, 30 years ago are a mess and totally jacked up. People shouldn't be working at $65K salaries and then retire and suddenly make $80K that goes up up up every year. Just can't afford that. I'm not saying gut the pensions, but bring things back down to earth and make them in line with how most other states run their pensions. Illinois just gave everyone anything they wanted in pensions for decades to save a few dollars up front in bonuses or raises. It totally sucks if you arent getting what you were promised, but having studied this a lot the state literally *CANNOT* pay all these pensions. It just can't work. People will leave before they ever squeeze enough money out to pay them, and for everyone that leaves the rest have to be squeezed that much more. Eventually it would just default. Save it before that time.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

The current pensions as they were passed 15, 20, 30 years ago are a mess and totally jacked up. People shouldn't be working at $65K salaries and then retire and suddenly make $80K that goes up up up every year. Just can't afford that. I'm not saying gut the pensions, but bring things back down to earth and make them in line with how most other states run their pensions. Illinois just gave everyone anything they wanted in pensions for decades to save a few dollars up front in bonuses or raises. It totally sucks if you arent getting what you were promised, but having studied this a lot the state literally *CANNOT* pay all these pensions. It just can't work. People will leave before they ever squeeze enough money out to pay them, and for everyone that leaves the rest have to be squeezed that much more. Eventually it would just default. Save it before that time.

^ In other words, Illinois' public pensions are just a huge Ponzi scheme?

[jtown,man]

Why does Illinois have one of the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest sales tax in the country (Chicago), and a mid-level income tax?

Are residents of Illinois *THAT* much better off than say Floridians?


I highly doubt it.

[Handro]

Local expenditures are high and the burden shared by the state is among the lowest in the nation. Also, pensions.

Try to get downstate republicans to vote for Springfield to shoulder more of the costs in Chicago, and try to get Chicago unions to cut some slack on pensions.

You can see why things haven’t changed.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Handro

Local expenditures are high and the burden shared by the state is among the lowest in the nation. Also, pensions.

Try to get downstate republicans to vote for Springfield to shoulder more of the costs in Chicago, and try to get Chicago unions to cut some slack on pensions.

You can see why things haven’t changed.

All Chicago, municipal and state pensions need to be privatized. periodt. The Illinois state constitutional amendment from 1974 is a total scam baked into law, and I'm STILL shocked that it has not been aggressively challenged.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by sentinel

All Chicago, municipal and state pensions need to be privatized. periodt. The Illinois state constitutional amendment from 1974 is a total scam baked into law, and I'm STILL shocked that it has not been aggressively challenged.

Hear hear.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Why does Illinois have one of the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest sales tax in the country (Chicago), and a mid-level income tax?

Are residents of Illinois *THAT* much better off than say Floridians?


I highly doubt it.

Interesting you should bring this up. This data from the Hamilton Project shows that Florida cities--a couple are highlighted in this chart--have the worst cost-of-living/income ratios in the country. Boston, D.C., San Francisco and MSP stand out as being the good, even though they are all very expensive. Not all of Illinois' tax dollars are spent well. But in the long run, taxes pay for the long-term investments that result in quality of life and prosperity. Kansas and Indiana have both done natural experiments in the last 16 years about cutting investments and taxes to a bare minimum and both of those states have lagged their neighbor's economic performance. You can't compete with Iowa and Ohio if your economic plan is just to put everyone to work in privatized prisons and crooked retirement homes.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Interesting you should bring this up. This data from the Hamilton Project shows that Florida cities--a couple are highlighted in this chart--have the worst cost-of-living/income ratios in the country. Boston, D.C., San Francisco and MSP stand out as being the good, even though they are all very expensive. Not all of Illinois' tax dollars are spent well. But in the long run, taxes pay for the long-term investments that result in quality of life and prosperity. Kansas and Indiana have both done natural experiments in the last 16 years about cutting investments and taxes to a bare minimum and both of those states have lagged their neighbor's economic performance. You can't compete with Iowa and Ohio if your economic plan is just to put everyone to work in privatized prisons and crooked retirement homes.

Wait, is those income numbers pre or post tax?

[sentinel]

Does anyonemarothisu () know of any sort of chart that shows historic performance of private pensions vs public pensions, even as an aggregate/average? I may be wrong, but I would assume that private pension performance over a 20-30 year period is much higher than public pensions, but I honestly don't know.

Edit: I think I answered my own question..?



https://www.icapitalnetwork.com/insi...in-a-downturn/

Thanks, interwebs!

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Does anyonemarothisu () know of any sort of chart that shows historic performance of private pensions vs public pensions, even as an aggregate/average? I may be wrong, but I would assume that private pension performance over a 20-30 year period is much higher than public pensions, but I honestly don't know.

Edit: I think I answered my own question..?



https://www.icapitalnetwork.com/insi...in-a-downturn/

Thanks, interwebs!

This isn't depicting what you think. These are all state (public) pension funds. To massively simplify, it's intended to be a comparison of their investments in publicly traded stocks vs private equity - making private 'off a public exchange' placements in investment firms - investments. To make things more complicated, larger private equity firms are increasingly publicly traded themselves, as an aside. Whether this is a remotely fair comparison, and the gobs of added contextual detail needed to make that assessment is not for here of course. But the point being, I'm afraid you saw "public" and "private" and thought you found something you didn't.