$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (kingisgone) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:43:44 GMT

Marcel..My point is that a big part of the San Francisco "budget" is fee for service that doesn't affect the things that one normally associates with a government service. For instance, a large chunk of the SF budget is the airport. The airport collects money from airlines, concessions, parking, etc. and uses that money to run the airport. None of that money is used to provide things like road repair, park maintenance, social services, etc. San Francisco also operates two...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Marcel Deste) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:19:12 GMT

Rob- dont you understand that there is a distinct example of what you are referring to that demonstrates your opponents duplicitous attitude. When a rich guy wants to DONATE a museum to the City the left mobilizes and sues to force any uncrossed t or undotted i to be litigated endlessly. And even if every single issue gets litigated at decades delay, they fabricate MORE things that absolutely must be llitigated. And all under the claim that every law must be meticulously...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Rob Anderson) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:11:15 GMT

...in rob's case, i would venture that his frivolous lawsuit probably cost us ALL money - why not take up a collection by forming an "angry automobile drivers association" and charge dues?...

You persist in calling our successful litigation "frivolous," even though the injunction was upheld by two judges and the decision was rendered by one of the least frivolous people I've ever seen in action, Judge Peter Busch. We had both the facts...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (kingisgone) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:35:46 GMT

The $6.6 Billion figure has been covered over-and-over again...the city and county's total budget number includes a lot of revenue and expenses that aren't from taxes.

For instance, SFO is a $650 million operation that gets monies from airlines, concessions, parking, etc. and spends it on the upkeep and running of the airport. That money is part of the $6.6 Billion figure. The two hospitals that San Francisco runs also get a lot of money from outside sources like insurance...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (WishYouWereDead) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:51:19 GMT

actually, $8,000 per person doesn't sound like a lot to me... i pay half that in property taxes and what with personal taxes to the state (which SHOULD come back to the city) and all kinds of sales taxes, i'm probably paying out more than is spent on me... of course, i have to carry gadflies like arthur evans and rob, who probably don't contribute as much as is spent on them (in rob's case, i would venture that his frivolous lawsuit probably cost us ALL money - why not take up...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (PHLemingo) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:19:24 GMT

Yes, our city government is mostly a jobs program for progressives. Note, for example, that MTA's website tells us that their Bicycle Program has eleven (11) employees

I understand this was due to a certain legal injunction that required a bunch of analysis, some would say was superfluous. While most of city govmint...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Marcel Deste) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:18:51 GMT

as you did in regards to the transportation issue, you assume that what liberals want is something that will work. Something that is real. They prove time and time again that they dont. They literally dont care whether something works or not. All they care about is that they get what they think they want. What they want is all they need to know. And to cement themselves in power they know that all they need to do is bribe a bigger block of votes than those who choose not to do so.

I...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Rob Anderson) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:56:29 GMT

I like the idea I heard for Fogu to limit city worker pay and benefits to no more than the equivalent in the private sector - it's only fair. I don't think the typical unemployed worker is going to be too happy to find out that a city gardener or janitor is making 50k++ when you could hire someone off the street for half of that.

That's where the union issue comes in. Is city government designed to deliver services to city residents, or is it a...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Uncle Miltie) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:47:23 GMT

They still have a hole to close that represents about 10% of the city budget and the nickle and diming of us peasants will not close that gap alone.

They need to cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat, cut the fat
and no amount of positioning and politicking will change that. Furthermore, the chances of passing taxes in November is somewhere between slim and none. The good news is that there's more...

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Rob Anderson) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:21:35 GMT

Yes, our city government is mostly a jobs program for progressives. Note, for example, that MTA's website tells us that their Bicycle Program has eleven (11) employees, and that global warming guy in the mayor's office is making more than $162,000 a year.

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Marcel Deste) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:52:51 GMT

Sorry for the accidental repeat.

Re: $6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Marcel Deste) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:52:10 GMT

End of story. The problem is not prop 13. Its out of control employee benefits.

Anyone think a reasonable and objective person with the help of a few accountants and an audit team couldnt find about a billion of waste?

I posted before that there isnta single program that needs to be cut. Its the salaries and benefits of the employees running the programs that is the problem'

The idea that someopne for five years after termination still is getting health care...

$6.6 billion is not enough for Progressive Land

feeds@yuku.com (Rob Anderson) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:51:33 GMT

Salaries drive S.F.'s budget skyward
Heather Knight,Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, June 28, 2009

San Francisco will spend $6.6 billion in the fiscal year starting Wednesday - the largest budget in its history - making the 47-square-mile city a bigger spender than seven states including Idaho and New Hampshire.