-
Got the Contributing Memberships stuff finally worked out and made up a thread as a sort of "How-To" to help people figure out how to participate. So if you need help figuring it out, here's the thread you need to take a look at -> http://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3581 Thank you, everyone! Rich Z.
Your Thoughs on Gov Scott?
- Thread starter als2052
- Start date
Shadow
New member
Very true.
It's like building a jail or prison.
Everybody wants people in jail for crimes comitted against them, and most agree we need morre jaill space.
none of them want it built next to or near thier home unless they own the property it's being built on.
Cuts NEED to be made, but from the TOP DOWN this time.
A strict line item review has to be conducted.
We (government) have to quit buying toys for the heck of it.
We have to make serious decision on manpower and deployment.
Get rid of the duplication of services, the oversaturation of top brass, and put more employees to work getting the job done, and less supervising those doing it.
Combine services and departments, and make government both lean mean and functional!!!
Cutting services and lower level or line level personnel, is like spitting in the ocean.
It's only going to be for those directly involved, and in the end, cutting benefits and personel really wont save the money we need to save.
Now, it we can just get those in those higher positions to see this.....
It's like building a jail or prison.
Everybody wants people in jail for crimes comitted against them, and most agree we need morre jaill space.
none of them want it built next to or near thier home unless they own the property it's being built on.
Cuts NEED to be made, but from the TOP DOWN this time.
A strict line item review has to be conducted.
We (government) have to quit buying toys for the heck of it.
We have to make serious decision on manpower and deployment.
Get rid of the duplication of services, the oversaturation of top brass, and put more employees to work getting the job done, and less supervising those doing it.
Combine services and departments, and make government both lean mean and functional!!!
Cutting services and lower level or line level personnel, is like spitting in the ocean.
It's only going to be for those directly involved, and in the end, cutting benefits and personel really wont save the money we need to save.
Now, it we can just get those in those higher positions to see this.....
LEJ ZO6
LEJ ZO6
Just my $0.02 Worth
I have worked in the private sector most of my life.
I had a state government job years ago, I stuck with it for a year. When I interviewed for the job (it wasn't civil service, it was a technical position) the HR rep. stressed vacation, holidays and retirement perks of working for the state. He downplayed the actual work and really talked up the benefits. Being a young technical employee I soon found I didn't belong in the political environment. I was to make technical engineering decisions that were often usurped by politics. Of course I was still held responsible for the outcome of the final project. After a year I decided I needed a different job.
I made the move to the private (manufacturing) sector. This was in the 60's when the U.S. actually produced goods. The pay for a young engineer was about the same in state vs. private. Things were really growing in the 60's and even through most of the 70's. Every year I received a raise and usually a cost of living increase. Each year the company would give us more benefits, vacation, insurance, retirement, etc. to keep employees with the needed skills.
In the early 80's U.S. manufacturing really took the hit. Our company was one of those that didn't make the cut. After 20 years I found myself unemployed and not much in the way of prospects for a new job in the field. I went back to school and changed careers. This time I went into computers but stayed with private industry. Things were good there for a few more years.
In the later 80's the U.S. started off shoring a lot of computer jobs and the U.S. industry was feeling the crunch. Now I was seeing that instead of receiving more perks every year I was feeling the opposite. Every year the company took a little something back. Cost of living increases went away. Raises were smaller or didn't come at all. Employees started paying more for their insurance. Then 401k's came about and workers started contributing to their own retirement as company pensions started to evaporate. It's to the point now where company retirement plans are nearly a thing of the past.
My wife works in the health care industry (private) and she will not receive any retirement benefits even though she has been with the same company over 20 years. I retired 4 years ago while I still had the opportunity. My company was changing retirement policy and my position, age, and years of service qualified me to retire under the old plan, if I did it then. If I had stayed with the job I would have lost much of what I had accumulated due to the new rules. I was one of the lucky ones. Other people that had just as much time on the job as I but didn't have the same position or age, weren't given the choice. They are being forced into the new plan. While I was able to retire at age 62 many of my co-workers will have to work until they are 67 or older and won't receive as good a retirement package.
That's life in the private sector. I can sympathize with our government workers that are seeing their world change day by day but I can't help but think that they are just starting to feel what a lot of us in the private sector have been going through the last 20 or so years.
I have worked in the private sector most of my life.
I had a state government job years ago, I stuck with it for a year. When I interviewed for the job (it wasn't civil service, it was a technical position) the HR rep. stressed vacation, holidays and retirement perks of working for the state. He downplayed the actual work and really talked up the benefits. Being a young technical employee I soon found I didn't belong in the political environment. I was to make technical engineering decisions that were often usurped by politics. Of course I was still held responsible for the outcome of the final project. After a year I decided I needed a different job.
I made the move to the private (manufacturing) sector. This was in the 60's when the U.S. actually produced goods. The pay for a young engineer was about the same in state vs. private. Things were really growing in the 60's and even through most of the 70's. Every year I received a raise and usually a cost of living increase. Each year the company would give us more benefits, vacation, insurance, retirement, etc. to keep employees with the needed skills.
In the early 80's U.S. manufacturing really took the hit. Our company was one of those that didn't make the cut. After 20 years I found myself unemployed and not much in the way of prospects for a new job in the field. I went back to school and changed careers. This time I went into computers but stayed with private industry. Things were good there for a few more years.
In the later 80's the U.S. started off shoring a lot of computer jobs and the U.S. industry was feeling the crunch. Now I was seeing that instead of receiving more perks every year I was feeling the opposite. Every year the company took a little something back. Cost of living increases went away. Raises were smaller or didn't come at all. Employees started paying more for their insurance. Then 401k's came about and workers started contributing to their own retirement as company pensions started to evaporate. It's to the point now where company retirement plans are nearly a thing of the past.
My wife works in the health care industry (private) and she will not receive any retirement benefits even though she has been with the same company over 20 years. I retired 4 years ago while I still had the opportunity. My company was changing retirement policy and my position, age, and years of service qualified me to retire under the old plan, if I did it then. If I had stayed with the job I would have lost much of what I had accumulated due to the new rules. I was one of the lucky ones. Other people that had just as much time on the job as I but didn't have the same position or age, weren't given the choice. They are being forced into the new plan. While I was able to retire at age 62 many of my co-workers will have to work until they are 67 or older and won't receive as good a retirement package.
That's life in the private sector. I can sympathize with our government workers that are seeing their world change day by day but I can't help but think that they are just starting to feel what a lot of us in the private sector have been going through the last 20 or so years.
LEJ Z06, yesterday I would have agreed with you and to some extent I still do but , let's not throw everything on the backs of our government employees. If my understanding is correct they are in for major cuts now and in the future.
I read an article about Scott spending big bucks on his office. Shouldn't he know better than to do that? The following is what a friend says on the subject and I agree 100%.
Eliminate "tax exemptions on Yacht Sales. I see BS projects all over the place that could be cut, such as the state using money to beautify the medians at a cost of thousands of dollars per palm tree."
In other words, eliminate the waste and see where we're at. None of us mind sacrificing but let's not just throw it away on BS.
I read an article about Scott spending big bucks on his office. Shouldn't he know better than to do that? The following is what a friend says on the subject and I agree 100%.
Eliminate "tax exemptions on Yacht Sales. I see BS projects all over the place that could be cut, such as the state using money to beautify the medians at a cost of thousands of dollars per palm tree."
In other words, eliminate the waste and see where we're at. None of us mind sacrificing but let's not just throw it away on BS.
Yeah, I agree. But typically what they do is to make cuts that actually HURT the constituents. Sort of a disguised punishment thing. Stop fixing roads. Cut back the number of fire stations. Reduce essential services across the board and reduce the standard of living. Hell I heard that a town in New Jersey laid off half their police force. Instead of cutting away the fat, they go for bone and muscle, hitting as many nerves as they can along the way. They WANT people to demand that they do whatever is necessary to give them what are realistically the reasons we have government in the first place. Which, of course, the government gleefully interprets as raising taxes and fees so they can keep their pork barrel projects running. "The people have spoken!"
Shadow
New member
You're right Rich, and you've just reiterated what I've been saying for years:thumbsup:
Stop "threatening" or worse yet, actually cutting, essential services, and cut the fat!
The Sheriff's here on both sides of the bay, along with the Tampa Police Dept., have immediately threatened the "necessity" to cut personnel and services, when told to reduce thier budget or refused increases:thumbsdown:
The clerk of courts have done the same thing!:thumbsdown: with the unspoken goal (IMO-my crystal ball is broken) of inconveniencing as many citizens as they can.
All in the hopes that they'll do as Rich suggests.
Start screaming for "thier" services back at any cost!:nonod:
IMO-we (the citizens) need to learn to expect less from government, quit expecting to be teet fed, and learn to stand on our own 2 feet.
At the same time, governments must be forced if necessary, to listen to us and do what's best for the country as a whole!~
To start with, learn to live within a damned budget and stop whining about it!
Maybe, but is anyone listening"
Is there anyone willing to act?
Generally I find that most people will rant and rave, shake thier fists and rattle thier sabres until one of several things happen.
1) They get tired and go home.
2) They get frustrated.
3) They get scared. (of retaliation by WTF ever government entity-lets use the IRS for an example)
4) They get what THEY want, and it's no longer about the overall good of the people.
Those that have the sack to follow through, fight the difficult fight, and take a few risks, generally see a reward at the end.
Unfortunately for some, that reward comes too late
Follow through means everything when dealing with local, county, state and federal governments.
If we simply rattle a few cages, then let the dogs go back to sleep, what had we accomplished?
I don't think he's throwing anything on the backs of the government workers.
He's made the point that they are now feeling what a lot of people in the private sector have felt for years, and will continue for some time, that's all.
As for Scott spending money on his office, are you talking about the office itself, or the position?
He spent a ton of his own $$$ to gain the office.
Hell yeah!!
Campaigning as it ought to be:thumbsup:
I never agree to allow my tax dollars go to any campaign!
I agree with your friend 100%, but hey, in some locales, it's what the people demand!
The idea behing tax exemptions of course is to stimulate growth via major purchases.
Sure, if I were in the market for a yacht, I'd appreciate the tax break.
Then again, if I could afford a freaking yacht, I could afford the tax!
Sort of like the question, "how much fuel does she burn?"
If you have to ask, you probably can't afford her
!My conclusion on projects would be to place any major expenditure such as "beautification" to a local vote.
Open the meetings to the public, then see what the taxpeyers that are footing the bill have to say about it?
ie: We want to plant palms along 8th ave. in the City.
Ok, hold some open meetings where costs and timelines are openly discussed and in print.
Make the meetings accessible to the average taxpayer.
Then, if the consensus decides it's still a good idea, put it to a vote of the local taxpayers.
Ensure that only LOCAL TAXES will be used on the project, and NO STATEWIDE TAXES (fuel, etc) will be expended.
Essentially tell them, if you want it, you pay for it:thumbsup:
It's expensive to be beautiful (like I'd know crap about the subject?
:lmao
.YOu said a mouthfull my friend:thumbsup:
Well, I'm guessing with Gov Scott being sued by two senators, there is going to be a LOT of friction between the governor's mansion and the legislature. :hehehe: Not to mention the media doesn't appear to be welcome around Scott anyway.
See what headaches money can buy?
See what headaches money can buy?
road pilot
New member
Scott --I didn't like him when he was running for Office and
Nothing has changed my mind, now.
Scott=PU
Nothing has changed my mind, now.
Scott=PU
Well, I don't know....
I think that perhaps worst thing about Scott is that he has absolutely no experience in government.
But on the other hand, I think that possibly the BEST thing about Scott is that he has absolutely no experience in government.
:thinkin:
I think that perhaps worst thing about Scott is that he has absolutely no experience in government.
But on the other hand, I think that possibly the BEST thing about Scott is that he has absolutely no experience in government.
:thinkin: