Users who Dugg This
brucefrench
574 Followers
Codeandoptics
27 Followers
johngalt01
93 Followers
dreadpirate
1229 Followers
EmersonBiggins
41 Followers
bille3Jul 20, 2010
Why are they complaining? Does than not come from the taxes paid by those evil coporatists? It is redistribution of wealth in its finest and purest form.
Look back at history, the ruling regime always pays themselves first what they feel is fair and reasonable.
user500Jul 21, 2010
sounds like the teabager platform. "Were only mad because we lost".
linuxpersonJul 21, 2010
What does "teabager" have anything to do with this discussion?
chefgroovyJul 22, 2010
Probably better to be the teabagger than the teabaggee. Only one of them has the balls on their nose
brandhayJul 20, 2010
Nice little fiefdom they have there. I'd like to imagine the crooks will be run out of town, but they'll probably just move up the ladder. Maybe Pillage Czars.
Closed AccountJul 20, 2010
"Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work."
Evil capitalists are destroying california, quick to the Prius!
jimbodeenieJul 21, 2010
I think you meant socialists. If not socialist, then something else, but definitely not capitalists. Oh, unless you forgot the /s or is that becoming too much of a cliche these days. I dunno, I can never keep up with digg!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicJul 21, 2010
Socialist? Electing politicians then letting them decide how much they get paid, that's socialism? Where's the part where they own the means of production?
zenerdiodeJul 21, 2010
why the f**k do you need a /s?
Are people so f**king dense that even obvious s**t like this need a /s?
how much more obvious does Codeandoptics need to make it for you that he's mocking?
maximmJul 22, 2010
Dude you love to use the word socialist, though you have no idea what it means. They would never make that kind of money only capitalists would. You are an idiot just regurgitating a new word you learned.
aplusjimagesJul 21, 2010
Damn time for me to get into politics.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
That's what I'm thinking but at the same time I fear that politics will consume the good morality portion of my brain...
johngalt01Jul 20, 2010
By all means. More government is exactly what we need.
Glad I am not paying taxes in CA.
cajungalJul 21, 2010
If I lived there, I would be forced to lead a tax revolt!!
pathouston22Jul 21, 2010
Or move to Texas, like half the state seems to be doing.
cajungalJul 22, 2010
Sad thing is they are going to loose their productive citizens to other states.
omicronnineJul 22, 2010
And you'd need a catchy name. Lets see... how about a reference to the Boston tea party? That'd work.
socalcoveJul 21, 2010
*grumble grumble grumble*
weelbaroJul 21, 2010
You're right, we need less government, and more privatization, b/c we all know those corporate execs are never overpaid.
kaelyiestaJul 22, 2010
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. I suggest looking up the definition of corporate and it's legal implications. You will find that government is a necessary component of the idea.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
djmoqJul 21, 2010
sad face here
spinningheadJul 22, 2010
You're only glad you're not in California because they have minorities there. We saw you digging the story on "Anti-White bias in academia".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
FTA: Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.
Oh, LOOK! They're modeling their city bureaucracy after Mexico. Corrupt, fat and content while the peasants eek out a substandard living and are exploited thorough abusive taxes and bond fees. First, the immigration status needs to be checked for Mayor Hernandez and and the others, then he needs to be jailed for corruption then deported if illegal. Same goes for the rest of these goons. Anyone of legal status, just needs to be investigated and jailed. These assh**es are worse than those on Capitol Hill.
yodanationJul 21, 2010
You're questioning his legal status solely based on his name? And you wonder why people have a problem with the Arizona law.
ledzep19752000Jul 21, 2010
So what!
spandiaJul 21, 2010
So you think someone came here illegally and won an election?
That must be one good fake ID.
toxicshokJul 22, 2010
like Barack Obama's
/s
//do I even need the "/s"
omicronnineJul 22, 2010
Unfortunately yes, you definitely do.
stevecubeJul 21, 2010
What's this have to do with Mexico? This s**t is happening here in the US. And you think some of them are illegals? come on. These assh**es aren't worst than those on Capitol Hill. Same f**king thing! You make it sound like it's some sort of Mexican conspiracy here haha.. just politics as usual.
jackopforJul 21, 2010
FTA "Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises"
The Mafia must be involved as well cause this guy sounds like he might be Italian...
slipperyottterJul 21, 2010
i want to digg you up for the corruption charge thing, but i want to bury you for the wanting his citizenship status questioned because he hispanic.
frumblerJul 21, 2010
Hate to break it to you, but here in California, Hispanic names have existed for residents for over 400 years, in fact many of our towns have *gasp* Hispanic names.
jordanjeter7Jul 21, 2010
Los Angeles, San Diego....ITS A f**kING CONSPIRACY!!
diuleiJul 22, 2010
The four biggest cities in California, no less. LA, SD, SJ, SF.
omicronnineJul 22, 2010
Hell, non-spanish place names are so uncommon here they stand out.
diuleiJul 22, 2010
Ture. It's always amusing when I visit outside the southwest. I travel to the east coast a lot and I always chuckle at all the Anglo naming - Chesterfield, Worthington, Winchester, Rutherford etc etc. I'm used to a mix of Anglo and Hispanic naming conventions... Wilshire, La Brea, La Cienega, Western...
Closed AccountJul 23, 2010
OK, I'll grant you the Spanish name thingy for California cities. IF only there was a way to deport San Francisco...
jshhmrJul 21, 2010
Actually, Hernandez is a US citizen, but has a nice criminal record. Having a hispanic last name does not mean you are illegal. Comments like that is what hurts the cause against illegal immigration.
Closed AccountJul 23, 2010
Dugg you up for your respectful and gentle admonishment to me.
chahrlie5Jul 21, 2010
Waiting for a liberal to defend this s**t.
Anybody, anybody?
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Crickets!
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
How is this a liberal/conservative issue?
thenazzJul 21, 2010
California is only a liberal state when it comes to taxes and evil socialist agendas... when things like Prop 8 pass and ban gay marriage then California is only liberal in a few 'sanctuary cities' and everyone else in California is conservative. See how that works?
cysailorJul 21, 2010
One set of definitions (Of many) for Liberal vs. Conservative is that Liberals are in favor of a larger government more capable of managing social service programs, while Conservatives are in favor of a smaller less involved government.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
Gay marriage has been overwhelming shot down everywhere it has been put for a vote, no matter in liberal or conservative areas.
savethemindJul 21, 2010
it says a small municipality, not the entirety of california. shut the hell up. i'd rather have the guy pay himself 800k then make false claims and go to war, waiting for an idiot err republican to defend this s**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barrimonJul 21, 2010
Liberals might defend larger government, but conservatives defend larger paychecks.
Go ahead and talk about how everyone needs to look out for themselves, that's what this person did.
spacemanspiff22Jul 21, 2010
savethemind, that argument would only make sense if California didn't have ridiculous stories like this coming out all the time. The state is going bankrupt due to decades of horrific leadership.
ncmusicJul 21, 2010
But since the city and not the state pays the mayor wtf does this have to do with California's budget issues? The people in this town elected people then let them set their own salaries then kept electing them. I don't think you're going to find liberals or conservatives lining up to defend those kinds of salaries.
captainnopantsJul 21, 2010
Yeah, your priorities are definitely in order. Idiot.
megadan76Jul 21, 2010
Just because a "liberal" realizes that we need a government in order to keep our society working and improving, doesn't mean we support the obscene abuse of the system and greed of moral-less parasite politicians.
Big difference.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
Generally, the liberals on this site are quite content with larger government, under the guise of government officials somehow being less greedy than big, bad corporations.
barrimonJul 21, 2010
@methdwman3
It would be pretty difficult for a civil servant to justify paying themselves 1+ million dollars, no matter how corrupt they were. They'd have to cheat the system to do it. They're not less greedy, but most govt big shots quit and work for companies if they want to make real money.
Also govt officials can get fired when the public finds out about their excessive pay. Greedy CEOs never do.
megadan76Jul 21, 2010
@methdwman3 the difference is, we can fire/impeach/not vote for a government offical. We have no say over the greed of private corporations. So I'd rather have the accountable parasites than untouchable ones running the system.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
@MEg - Of course you have recourse - don't do business with companies you don't want to do business with. If you know of a company with corruption, simply stop doing business with them. Certainly seems like easier recourse than waiting a couple years and having one vote, no?
megadan76Jul 21, 2010
@methdwman sadly, that's not really how it works in real life. There will be always be other people who will do business with corrupt companies, because those companies provide them with corrupt services.
One vote is one vote, whether it's a ballot or a dollar (the whole capitalist comparison of dollar votes to a real democratic system is laughable, of course).
Your argument is weak and illogical my friend, and I think you know it ;)
linuxpersonJul 21, 2010
"Just because a "liberal" realizes that we need a government in order to keep our society working and improving, doesn't mean we support the obscene abuse of the system and greed of moral-less parasite politicians."
You may not support obscene abuse and waste on a conscious level, but the funding of any organization via forced redistribution of wealth results in exactly that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
@MEG - No, no it isn't. You don't do business with a company, they don't get your money. Period. They can continue to be their corrupt selves and f**k someone else. Why do you care as that point?
Conversely, if you vote against a corrupt official, and they are re-elected, you have absolutely no recourse - it's not like not voting for a guy, or a party, means you are exempt from paying taxes.
Do you get this difference? Do you grasp how consumers hold a large power over their own finances, but virtually none over their tax dollars?
megadan76Jul 21, 2010
@MET I understand what you're saying but I think you're failing to grasp the concept v. reality here.
In practice you are correct, but in reality there is very little (read: nothing) a lone citizen can do against a corporation - they can't even touch them without being counter-sued to oblivion and subject to limitations (personal finances) that corporations don't have.
at least in voting there is the semblance of fairness, at least we try and strive to the goal of equal power for every voter, unlike the corporations who laugh in the face of 'fairness' and know that no matter what they want to do, a sufficient amount of money will always allow it.
"[D]emocracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" (Churchill), I would say that includes Corporate Capitalism too.
barrimonJul 21, 2010
"Waiting for a liberal to defend this s**t."
Bare naked greed like this belongs to conservatives who defend CEO pay, estate taxes and the banking industry.
Nice try.
barrimonJul 21, 2010
don't just digg me down... respond?
that's right.... crickets
chahrlie5Jul 21, 2010
Comparing CEOs/private corporations with public jobs paid for by tax money doesn't make sense. Private entities create wealth and jobs, whether or not you agree with that is up to you.
Sorry I didn't respond immediately, I don't spend every waking minute on Digg. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barrimonJul 21, 2010
@Chahrlie5
Corporations create wealth, I agree. Japanese and German CEOs get paid a lot less but their companies do a lot better. CEO pay doesn't correlate to performance. They get paid a lot even if they're companies are crashing. Public entities at least perform services for their communities.
Corporations MIGHT pay their fair share of taxes and they MIGHT hire more employees. But the goal of most corporations is to make the highest profits, pay the lowest taxes and have the least employees possible. That kind of success doesn't serve society at all.
jesburgerJul 22, 2010
barrimon@That's false. If the company pays low taxes and has few employees, the product/service it offers will have a better price.
Look at GM, they have a s**t-ton of employees making good money. And the company is doing bankrupt because the competition is making cars with less employees that earn less as well.
You're forgetting big corporations have customers, not only employees.
barrimonJul 22, 2010
@jesburger
Lean companies can offer low prices, but they're only taking money out of pockets, they aren't putting any in. They need other companies to have employees who get paid in order to buy those products.
GMs problem was they kept making BIG cars when the world was screaming for more efficient vehicles. No one is gonna by a HUMMER no matter how cheap it is. All of the American companies focused on SUVs, trucks and large sedans because they were high profit margin products. They went broke because no one bought their products.
earthwormzimJul 22, 2010
@barrimon
No company or corporation has EVER taken money from me. I voluntarily decided to trade something of value for something that I valued more, in every circumstance. Saying they only take is a bald-faced lie.
Every purchase I've ever made has benefited me, and on top of that, it benefited the company. This is the whole essence of the free market, and free exchange.
When you trade $2 for a knick-knack, it's because the knick-knack is worth more to you than the $2, whereas, to the company, the $2 is worth more than the knick-knack. The company make "take" your money, but, in turn, it gave you something more valuable.
Now, government takes. Every year, it increases how much it takes, and their products and services rarely increase in quality. Take for example, the public school system, or your local police departments...every year, they fail, and yet, they manage to argue that their failure justifies increases in their budget. In fact, many government programs are perversely incentivized in this manor...the more they fail, the higher their budget becomes.
At the very least, when a company/corporation offers poor service, or low-quality products, I can choose not to buy them. I only wish I could make that choice with respect to the government's products and so-called "services". But, I can't, can I? (well, unless I wanna go to jail for not paying taxes)
barrimonJul 22, 2010
@earthworm
Did the company build the roads it uses or did your tax dollars pay for them? Did the company build the universities or is it using educations that your dollars paid for? Did the company build the ports? Did the company contribute to any of the infrastructure that it uses (the web, safety from police, building inspections, airspace, satellites, coast guard, etc...).
Companies don't just make money, they also use a lot more resources than a private citizen will ever use. Infrastructure doesn't maintain itself. Someone pays to keep the golf course green, even if you only worry about your game.
davey914Jul 26, 2010
Long story short, their wages weren't comparable to other officials with the same title and it's just a ridiculous amount for a public service official to be making. It doesn't matter what party you believe in.
rmkrmkrmkJul 21, 2010
Waiting for a republican to defend this s**t.
Anybody, anybody?
chahrlie5Jul 21, 2010
I bet that city council is blue as hell.
rmkrmkrmkJul 21, 2010
Ahhhh yes my little republican lemming, let's make baseless accusations (Rizzo is not a democrat), and let's AVOID the FACT they are big fans of de-regulation. Shhhhhh forget I just hinted de-reg doesn't work, now go back to sleeeeeeep.
socalcoveJul 21, 2010
Regardless, this isnt an ideology issue.
This is clear political corruption and greed.
toxicshokJul 22, 2010
That isn't exactly de-regulation. De-regulation is typically the loosening of government regulation of corporations and private interests.
toenail37Jul 21, 2010
OR waiting for a conservative to defend this, after all management ALWAYS is deserving and psecial.
bookantJul 21, 2010
We have to pay top dollar to attract talented executives!
/s
slipperyottterJul 21, 2010
us californians, as shown in past behavior, have a tendency to be social conservatives/fiscal liberals...
*sigh
scottamusJul 22, 2010
There are republicans in CA you f**king s**t for brains. Take the governor as a small example.
allisonrose870Jul 21, 2010
The abuse by those elected to office and appointed to office, like Chief of Police, has reached a tipping point I do believe. People are plain fed up with this outrageous, and what s/b also, criminal behavior.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
This is not a gross mis-use of funds as it's being made out to be.
Would you accept a $800,000 salary to govern in a place like Southern California, full of packs of sub-humans?? Maybe yes, but you sure wouldn't find me queuing for a job that essentially revolves around governing wild animals -- it is degrading.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
impsethJul 21, 2010
I think you forgot a /s in there somewhere.
boorillaJul 21, 2010
so much for, you know, RTFA...or even the headline...
tiakJul 21, 2010
I'm pretty sure he read it, he's just trolling.
lukeatronJul 21, 2010
Racist troll is racist.
smokeydabearJul 21, 2010
People like that, and most notoriously school administrators, have like five people working for them too. They make more than $100,000 a year, but all the work is done by secretaries and others. Meanwhile the f**king administrators continue their education on the public's dime, so they can get another advanced degree for nothing, then leave the job and get another better paying job.
socalcoveJul 21, 2010
Yup, thats just 2 folks, wonder what the other officials make (thought some poster mentioned part time city officials making 100k).
wreckageJul 21, 2010
A lot of politicians get to vote on their own pay raises. It should be put to the public vote.
Everyone in the nation is suffering except for these dbags. I say cut all politician pay by 25% in this economy as a start.
As for this town, cut it 90%, I bet good qualified people would still line up around the block for a job paying $90,000.
jasmareeJul 21, 2010
Since the country routinely shows a dissatisfaction with politicians (Congress in particular) no matter who is in power, I wouldn't put it to a public vote. Under-compensation is just as bad as over-compensation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
socalcoveJul 21, 2010
Your raise should reflect 2 years of your previous service, and be based on something tangible. Your city isnt doing well, guess what, no bling bling.
You dont get a raise the first year, you just got in (and probably 2 months to 9 months before the raise deadline). By then you can evaulate the performance and see the results (arguebly more than 2 years, but it can vary).
whitegripesJul 22, 2010
I live in Illinois (I know) and the politicians can't pass a budget but the Governor just gave his staff a big pay raise while a lot of school districts haven't gotten their money in almost 2 years. That's just wrong.
firefox15Jul 28, 2010
They may vote for their own pay raises, but at least in the case of the federal government, the change doesn't take effect until after the next election. So in fact, you kind of have a workaround way of punishing them.
five35Jul 21, 2010
Absolutely incredible! How these people sleep at night knowing they are raping the tax payers is beyond me.
bjornskiJul 21, 2010
On the finest linens, sleeping off the buzz from their imported liquors and digesting a nightly meal which cost as much as your weekly food budget.
rolfJul 21, 2010
I imagine in a deluxe King-sized bed, it's rather easy.
tukaJul 21, 2010
likely as not there's a good bit of coke and hookers on hand too.
mysticsavageJul 21, 2010
On a large pile of money with many beautiful ladies.
donpacific2kJul 21, 2010
You know how they do it? I'd bet you that all these people are under the delusion that they are worth every penny of that amount. And they've managed to convince enough others too that they actually are given that kind of salary...
magamiakoJul 21, 2010
And this is different than paying CEOs $30M/year to run our country into the ground.....how?
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
The CEO's are private corporations that (should) fail for making poor decisions. The government just borrows the money from China to give money to the states for them to spend it like this.
labdiscoJul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
raouldukehstJul 21, 2010
@Labdisco is my sarcasm meter broken?
tiakJul 21, 2010
My sarcasm meter isn't tripping at that either... He really thinks that this city got all of its funding from the State which got all of its money from the Federal Government, rather than simply directly borrowing and robbing people.
methdwman3Jul 21, 2010
Really? Must this be explained? If the CEO of Verizon makes more money than I like, I take my business to AT&T. Guess what happens if these people decide not to pay their taxes? Yea, that's the big difference.
smemilyJul 21, 2010
They move to a different town?
mdellingJul 21, 2010
CEOs generally get fired if they run a company into the group, and having that on your record makes it hard to get a future position. There are however a few notably and highly publicized cases where that didn't happen...
lukeatronJul 21, 2010
Like it matters if you can't get another job when your contract stipulates you get several hundred million dollars if you get fired.
tiakJul 21, 2010
If by, "fired," you mean, "receive multi-million dollar severance packages," then yes, that's exactly what happens.
fattestfootJul 21, 2010
Executive pay is established by a board of directors in a corporation. If the people affected by it (shareholders) don't like it, they can vote against it. The pay is also completely transparent, as proxy statements are mailed to all shareholders which lists ALL compensation. Additionally, if the shareholders don't like the compensation the executives are getting from the board, they can vote out members of the board (although, this can take significant time).
In this case, the people affected by it (taxpayers) can't really do s**t about it. They can vote for someone else, but the pay still stands. Not only that, but the people have little to no say in compensation whatsoever.
tiakJul 21, 2010
They can elect people who promise to lower it, promote local ballot measures to fix it, or talk to their state representative about making sure the state enforces restrictions on the city.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
How does anyone not grasp the difference?
Seriously.
slipperyottterJul 21, 2010
maybe he went to a california public school
slipperyottterJul 21, 2010
cuz ceo's work for for PRIVATE companies, and GOVERNMENT officials work for the GOVERNMENT!
toxicshokJul 22, 2010
no government officials work for THE PEOPLE. The government is supposed to serve us.
ifoamJul 21, 2010
I logged in to tell you: You are an idiot.
Why would they check his immigration status? Because he has a hispanic last name?
Hispanic != Illegal
This is exactly why the Arizona law won't work-racists idiots like yourself.
labdiscoJul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
bookantJul 21, 2010
"Biggins" sounds kinda Brittish to me, maybe we should call INS.
rain12913Jul 22, 2010
Indeed. The same people who deny that the law is racist or even that it might lead to racial profiling are the ones who bring up illegal immigration any time they see a Hispanic name on Digg.
ieatskunkJul 22, 2010
"This is exactly why the Arizona law won't work-racists idiots like yourself."
This is why our education system has failed:People make bold statements like this without knowing what that law actually entails.
rhawk187Jul 21, 2010
This is why we're afraid of having bureaucrats with guaranteed pay raises in charge. One's pay should be proportionate to their production/risk/responsibility, this is only 1 example of horribly imbalanced situations that occur all the time when you guarantee entitlements.
socalcoveJul 21, 2010
anyone with a 'guarenteed' pay raise should probably be having flags raised about something funny going on.
moulin1Jul 22, 2010
I would hardly call rampant corruption and out-and-out theft of taxpayer funds an "imbalanced situation".
barbarinoJul 21, 2010
wow, just wow... Move over Miami, this city has you beat in the corruption dept!
antixianJul 21, 2010
dirty people man...the whole game of politics is see how corrupt you can be, blatant or not, and get away with it. seems to be the norm nowadays. s**t like this just really pisses me off. these people need to be stopped.
aplusjimagesJul 21, 2010
What's funny is now the politicians have their voters defending them online. They don't care because voters will only blame other voters.
LosAlamosLabsJul 21, 2010
California - we booked the flight and we're headed straight for Greece.
skubiszmJul 21, 2010
Not if Illinois beats you there first.
fadetooneJul 21, 2010
Dear Bell city council, I will take the job for half of that salary. I can save you some money.
skidooerJul 21, 2010
That is crazy. The president of the entire country makes $400,000 per year.
o76923Jul 21, 2010
but the postmaster general makes twice that. It's all based on who picks your salary. If you chose your own salary, it is much higher than if someone else does.
libertyfrogJul 22, 2010
$400,000 a year? Good job on not counting all the tax breaks he gets and "free" flights and paid vacations. I'm not saying that the president doesn't deserve his pay, just saying your being played in the numbers game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
metaliqJul 26, 2010
Doesn't change the fact that he makes $400,000 per year.
durgahuttJul 21, 2010
How can I get an application?
nsresponderJul 21, 2010
You know, you'd on'y have to tar and feather a dozen or so politicians every year to keep the rest of them from trying to pull this s**t.
-jcr
toxicshokJul 22, 2010
boy I'm sure glad no one would arrest me for that.
nsresponderJul 22, 2010
Take a couple hundred friends with you when you do it. It's a grand Tradition that goes back to the days before the American Revolution.
-jcr
vbullingerJul 22, 2010
Yeah, but it is murder. Come on, man. And it's an awful death, too.
funkylokiJul 21, 2010
This isn't just California. In many cities across the US and at state and federal levels, our politicians and their cadre of support rake in huge pay with little oversight and the ability to increase said pay to their determination. It is a f**ked up system that most of us serfs have little ability to affect.
assassyn360Jul 21, 2010
Being a crook pays. Being a legally appointed crook pays also.
reaper527Jul 21, 2010
i'm sure they will still get re-elected in the fall regardless
smemilyJul 21, 2010
s**t, I need to get into city management.
smargJul 21, 2010
Another reason why the White taxpayers started fleeing the state in waves back in the 80s.
Look at what's left in that sordid state: millions of fatherless welfare children, illegals, their anchor babies, and Paris Hilton.
God help them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slipperyottterJul 21, 2010
millions of welfare kids when there are only 36 million people in california?
do you live in california at all or are those just general conclusions you've made?
hispanics only make up around 35% of the population and illegals don't even make up half of that 35%...
smargJul 21, 2010
Are you daft?? If you're depending on government stats your credibility is screwed.
Go to Compton and L.A. if you want to see the real California.
Lemme guess...you live up north in a gated community, and send your kids to private schools...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
@slipperyottter If you feed the trolls, they will just keep coming back for more.
sketcher67Jul 21, 2010
Jebus help me! Im trapped in this sunny 73 degree weather which falls 360 days a year. The beaches are filled with hot women, and I'm being forced to eat In-N-out Burger. Oh the agony!!!!
smargJul 22, 2010
Yeah, and you ignore the panhandling bums, illegals on the streets looking for work, and live in a gated community so the illegals don't rob your house when you're away, and your kids go to private schools, right???
chefgroovyJul 22, 2010
f**k that. All those tards out there.
sketcher67Jul 23, 2010
Actually I'm what you would call an "anchor baby" whose parents came to the country illegally only to work hard and earn their citizenship the legal way. I went to public schools and worked hard to get into a well known university. I'm currently paying for my tuition out of my own pocket by working a full time job at the same time. I give back to the community, I don't just sit behind a monitor and spew bulls**t.
I would agree that there is a problem with illegal immigration but there should be reform that takes families into consideration as the human beings that they are.
You should educate yourself my friend.
Sincerely,
An Anchor Baby.
specimen7Jul 21, 2010
Ever see the former mayor of Beverly hills, Nancy Krasne? Her pearl necklace is probably worth more than your life. The mega quake that's supposed to sink California can't come soon enough.
bustaballsJul 21, 2010
Wow. Isn't that twice as much as what the president gets paid? California needs to get their priorities straight.
stuffradioJul 21, 2010
There should be a cap of $100k/year for these jobs. This is still a decent wage and will make sure people aren't getting these jobs just to buy a private golf course or something. If you are running your own business etc. then it doesn't matter... but this is a public government job.
stormcommanderJul 21, 2010
why not 50k/year?
nudarJul 22, 2010
Have you tried living on 50k a year in California? Have fun living in a studio apartment for the rest of your life.
dutchguilder2Jul 21, 2010
There is a cap. California has a law limiting how much city governments can be paid, but the Bell councel voted to not follow it.
vhishiousJul 22, 2010
Which renders the cap as good as the ones BP had been trying to put in place for the past three months, useless.
cyberdactylJul 21, 2010
This is fiscal obscenity. This is malfeasance in the extreme.
What's even more profane, is once California goes under, YOU dear friend will be asked to cough up money to bail them out.
Then people like Robert Rizzo and Charlie Beck will laugh out loud they were able to play the public as total fools.
for20Jul 21, 2010
yawn...
everyone talks but there is never any action...
oxfordJul 21, 2010
Any organization when allowed to function without oversight and transparency will eventually centralize its power and influence to the people most talented at gathering power and influence. Some people may look at this as a blatant failure of government, but as citizens we have the responsibility to provide oversight to the decisions that our elected and appointed representatives make and the actions that they take.
Somewhere along the line, the decision was made that this salary was acceptable. That's indicative of a gross failure in the implicit oversight required by the people being governed. Whether this failure occurred at the precise moment when the salary was being discussed or if there is a failure that allowed this discussion to be hidden from public view, the appropriate response is not to declare that all government is bad, but to examine this instance to determine what part of the mechanism of government should be altered to determine a better outcome next time.
It's easy to suggest that a salary cap might solve the problem, but that just puts a band-aid on the problem. It's a classic example of the opinion that rules and laws can replace good governance. Good governance occurs when the electorate is involved and motivated - and it scares the hell out of the folks that go into politics expecting to get wealthy or to gather influence.
Hopefully out of all this yelling, at least a few people will remember the need (and duty) to be active in local government and make sure that their friends, families and neighbors are aware of the laws and policies that will affect them for good or ill.
civuckagainJul 21, 2010
How did this even happen in the first place?
joe8packJul 23, 2010
That phrase can be also applied to our entire world economy as well as the corrupt political mechanism and the oligarchy that controls it .
2nd question, Why are we putting up with it?
nidstylesJul 21, 2010
Well, no wonder the whole state is broken. California, you guy's are so f**ked....
zymophidethJul 21, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
courbpleJul 22, 2010
not even close
manlyandyJul 21, 2010
Thats approximately $21 on average per person in tax money. Ridiculous.
dumbcommentguyJul 21, 2010
Underpaid, without a doubt!
dumbcommentguyJul 21, 2010
Welcome to Little Mexico, USA!
dwhsJul 21, 2010
Just a sad world that we live in, that people are so greedy they will crap on millions for their own glory.
jayjaylolJul 21, 2010
I have always argued for more public sector jobs since they pay well and have higher job security than the private sector. This is a perfect example. Government can do things right. The private sector can't be trusted since it is unaccounted for. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wackedJul 21, 2010
Sorry but that's when the torches and the pitchforks are suppose to come out.
vitriolandangstJul 21, 2010
Here's the GOOD NEWS: since this is a government official -- people can be outraged. Then, it can be stopped.
If it were the CEO of Ford, people would be OUTRAGED at the Union members making $3 more an hour and totally not notice the CEO was making $50+ Million per year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
barthrhJul 21, 2010
No, that's not the reason. The reason is that public service workers are paid for with your tax dollars. They take money from you to pay them -- you have no choice (except to elect someone else the next time there is an election). Because public SERVICE workers work for the taxpayer, they are expected to get the most for the taxpayer's dollar. They don't always, but this is just corruption, plain and simple.
If Ford chooses to pay the CEO 50M, then that's their decision. You can be a shareholder or not.
vitriolandangstJul 22, 2010
"Ford chooses to pay",
Right. The company the government bailed out.
10% of the cost of the vehicle is manual labor.
40% is executive compensation.
". They take money from you to pay them" -- that's true of everything whether it's tax dollars or not.
Do I have a choice if a defense contractor gets paid? No. I do not.
Our economy has both Socialism and Capitalist elements. The OUTRAGE at just excesses in the Government should be matched by outrages at the private sector ... but we will have to wait until America re-learns that lesson.
danwgreJul 22, 2010
Ford did not take a bailout.
omicronnineJul 22, 2010
VitriolAndAngst... and not much else.
Way to go, throw your ignorance out there for all to see.
cyberdactylJul 21, 2010
+1 for barthrh.
And by the way, I am a contracting engineer and have worked closely with state employees in North Carolina. And yes, 50% of state employees are total slackers, cruising through the doing basically nothing. The other 50% are average, run of the mill workers. Rarely do run into a real go-getter state employee. They simply don't need to be. The business model has nothing to do with improving the efficiency of he system. Although they have s**tloads of meetings trying to convince themselves it does.
kibblesnbittsJul 21, 2010
I follow two digg users who have thumbs-upped quite a few of the same comments. One's a very notable liberal, and the other seems to be very conservative/libertarian. I'm glad to see that everybody knows this is bulls**t.
tgc1Jul 21, 2010
You really want to get mad? There are MANY MORE like this weasel. Taking our hard earned money, collected through taxes, and using it as their own piggy bank.
Public Officials, should there be any motion for raises, those raises should be approved by a public arbitrator or committee. There is no way in hell these assh**es should be allowed to vote themselves raises. I hope these f**kers drown in the trough.
ma5termindJul 21, 2010
If we were a communist country this would never happen... *whistlin*
mweatherJul 22, 2010
He'd still make 800k, but the money wouldn't be coming from the taxpayers.
nudarJul 22, 2010
Those in positions of authority in the Soviet Union weren't collecting the same amount of money as peasants.
buzzfriendlyJul 23, 2010
The Obama administration wealth distribution plan will take care of this. He can keep his salary but his annual federal tax bill will be $799,000.00.
metaliqJul 26, 2010
I would like to hear more about this plan.
Does it exist?
buzzfriendlyJul 26, 2010
In 2011
If you make over $200,00 single $250k couple your going to send so more cash to government to spread around.
If you own a tanning business your going to share some more of your declining to spread around.
Increase in capital gains to the government to spread around.
SECA taxes for S Corps to the government to spread around.
Lowest bracket for personal income tax goes from 10% to 15% to the government to spread around.
Inherit a million dollar estate 55% sounds like a lot but your family home in CA your parents retirements savings (if there is anything left to pick) and you can hand Uncle Sam 55% of money that was already taxed over and over.
Dividends? From 15% to 39.6% better hope you don't get behind on that mortgage and need to tap a retirement account.
Are you married? Not getting screwed? Well you will now. Enjoy the return of the marriage tax.
Health care taxes AND LOADS AND LOADS of them.
What would you call it?
homedaddyJul 21, 2010
It's just like in the financial industry. If we don't pay that much we can't keep qualified people.
/sarcasm
rollin03Jul 21, 2010
Public service my ass.