phDog wrote:
well regardless of the time of day, i will not hesitate to kick your dog as a last resort to keep it away from either the fragile or dog aggressive dogs i sometimes walk. i will feel terrible for the dog and probably say something less than nice to you. just a heads up.

Horse wrote:
BrightMoment, tell me why I should vote for Angel Valentin. Because Steve said so?

Another City/County Employee for elected office?

RE: Mr. Valentin voting to "lay off teachers" because he voted for raises.

Please understand that the layoffs are actually what most of the public wants.

No mandated position will be laid off. For example, the federal IDEA law requires that there be no more than 8 students in an inclusion classroom. If there are 9 children, there will still be 2 inclusion teachers next year. That is a mandated position. The positions that will be cut are those "extra" positions that most people decry at public forums and on websites like this, those "fluffy" positions that do not directly service children, (like many of those at Central Office). Those teachers, because of seniority, will return to schools and go back to being classroom teachers. Yes, some of the new classroom teachers will be "bumped" out and laid off. If teachers received no raises, there would be 2 options: a) lay no one off and leave everyone in the positions they are in, including those fluff ones or 2) cut those fluff positions and have a whole bunch of extra people running around with nothing do to. Couldn't even send them all back to "new" classrooms, because where would you physically house those classrooms, and where would the money for the desks, bookshelves, curriculuar supplies, etc; come from?

Mr. Valentin did not vote to cut 373 teachers. Mr. Valentin is cutting extraneous positions and trying to keep JC's budget in check by making sure that the teachers we are paying are actually teaching kids, not hanging out at Central Office.

Boken2JC wrote:

Question to those in this forum... Do you support more government regulation over the financial services industry, or less?

woodstock1 wrote:
the bottom line is that people let their dogs off leash in MP all the time and JCPD does nothing about it (or LSP police, since technically it is their jurisdiction too.) So if no one is handing out tickets, what is to stop everyone form doing it... nothing.

stepanstas wrote:
Okay, what about Dehere? Like McCann, he did well in the interview.

jmcee wrote:
People know there are risks but assume there is enough regulation to protect them from all out fraud

corybraiterman wrote:
This thread has made me decide that I should vote for McCann.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

Boken2JC wrote:
The banks are NOT stealing money from us!

So when the government announced last year it was going out into the market at some future date to buy up at a favorable price the toxic crap that was sitting on the bank's balance sheets - and the banks went out and loaded up further on this crap in advance of the govt. purchase to maximize their gain - you don't see that as the banks stealing from taxpayers?

Or when bailout money is run through AIG to make its counterparties whole (the largest being Goldman but also including a FRENCH bank and a SWISS bank) - sophisticated counterparties who understood the risks of the positions they were taking - you don't see that as the banks stealing from taxpayers?

Or when the FED cuts interest rates to zero and essentially removes limitations on bank borrowing to provide incentive for banks to lend - but they refuse to lend and instead buy treasuries to capture a free four point spread - you don't see that as the banks stealing from taxpayers?

Is it an issue of semantics - Is there a more sanitary euphemism you'd prefer? That crap about the "irresponsible borrowers" creating this mess is a complete red herring. Ask yourself this - the entire amount of bad mortgage debt in late 2008 was less than $500 billion. Why has it taken trillions to try to undo the mess?