Jump to content
GoDuBois.com

disgruntled

Members
  • Posts

    1,187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by disgruntled

  1. The answer to your question is "no"--there is no common sense left. I agree--let them all go live in California. Maybe we can run a border fence up the state line. People that deny facts are mentally ill in my humble opinion. Based on some people's thinking I can claim to be POTUS and should be allowed to go sit in the Oval Office and make decisions. I'm sure I'd do a better job than the current occupant.
  2. Any time there is exclusivity, it cuts out competition. Look at trash removal in our area. They lock us into paying whatever they want to charge because we have no other option. If we have exclusive ambulance service, their bills are going to go up. (I'm not slamming the EMTs and those with other certifications that provide a similar service with maybe a different title--saving a life is often not cheap, and they should be paid well for what they do.) I can see no need for exclusive ambulance service. I like the fact that the current providers work together to provide the best they offer to our citizens.
  3. I'm probably going to receive 30 lashes for this, but the supposed shooter did show plenty of signs of mental illness. Mental illness that we are being told we need to accept, permit, and even encourage. Just because you THINK you are a dragon, does NOT make you a dragon. Just because you THINK you can fly, does not mean that you CAN. People need to be grounded in reality and logic.
  4. They have chased a few good doctors out of this area. You can't keep the good ones if you treat them like garbage and try to force them to go against their morals in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
  5. Joe Biden, 10/22/2020, 9:13pm via Twitter: "220,000 deaths. If you hear nothing else I say tonight, hear this: Anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain President of the United States." BBC Word News, 5/12/2022 8:15am via Twitter: "United States passes one million Covid deaths."
  6. Depends largely on who you ask. Regarding the old homemade formula recipe: Some are saying the Karo (an ingredient) used by previous generations isn't the same as the stuff today and absolutely not to use it. Some are also saying not to import it from elsewhere because of the ingredients that are allowed in some places and not others. I'm on the side of a fed baby is better than a hungry baby. Goat's milk, wet nurse, old timey formula recipe, imported, whatever.
  7. I'm pretty sure there was a vehicle involved for a good many years. I'm not just advocating for blame on him, but on the Board and the Auditing staff that should have caught all of it years ago--or did, but didn't say anything because they were perhaps also involved.
  8. I'm pretty sure there was someone above him that started this practice. I believe there is even a "fair scholarship" available under that name. *Not condoning what was done. It was wrong and people knew it was wrong regardless of whose idea it was or why it was done.
  9. Amish have lots of "English" that may offer to host one for them for a fee. This specific one may not have one, but I would not confidently say "none" of them do.
  10. It looks ridiculous and it's not doing anything.
  11. Not to make light of the charges against this man--but can we talk about the stupid strap on his hat in this picture for a second? What is that doing? It's under his lip, not his chin. I don't think he's wearing it properly.
  12. You don't get my point: tax dollars are being used. Mine and yours. Tax dollars--that is what grant money is. (With the knowledge that SOME grant money isn't tax dollars but made by some rich soul who wants something done their way and offers to pay for it--but I'm sure that's not the case here) You can call it whatever you want, but it is OUR money that someone else took by way of taxes and earmarked it for something special to garner feel good vibes from certain people. You can look at the pretty packaging all you want, but it doesn't change the contents. WE are paying for it.
  13. Key word in your first sentence: "seem" Crumbling zombie town with great roads or pretty "spots" with crappy roads? Seems like an unfair choice. My overall point is it shouldn't have to be a choice. Designating money for pretty when you have failing infrastructure is silly and we can thank politicians for that. To overly simplify, that is like putting a new front door on your house when all of the windows are broken when the door worked just fine.
  14. While your point is valid that it's better "we" get it over "them", grant money is still usually from tax dollars. I would prefer to have my tax dollars go to fixing our horrible streets first. Priorities get skewed. The appearance of that bank does not matter if the town is full of potholes. Can you imagine the people passing through, "Boy that park up there looked nice, but man, I broke a shock just down the road from it."
  15. "Everybody" doesn't already know...... I do not.
  16. Is "the man" still a secret? I mean this is still small town USA.
  17. The Tannery Dam project with the fence to "control geese" around half of the water? Because geese can't fly..... or walk... That said, I do like the sidewalk, the bridge, the lights, and of course the fountain to help keep the water from turning a revolting green. I'm sure that most of that was to make it look pretty for the hotel that, as far as I know, none of the people that lived around there really wanted to be built there. We won't discuss who owns the hotel..... On a nice day, take a drive over and take a walk around. It is a nice area.
  18. And many of them don't all report those tips--so they don't have to pay taxes on them. Then they qualify for "bennies" that those of us that can't hide income pay for.
  19. If a Jeep and a Hummer had an ugly baby, it would look like the new Bronco.
  20. Philadelphia Inquirer: Pa.’s largest pension plan admits making an ‘error’ that may have benefited teachers at taxpayers’ expense March 12 Joseph N. DiStefano The board of Pennsylvania’s giant public-school pension fund on Friday voted to hire an outside law firm to investigate an error in a December financial decision that may have cost taxpayers at least $25 million in fund payments — while wrongly sparing 100,000 school employees from paying more for their pensions. The unanimous vote followed a 3 1/3-hour closed-door meeting of the 14-member PSERS board as it explored whether it erred in a crucial meeting in December in which members concluded the fund had just barely met a key financial target for investments. If it made such a mistake, the error could make a big difference in whether some teachers have to pay more out of their paychecks to support their pensions. In a reform imposed by the legislature and governor, the fund adopted a so-called “risk-sharing” rule some years ago that requires educators and staff to pay extra if PSERS fails to meet its investment return target. The target was a return of 6.36%. In December, the plan’s experts told the board that the fund’s had actually grown by 6.38% — just enough to spare teachers a hike. The target appeared relatively easy to meet. By comparison, the S&P 500 index of big U.S. stocks paid over 10% a year during the review period covering the last nine years. PSERS officials provided almost no details Friday, such as why the investigation was necessary. People familiar with the issue, speaking on condition they not be identified, said outside financial experts who worked on the profit assessment have now complained that the fund’s performance provided for the calculation was inflated. The special meeting came a week after PSERS concluded its first bimonthly meeting of 2021, at which five of the 14 current board members voted against the staff’s latest investment proposals. Those negative votes appeared to reflect a growing dissident faction, upset at investment decisions and other policies pushed by the administration of executive director Glen Grell, the former state representative who heads the $62 billion system. In all, public school employees paid about $1.1 billion into the fund last year, while state and school taxpayers contributed almost $5 billion. Investment profits have pumped about another $3.7 billion yearly over the past 10 years. However, returns fell below that figure in the past two years. Taxpayers have been asked routinely in recent years to pay more into the underfinanced pension plan. But the “shared risk” rule was designed to spare the state and local school board treasuries from paying all the extra cost when investments did poorly. If PSERS underperformed, for complex legal reasons the hike in payroll deductions would apply only to employees hired after 2011, around 100,000 of Pennsylvania’s more than 250,000 public school workers. Most school workers pay 7.5% of their paychecks to the fund. Had the board decreed that investments fell short, their paycheck deduction would have climbed to 8%. In a contentious discussion at the December meeting, board chairman Chris Santa Maria, a history teacher and former union leader at Lower Merion’s Harriton High School, expressed satisfaction that his fellow union members would not be charged more. But others were uncomfortable with the data, even at that time. Then-state Treasurer Joseph M. Torsella and state Rep. Frank Ryan (R., Lebanon) noted that the figures had been gathered from different sources from the usual annual financial report. Santa Maria and the pension staff assured them the numbers were good. “We went back and double-checked the numbers,” Santa Maria said. Even when recalculated, he said, ”I’m confident we still come up with the same.” He added: ”The information is now reliable and defendable.” “We did our due diligence,” agreed James Grossman, the fund’s chief investment officer, at the same December meeting. “We covered it. I’m not worried about it.” When the dissidents suggested a separate vote on the investment performance data, apart from the one imposing charges, board member Melva Vogler objected. It’s “dangerous,” said Vogler, a retired math teacher from the Poconos, to send a message “that there’s something wrong with the risk-share calculation.” Still, Torsella and Ryan were unnerved about the how close the profit figure was to the target. They both complained about a rushed process. They abstained from the December vote, as did another frequent dissident, Richard Vague, the state banking secretary. “We got this [report] last night,” Torsella said at the time. ”Given how close this is, I have real concerns.” Late Friday, the board issued a statement acknowledging that a mistake had been made. “The Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) Board of Trustees was recently made aware of an error regarding the reporting of investment performance numbers which were used in the December 2020 certification. An outside consultant is in the process of analyzing the data in detail. In addition, the Board has delegated to the Audit Committee the authority to select independent outside counsel and oversee a special investigation.”
  21. a few bars at a time? Every time they went down the road, just looking like they were passing through. I do have to agree with you though--I don't think it's anywhere near the large amount that was believed to be there. I could buy the story of a small stash, but not the tonnage I've seen guesstimated. I hope the Parada's get their answers, but I don't think the FBI will ever disclose what was really there.
  22. Am I the only one that finds the irony in the business name, "FInders Keepers" in this particular situation?
×
×
  • Create New...