>> The only city of consequence on that list is Oakland which has a long history of financial problems and will continue to have them for the foreseeable future. San Jose has financial reserves but is experiencing a grown pension burden. The rest on your list are inconsequential.
Fresno is inconsequential?
>> You do realize at any given moment in time there are communities in financial trouble.
Yes, there are, but these problems are far bigger than we've seen in the past, due to public sector unions and ballooning unfunded pension obligations.
Last year, Rahm announced that Chicago's current deficit of 340M will be 1.6 B in 2016 because of pension obligations. This is happening in large Blue cities around the country. No one is talking bankruptcy in Chicago yet, but it is a matter of time.
LA is not out of the woods yet, and NYC has major problems with something like 70B in unfunded pensions.
These are very serious problems, particularly when combined with the trillions in unfunded debt of SS & Medicare.
>> Your craziness scares me at times.
As someone who actually understands finance talking to someone who doesn't, I can understand how you might think it sounds crazy. It is just impossible that liberal management has driven these cities into fiscal disasters, right?
>> The concept of it takes spending money to make money flies right over your head.
No, it does often take money to make money. But tax money never, ever makes money. EVER. Tax dollars are ALWAYS, 100% of the time, spent less efficiently than taxpayers would have spent it. In this case, corrupt liberal politicians have made promises that cannot conceivably be kept. |
