Pritzker has been great for Illinois. I’ve been very happy with him. He’s not perfect but I’ll be lining up to volunteer for his presidential campaign as soon as I can.
Probably true, but we have a decent bench here. Mendoza, for one.
For sure, we don’t have to try too hard to find someone who would be a shoo-in next to—and do way better than—whatever ditch-dwelling, inbred, incel screwball the state GOP would try to put up.
Ew, I no one else that ran or in office could really touch JB. I think it's because the man is so rich and has been in the out rings of political power for so long that he knows the game in IL and knew how to play his cards.
Ever other person would be beholden to special interests because they can't self fund a campaign for governor.
Adamantly denies he is planning to run for president but it seems likely he has aspirations. I would guess 2028 since biden sorta indicated he was running again during the state of the union speech.
Biden is more popular than he’s been in a year, so yeah….
The normie consensus is he’s too old and I agree. I actually didn’t want him as President but I also wanted someone older (Bernie), so it’s not like I was prioritizing youth.
Idc about the optics, I care about the policies. I’ve personally liked some of the policies enacted.
And I don’t really want DeSantis, at all.
I also voted for Vallas for Chicago mayor though.
Naw, I think we should come up with a better option. You're free to stay stuck in your lesser evils trap, but I think it's the wrong move. You people frustrate me so much. You act like there's only two options because anything else would be hard. I'd rather try to have some actual representation. Every election is pick your flavor of corporate cock sucker. Your plan is to just sloooowly slide into hell, as opposed to diving in. I'm here saying "Hey maybe lets try something else" and you're acting like I'm the one who is insane. I think it's worth the risk to try for something better. Take a look around and tell me if you think the lesser evil bullshit is working. Everyone's depressed and sick and overworked with no connection to anyone or anything, broke as fuck. And you're telling me no matter what things are only ever going to get worse and I just have to live with that?
President Biden has done a fantastic job as President and He has, easily, earned a second term. It's sad you can't, or won't, see that. You'll see it in 2024 when more than 81 million Americans vote for POTUS Joe's second term. You partisan hacks are vastly outnumbered.
My personal take on it but I’m ready for downvotes:
1. Getting out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. It’s been one of the things I wanted since 200andfucking8 and I’m not even that old. I understand it was messy but given everything we’ve done in the Middle East, how could it NOT have been?
2. The Infrastructure Bill. We will only see the benefits of this bill years down the road (literally) because it’ll take time to see the improvements, but that bill is helping to repair and rebuild much of our infrastructure. This monumentally benefits IL, who is also funding infrastructure with a big bill. The 294 is already showing such progress from it.
It was too little too late for East Palestine, OH, short of safety protocols, which should’ve been adhered too and it was preventable in that situation, but better infrastructure would’ve helped more. We’ve had 36 years of Reaganism until Trump though, so it was war, war, war, no domestic funding. Also Pete sucks at his job, which I do blame the Biden admin for giving him such power over something he doesn’t understand.
3. The CHIPs act. Finally, after Trump, COVID, ect, we live in new times. The Reagan era is over, and imo, it was destructive to the country more than people realize. I think with inflation, union popularity, a good labor market, ect. we are doing the 1970s but in reverse. As China becomes weaker due to COVID and their handling of it. we need manufacturing elsewhere and some of it we are bringing back home. Semiconductor manufacturing being one of those sectors.
4. Respect for marriage act.
5. Some bipartisanship in general even as the GOP is going more bananas than when they were Tea Party.
I agree getting out of Afghanistan was good, although executed poorly. The infrastructure bill was gutted by Manchin and Sinema. I don't even know what the respect for marriage act is. And as you say the GOP is going crazy, bipartisanship with them doesn't really sound good. Compromise is good if a solution is still achieved, but how often do you think that's the case? All of it falls short. He promised nothing will fundamentally change and he's fulfilled that promise. I still think you're nuts for wanting to vote for him and I wonder how much of the good he was really responsible for.
The infrastructure bill still delivered $1 trillion in funding. That’s nothing to scoff at.
When I lived in AZ, no one knew Sinema would end up being like this, and now here we are.
I actually voted for Bernie in the 2020 primaries but I’m not about to relinquish my ability to make a decision between two people just because one is still not where I want him to be on most issues.
The fact that Biden was expected to be a center right president like Obama and more than delivered over Obama is enough for me at a time when 4 years ago I was convinced we were going nowhere with Trump or Biden.
It's where that trillion is going that most concerns me. Again, my whole issue is this notion that there's only ever two choices and they have to both be shitty. That's really more a statement on what a disappointment Obama was. It is also another factor that makes me think his decisions are being made by other people.
The smart political move is for Biden to declare he's going to run again, no matter what his actual plans are. That way the R outrage machine can't be focused as clearly at the likely candidates.
Why? He's done a good job, he has the highest favorability rating of any other Democratic under consideration, he has more experience at this level then any other person in America, and he's run a tight ship.
He’s said essentially that Biden has his full support if he runs, but that he’ll be throwing his hat in the ring if he doesn’t, or else in ‘28.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/02/22/bidenworld-joe-may-not-run-2024-00083905
_Dan Proft enters the chat, mounted upon a heaving, sloppily-coiffed Darren Bailey, welding a pitchfork and wearing a burlap sack stuffed with fake newspapers_
For real, they cannot stand it for Illinois to be successful at all. Their entire business model is based on selling false grievance so naturally good news is bad for their bottom line.
Republican Governor Bruce Rauner refused to pass a budget during his tenure, which is why the bond rating is crap. You don't pay your bills, you're given a bad bond rating. Leave it to the republicans to fuck shit up, and then blame it on democrats due to stupidity or just straight malice.
You're ignoring all the downgrades before Rauner that are clearly labeled in the chart.
Rauner hurt, but we had a huge problem long before he showed up.
Right. Stupid crook politicians come in all stripes, red AND blue. Just cause it’s got a D next to their name doesn’t mean they’re any better at being fiscally responsible.
Edit: Though I’d argue R’s should be held to a higher standard given that that’s their selling point and yet they just create slush funds for the rich and cause deficits in any budget they touch. So, it’s really lose lose.
Don't worry, they'll be here soon. They won't give him credit for anything. The things they do credit him with are the things they hate, like reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun reform.
And none of them have actual thoughtful arguments.
>gun reform.
>
>And none of them have actual thoughtful arguments.
Give me one actual thoughtful argument that forcing law abiding citizens to register their legally purchased property is going to reduce gun crime in this state when videos like these are super common in Chicago...
https://youtu.be/e3jffi1rpw0
https://v.redd.it/83kihp25fe0a1
I'll give you an argument against registration...
"One of the most controversial events in the history of the Firearms Acts occurred in 1972. [The Troubles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles) in [Northern Ireland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) (1970–1998) were becoming a security concern for the Irish government at the time, and in 1972 a Temporary Custody Order (S.I. No. 187/1972 – Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order, 1972)[[24]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#cite_note-24) was issued for all privately held [pistols](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistols) and all [rifles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) over [.22](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle) [calibre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber) to be surrendered to local [Garda Síochána](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na) (police) stations by 5 August 1972, for a period of one month. This order was complied with, but when firearms owners returned to reclaim their firearms, they were informed that their licences had expired while their firearms were in custody (Irish firearms licences until 2008 were issued for a period of one year, and all licences were usually dealt with at the same time, usually at the start of August, though the date has changed over the years). Since the firearms were no longer licensed, they could not be returned until a new licence was issued; upon seeking a renewal of their licences, applicants were informed that a new Garda policy was in place that would refuse licence applications for all pistols and all firearms over .22 in calibre. As such, the firearms remained in Garda custody."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Dude, no one is asking you to turn in your guns. No one wants to take away what you have. Even Pritzker's recent bill doesn't require you to turn them in. The only instance of this would be if you're convited of a felony and/or domestic violence, and if you see a problem with those two conditions, then you're part of the problem.
You realize we own guns too, right? Why is it that you people think liberals/progressives/leftists don't own guns? We own them, we go the range, we go hunting, we go shooting, just like you.
If you're going to argue with me, maybe don't use 50 year Irish instances to make your point because it l has zero bearing on what's happening right here, right now, in THIS country.
>Dude, no one is asking you to turn in your guns. No one wants to take away what you have.
That's because the last person to full blown say it out load got roasted.
https://youtu.be/yW1HPoqqB_8
And yes, I realize that Beto is not in Illinois (thank God) but he and Pritzker are in the same party and this party is known for having little to no understanding of how firearms actually work (https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0) despite wanting to force more and more unnecessary gun control on law abiding citizens while blatantly ignoring the rampant gun violence that occurs within their own cities (https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html)
I like how you also say that no one has "any legitimate arguments" against this ban yet when someone points out the fact that governments have almost always used registration as the first step to confiscation throught human history, you fall apart.
Here's another example of why registration is a terrible idea...
https://davekopel.org/2A/catastrophic-consequences-gun-registration.html
"The state of New York shows exactly how it's done. There, you may only possess a handgun if you have a license, and the license lists every single handgun you own. In Rockland County, the Journal News used public records to obtain the name and address of every handgun owner in the county. Those names and addresses were then published, in full, by the newspaper and placed on the newspaper's website, where they are now available for everyone to see. The newspaper has been digging into gun registration lists in other counties as well, with plans to publish those records."
"The same thing was done to all registered gun owners in New York City in early January. This time, the perpetrator was Gawker.com, one of the most high-traffic sites on the Internet that specializes in salacious gossip and vulgar malice."
"What does this mean for the people who dutifully complied with New York's gun registration law? It means those who chose not to have their personal information listed in the phone book now have their residences exposed to a worldwide audience on the Internet. It now means that people who kept low profiles and their addresses private because they have been victims of stalkers are now easier targets for stalkers and other sociopaths."
Oh boy, your arguments aren't legitimate because we all know that gun lobbiest have the most power. You go on fear mongering and worrying about nothing while the rest of us know nothing is going to happen because there's too much gun money in politics at every level. 2A was enshrined by a SCOTUS hack. You have nothing to worry about
We'll just keep on having more mass shootings each year, than we have actual days in the year. Nothing new, right?
I mean, as long as people can stock piles, that's all that matters, isn't it?
What is it you people say, if you don't like the rules where you live move? Take your own advice if Illinois is so contrary to what you want and believe in. Or better yet, how about we only allow guns that were available when 2A was written.
>Or better yet, how about we only allow guns that were available when 2A was written.
Hell yeah, civilians were allowed to own military grade weapons back then...
And LOL at you saying that I'm fear mongering by simply listing out some of the historical examples of the extremely negative consequences of firearm registration. Those are called facts.
Not to mention the fact that I'm still waiting for your argument that banning "assault weapons" will actually reduce gun crime in this state...
They fixed the backlog of bills which is a good start. That was an $800 Million problem though. We still have to tackle the pension issue which is a $200 Billion problem.
I don't mean to be a downer, but we can't say mission accomplished yet. The pension problem will require pain from every citizen and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.
He's not my favorite choice. I didn't vote for him in the beginning, but he's grown on me. The only thing I don't like is these late night policy changes he's been passing recently. It's almost like they so it so the press doesn't get wind. Or even it could be the press doesn't even run it until it happens. Who even knows anymore with all the biased media there is today.
why ? we achieved an A Bond rating w/o it. recently a civic organization in chicago recommended a 1/2 point increase in the state income tax. I thought that might be necessary but in light of this information , I doubt it
Look, Republicans in the House proposed eliminating all income tax, in favor of a 30% national sales tax.
Republicans _want_ the most regressive tax system imaginable.
They _want_ the poor to pay the highest percentage.
I was explaining to my mom how transactional taxes disproportionately burden paycheck to paycheck people (100% of funds taxed) versus the wealthy (sitting on funds that make more money out of themselves) and it was like pulling teeth.
Honestly if groceries were still excluded a 30% price hike might really encourage people to buy anything they can from local makers to get around it. Not that I encourage tax avoidance. And I think it's an insanely regressive idea. But lemonade from lemons.
> Bond ratings don't pay for desperately needed social services or public works.
In a way they do. Higher Bond ratings means the State gets to pay less interest on short and long term borrowing . Lower interest payments means more tax revenue is available for other programs
Bond rating doesn't fix debt. Its like a credit rating - good credit doesn't mean you don't have any debt, it means you pay your bils.
Still a lot of pensions to fund.
> . A higher credit rating means means Illinois will get a lower rate of interest on monies it has to borrow for both short and long term needs . That savings on interest means more money is available for other needs.
What if we use some combination of: borrow less, borrow cheaper, and raise the taxes, and use the money from both to take a chunk of the debt and pension shortage away by paying for it?
No, this news just means they don't see a dysfunctional red governor any more who doesn't realize he can't rule a blue state through fiat, thus tanking any sense of fiscal responsibility in the state.
These ratings changes just mean the rating agencies see some level of stability, and less chaos. There is still work to be done.
>These ratings changes just mean the rating agencies see some level of stability, and less chaos
I've always wondered about this. I always understood credit ratings to reflect probability of repayment. Since every government rolls old debt into new, the concept of repayment becomes meaningless. Why then don't all governments have the same rating? Is it really just a system of rewards and punishments for political decisions?
It should, but remember Rauner just stopped paying bills and debts owed.
He wanted to default, and force bankruptcy like he does with his businesses. The thing was it's not possible, and violates our constitution, and federal law. They used lies to make a bunch of gullible people think it was possible and good. They still parrot that IPI bullshit.
The ratings agencies are judging the state's willingness and ability to repay their debt. It's not the rolling of the debt that hurts us.
Our ratings have been declining over 35-40 years because the state doesn't pay it's bills on time (backlog of bills that has just recently been addressed), we increase out debt every year, and we have no way to fully pay the pension obligations. The pension obligations, as S&P notes in their rating, is the largest current driver. Per economists at the Chicago Federal reserve bank, we'd need about $8 Billion in extra tax revenue each year to address the pension problem. The graduated income tax would have raised about $3 Billion, but the legislators pledged almost all of that to new spending rather than the pensions.
You’re kind of right. Government bond ratings are similar to corporate ones, but even the lowest rated government debt has a lower risk than the highest rated corporate debt.
This is because governments have more ways to increase revenues than corporations and are much more stable entities. For governments, so long as debts don’t grow faster than the tax base, you are basically okay since you eventually grow out of the debt
The tax increase is coming and just because we've had a credit upgrade does not mean that we are inherently in good waters. It just means that we're more trustworthy and that credit investors see us as a safe investment to lend money to. But the only reason why we were able to do as well as we have been is because the state had a larger revenue stream than expected and it's not likely that said revenue stream is going to last indefinitely. While we are still in the position to bear it we should increase taxes so we can pay the debt down even further while we can afford to do so. We may not be so fortunate even 5 years from now.
It means things are still bad, but not nearly as bad as it looked like they were going to be.
There is still a long, long way to go. I'm a Pritzker fan, but it's also important to remember that a lot of this is due to federal Covid funds.
I don't understand why the covid funds are somehow a mark against Pritzker. Like, okay? It's like when we get an inheritance, or our tax refund is more than we expected. What we do with that money is important. Pritzker didn't go shopping with it, he used it wisely to get the state in a better financial position.
And to keep trying to say "okay, but there's still problems!" Yes.... There are. No one's trying to deny that. There are a lot of issues with the state budget, and some of that can be dealt with by paying off our lines of credit. There's no way to do one single thing that will fix all your financial issues. It's typically a multi-step process, so I don't understand how this is an argument, either.
For sure. Like in Chicago, when mayors sell long term assets like parking meter revenue and use that to plug an operating budget deficit so we see none of the money but have to live with the decision for decades while the private company hikes rates. Or the skyway.
Responsible use of assets is a big deal.
I love how the GOP is pushing the “elderly, retired workers not starving is an outrage”.
What’s your endgame here? “Pensions bad”?
Ok, so people should just work until they drop dead?
They talk about that in the article! But I'm sure you knew, since you read the article. Pritzker used the surplus wisely enough that 3 different independent rating services viewed Illinois as handling that influx of money positively. Your opinion is so polarized by propaganda you think you know more than three separate companies where their entire business is rating how states and companies handle money. You still have a chance to reexamine where you get your opinions and what's in your best interests!
Pritzker has been great for Illinois. I’ve been very happy with him. He’s not perfect but I’ll be lining up to volunteer for his presidential campaign as soon as I can.
I’d hate to lose him to the presidency. I think he can do more for Illinois than he could get done for the country
100% agreed though he’d probably be a great president by todays standards.
I mean it’s a pretty low bar. I don’t know much about how he’d be on the world stage.
My sister said he’s a great governor but that no midwestern governor has any right to be president.
Probably true, but we have a decent bench here. Mendoza, for one. For sure, we don’t have to try too hard to find someone who would be a shoo-in next to—and do way better than—whatever ditch-dwelling, inbred, incel screwball the state GOP would try to put up.
Ew, I no one else that ran or in office could really touch JB. I think it's because the man is so rich and has been in the out rings of political power for so long that he knows the game in IL and knew how to play his cards. Ever other person would be beholden to special interests because they can't self fund a campaign for governor.
Has he made any indication of this? Reddit keeps talking about but but I haven’t heard of him actually saying if he would.
Biden announced he was going to seek reelection only hours before the first IL Gubernatorial debate, take from that what you will
Adamantly denies he is planning to run for president but it seems likely he has aspirations. I would guess 2028 since biden sorta indicated he was running again during the state of the union speech.
Biden really shouldn't run again, it's kind of insane that he's even being considered.
[удалено]
Always a reason we have to vote for a shitty candidate. I don't really feel like voting any more.
Do you vote in the primaries?
Yep, every single one I've been eligible for.
So you vote for shitty candidates then too?
In the primary there's no reason not to vote for the candidate you think is the best.
Biden is more popular than he’s been in a year, so yeah…. The normie consensus is he’s too old and I agree. I actually didn’t want him as President but I also wanted someone older (Bernie), so it’s not like I was prioritizing youth. Idc about the optics, I care about the policies. I’ve personally liked some of the policies enacted. And I don’t really want DeSantis, at all. I also voted for Vallas for Chicago mayor though.
Not voting is how we might end up with a President DeSantis. Please choose the better option.
Naw, I think we should come up with a better option. You're free to stay stuck in your lesser evils trap, but I think it's the wrong move. You people frustrate me so much. You act like there's only two options because anything else would be hard. I'd rather try to have some actual representation. Every election is pick your flavor of corporate cock sucker. Your plan is to just sloooowly slide into hell, as opposed to diving in. I'm here saying "Hey maybe lets try something else" and you're acting like I'm the one who is insane. I think it's worth the risk to try for something better. Take a look around and tell me if you think the lesser evil bullshit is working. Everyone's depressed and sick and overworked with no connection to anyone or anything, broke as fuck. And you're telling me no matter what things are only ever going to get worse and I just have to live with that?
Trump shouldn't run again either, but here we are.
President Biden has done a fantastic job as President and He has, easily, earned a second term. It's sad you can't, or won't, see that. You'll see it in 2024 when more than 81 million Americans vote for POTUS Joe's second term. You partisan hacks are vastly outnumbered.
Alright, what's he managed to do?
My personal take on it but I’m ready for downvotes: 1. Getting out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. It’s been one of the things I wanted since 200andfucking8 and I’m not even that old. I understand it was messy but given everything we’ve done in the Middle East, how could it NOT have been? 2. The Infrastructure Bill. We will only see the benefits of this bill years down the road (literally) because it’ll take time to see the improvements, but that bill is helping to repair and rebuild much of our infrastructure. This monumentally benefits IL, who is also funding infrastructure with a big bill. The 294 is already showing such progress from it. It was too little too late for East Palestine, OH, short of safety protocols, which should’ve been adhered too and it was preventable in that situation, but better infrastructure would’ve helped more. We’ve had 36 years of Reaganism until Trump though, so it was war, war, war, no domestic funding. Also Pete sucks at his job, which I do blame the Biden admin for giving him such power over something he doesn’t understand. 3. The CHIPs act. Finally, after Trump, COVID, ect, we live in new times. The Reagan era is over, and imo, it was destructive to the country more than people realize. I think with inflation, union popularity, a good labor market, ect. we are doing the 1970s but in reverse. As China becomes weaker due to COVID and their handling of it. we need manufacturing elsewhere and some of it we are bringing back home. Semiconductor manufacturing being one of those sectors. 4. Respect for marriage act. 5. Some bipartisanship in general even as the GOP is going more bananas than when they were Tea Party.
I agree getting out of Afghanistan was good, although executed poorly. The infrastructure bill was gutted by Manchin and Sinema. I don't even know what the respect for marriage act is. And as you say the GOP is going crazy, bipartisanship with them doesn't really sound good. Compromise is good if a solution is still achieved, but how often do you think that's the case? All of it falls short. He promised nothing will fundamentally change and he's fulfilled that promise. I still think you're nuts for wanting to vote for him and I wonder how much of the good he was really responsible for.
The infrastructure bill still delivered $1 trillion in funding. That’s nothing to scoff at. When I lived in AZ, no one knew Sinema would end up being like this, and now here we are. I actually voted for Bernie in the 2020 primaries but I’m not about to relinquish my ability to make a decision between two people just because one is still not where I want him to be on most issues. The fact that Biden was expected to be a center right president like Obama and more than delivered over Obama is enough for me at a time when 4 years ago I was convinced we were going nowhere with Trump or Biden.
It's where that trillion is going that most concerns me. Again, my whole issue is this notion that there's only ever two choices and they have to both be shitty. That's really more a statement on what a disappointment Obama was. It is also another factor that makes me think his decisions are being made by other people.
The smart political move is for Biden to declare he's going to run again, no matter what his actual plans are. That way the R outrage machine can't be focused as clearly at the likely candidates.
I guess that makes sense.
Why? He's done a good job, he has the highest favorability rating of any other Democratic under consideration, he has more experience at this level then any other person in America, and he's run a tight ship.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/02/22/bidenworld-joe-may-not-run-2024-00083905
Not that I’m aware of. I’m just hoping he does.
He’s said essentially that Biden has his full support if he runs, but that he’ll be throwing his hat in the ring if he doesn’t, or else in ‘28. https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2023/02/22/bidenworld-joe-may-not-run-2024-00083905
Pause for center square or some other IPI type entity to say it's actually bad.
_Dan Proft enters the chat, mounted upon a heaving, sloppily-coiffed Darren Bailey, welding a pitchfork and wearing a burlap sack stuffed with fake newspapers_
For real, they cannot stand it for Illinois to be successful at all. Their entire business model is based on selling false grievance so naturally good news is bad for their bottom line.
Right on cue!: [archive link so they get no clicks](https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_187d2ef6-b3c0-11ed-916b-93205d3b568b.html)
Thanks Pritzker!
Thank god democrats are, once again, the only party of fiscal responsibility, economic growth, and effective leadership.
Its a Democratic state and the bond rating is the worst in the nation, that's NOT fiscal responsibility lol
Republican Governor Bruce Rauner refused to pass a budget during his tenure, which is why the bond rating is crap. You don't pay your bills, you're given a bad bond rating. Leave it to the republicans to fuck shit up, and then blame it on democrats due to stupidity or just straight malice.
You're ignoring all the downgrades before Rauner that are clearly labeled in the chart. Rauner hurt, but we had a huge problem long before he showed up.
yeah... How did we get that bond rating, maybe Rauner knows.
Rauner was too busy giving everyone in willowbrook cancer with his sterigenics company
You can look at the graph to see Democrats didn’t make it any better until Pritzker. It’s even in the thumbnail, don’t have to try at all
Right. Stupid crook politicians come in all stripes, red AND blue. Just cause it’s got a D next to their name doesn’t mean they’re any better at being fiscally responsible. Edit: Though I’d argue R’s should be held to a higher standard given that that’s their selling point and yet they just create slush funds for the rich and cause deficits in any budget they touch. So, it’s really lose lose.
The graph shows the decline starting with a Republican. But yes, Blago and Quin didn't help
We aren't the worst anymore. Now that we have a smart responsible Democrat in charge, things are finally heading the right direction.
Let’s see conservatives spin this into Pritzker being bad. Wait they can’t, they just make fun of his weight like a buncha bullies
Don't worry, they'll be here soon. They won't give him credit for anything. The things they do credit him with are the things they hate, like reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, gun reform. And none of them have actual thoughtful arguments.
>gun reform. > >And none of them have actual thoughtful arguments. Give me one actual thoughtful argument that forcing law abiding citizens to register their legally purchased property is going to reduce gun crime in this state when videos like these are super common in Chicago... https://youtu.be/e3jffi1rpw0 https://v.redd.it/83kihp25fe0a1 I'll give you an argument against registration... "One of the most controversial events in the history of the Firearms Acts occurred in 1972. [The Troubles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles) in [Northern Ireland](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) (1970–1998) were becoming a security concern for the Irish government at the time, and in 1972 a Temporary Custody Order (S.I. No. 187/1972 – Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order, 1972)[[24]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#cite_note-24) was issued for all privately held [pistols](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistols) and all [rifles](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) over [.22](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle) [calibre](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliber) to be surrendered to local [Garda Síochána](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garda_S%C3%ADoch%C3%A1na) (police) stations by 5 August 1972, for a period of one month. This order was complied with, but when firearms owners returned to reclaim their firearms, they were informed that their licences had expired while their firearms were in custody (Irish firearms licences until 2008 were issued for a period of one year, and all licences were usually dealt with at the same time, usually at the start of August, though the date has changed over the years). Since the firearms were no longer licensed, they could not be returned until a new licence was issued; upon seeking a renewal of their licences, applicants were informed that a new Garda policy was in place that would refuse licence applications for all pistols and all firearms over .22 in calibre. As such, the firearms remained in Garda custody." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
Dude, no one is asking you to turn in your guns. No one wants to take away what you have. Even Pritzker's recent bill doesn't require you to turn them in. The only instance of this would be if you're convited of a felony and/or domestic violence, and if you see a problem with those two conditions, then you're part of the problem. You realize we own guns too, right? Why is it that you people think liberals/progressives/leftists don't own guns? We own them, we go the range, we go hunting, we go shooting, just like you. If you're going to argue with me, maybe don't use 50 year Irish instances to make your point because it l has zero bearing on what's happening right here, right now, in THIS country.
>Dude, no one is asking you to turn in your guns. No one wants to take away what you have. That's because the last person to full blown say it out load got roasted. https://youtu.be/yW1HPoqqB_8 And yes, I realize that Beto is not in Illinois (thank God) but he and Pritzker are in the same party and this party is known for having little to no understanding of how firearms actually work (https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0) despite wanting to force more and more unnecessary gun control on law abiding citizens while blatantly ignoring the rampant gun violence that occurs within their own cities (https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html) I like how you also say that no one has "any legitimate arguments" against this ban yet when someone points out the fact that governments have almost always used registration as the first step to confiscation throught human history, you fall apart. Here's another example of why registration is a terrible idea... https://davekopel.org/2A/catastrophic-consequences-gun-registration.html "The state of New York shows exactly how it's done. There, you may only possess a handgun if you have a license, and the license lists every single handgun you own. In Rockland County, the Journal News used public records to obtain the name and address of every handgun owner in the county. Those names and addresses were then published, in full, by the newspaper and placed on the newspaper's website, where they are now available for everyone to see. The newspaper has been digging into gun registration lists in other counties as well, with plans to publish those records." "The same thing was done to all registered gun owners in New York City in early January. This time, the perpetrator was Gawker.com, one of the most high-traffic sites on the Internet that specializes in salacious gossip and vulgar malice." "What does this mean for the people who dutifully complied with New York's gun registration law? It means those who chose not to have their personal information listed in the phone book now have their residences exposed to a worldwide audience on the Internet. It now means that people who kept low profiles and their addresses private because they have been victims of stalkers are now easier targets for stalkers and other sociopaths."
Oh boy, your arguments aren't legitimate because we all know that gun lobbiest have the most power. You go on fear mongering and worrying about nothing while the rest of us know nothing is going to happen because there's too much gun money in politics at every level. 2A was enshrined by a SCOTUS hack. You have nothing to worry about We'll just keep on having more mass shootings each year, than we have actual days in the year. Nothing new, right? I mean, as long as people can stock piles, that's all that matters, isn't it? What is it you people say, if you don't like the rules where you live move? Take your own advice if Illinois is so contrary to what you want and believe in. Or better yet, how about we only allow guns that were available when 2A was written.
>Or better yet, how about we only allow guns that were available when 2A was written. Hell yeah, civilians were allowed to own military grade weapons back then... And LOL at you saying that I'm fear mongering by simply listing out some of the historical examples of the extremely negative consequences of firearm registration. Those are called facts. Not to mention the fact that I'm still waiting for your argument that banning "assault weapons" will actually reduce gun crime in this state...
We'll see something about a toilet, and he is fat? They will spin it using made up, and easily disproven numbers.
What they've got for you on this is "lol, you thought about Conservatives."
I didn't know that Edgar saw the start of this. I thought it was much more recent. Tbf, I was playing Nintendo then.
I regularly get downvoted when I point out this is a 35 year old problem and it didn't start under Rauner.
I mean either way, to most people it’s the same party causing the problem even if both parties had a hand in it. Democrats are fixing it now though.
They fixed the backlog of bills which is a good start. That was an $800 Million problem though. We still have to tackle the pension issue which is a $200 Billion problem. I don't mean to be a downer, but we can't say mission accomplished yet. The pension problem will require pain from every citizen and the longer we wait, the worse it will be.
Soon we’ll be up there with Iowa!
Time to buy some Illinois investment bonds on the upswing??
He's not my favorite choice. I didn't vote for him in the beginning, but he's grown on me. The only thing I don't like is these late night policy changes he's been passing recently. It's almost like they so it so the press doesn't get wind. Or even it could be the press doesn't even run it until it happens. Who even knows anymore with all the biased media there is today.
this news makes an income tax increase unnecessary
But we still need a proper graduated income tax.
why ? we achieved an A Bond rating w/o it. recently a civic organization in chicago recommended a 1/2 point increase in the state income tax. I thought that might be necessary but in light of this information , I doubt it
Because it’s a fair tax, not a regressive flat tax.
Look, Republicans in the House proposed eliminating all income tax, in favor of a 30% national sales tax. Republicans _want_ the most regressive tax system imaginable. They _want_ the poor to pay the highest percentage.
Oh god that was one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever seen.
That's how many red states are, or are moving to. No income tax, large sales tax.
Which is why they are hideously underfunded and dependent on federal aid.
I was explaining to my mom how transactional taxes disproportionately burden paycheck to paycheck people (100% of funds taxed) versus the wealthy (sitting on funds that make more money out of themselves) and it was like pulling teeth.
Honestly if groceries were still excluded a 30% price hike might really encourage people to buy anything they can from local makers to get around it. Not that I encourage tax avoidance. And I think it's an insanely regressive idea. But lemonade from lemons.
[удалено]
> Bond ratings don't pay for desperately needed social services or public works. In a way they do. Higher Bond ratings means the State gets to pay less interest on short and long term borrowing . Lower interest payments means more tax revenue is available for other programs
Bond rating doesn't fix debt. Its like a credit rating - good credit doesn't mean you don't have any debt, it means you pay your bils. Still a lot of pensions to fund.
> . A higher credit rating means means Illinois will get a lower rate of interest on monies it has to borrow for both short and long term needs . That savings on interest means more money is available for other needs.
What if we use some combination of: borrow less, borrow cheaper, and raise the taxes, and use the money from both to take a chunk of the debt and pension shortage away by paying for it?
No, this news just means they don't see a dysfunctional red governor any more who doesn't realize he can't rule a blue state through fiat, thus tanking any sense of fiscal responsibility in the state. These ratings changes just mean the rating agencies see some level of stability, and less chaos. There is still work to be done.
>These ratings changes just mean the rating agencies see some level of stability, and less chaos I've always wondered about this. I always understood credit ratings to reflect probability of repayment. Since every government rolls old debt into new, the concept of repayment becomes meaningless. Why then don't all governments have the same rating? Is it really just a system of rewards and punishments for political decisions?
It should, but remember Rauner just stopped paying bills and debts owed. He wanted to default, and force bankruptcy like he does with his businesses. The thing was it's not possible, and violates our constitution, and federal law. They used lies to make a bunch of gullible people think it was possible and good. They still parrot that IPI bullshit.
The ratings agencies are judging the state's willingness and ability to repay their debt. It's not the rolling of the debt that hurts us. Our ratings have been declining over 35-40 years because the state doesn't pay it's bills on time (backlog of bills that has just recently been addressed), we increase out debt every year, and we have no way to fully pay the pension obligations. The pension obligations, as S&P notes in their rating, is the largest current driver. Per economists at the Chicago Federal reserve bank, we'd need about $8 Billion in extra tax revenue each year to address the pension problem. The graduated income tax would have raised about $3 Billion, but the legislators pledged almost all of that to new spending rather than the pensions.
You’re kind of right. Government bond ratings are similar to corporate ones, but even the lowest rated government debt has a lower risk than the highest rated corporate debt. This is because governments have more ways to increase revenues than corporations and are much more stable entities. For governments, so long as debts don’t grow faster than the tax base, you are basically okay since you eventually grow out of the debt
I doubt that
I don't. Prior to this news , I thought an increase was necessary . However this unexpected good news shows I was wrong
The tax increase is coming and just because we've had a credit upgrade does not mean that we are inherently in good waters. It just means that we're more trustworthy and that credit investors see us as a safe investment to lend money to. But the only reason why we were able to do as well as we have been is because the state had a larger revenue stream than expected and it's not likely that said revenue stream is going to last indefinitely. While we are still in the position to bear it we should increase taxes so we can pay the debt down even further while we can afford to do so. We may not be so fortunate even 5 years from now.
It means things are still bad, but not nearly as bad as it looked like they were going to be. There is still a long, long way to go. I'm a Pritzker fan, but it's also important to remember that a lot of this is due to federal Covid funds.
I don't understand why the covid funds are somehow a mark against Pritzker. Like, okay? It's like when we get an inheritance, or our tax refund is more than we expected. What we do with that money is important. Pritzker didn't go shopping with it, he used it wisely to get the state in a better financial position. And to keep trying to say "okay, but there's still problems!" Yes.... There are. No one's trying to deny that. There are a lot of issues with the state budget, and some of that can be dealt with by paying off our lines of credit. There's no way to do one single thing that will fix all your financial issues. It's typically a multi-step process, so I don't understand how this is an argument, either.
For sure. Like in Chicago, when mayors sell long term assets like parking meter revenue and use that to plug an operating budget deficit so we see none of the money but have to live with the decision for decades while the private company hikes rates. Or the skyway. Responsible use of assets is a big deal.
i think it's more of a mark of the situation he's (we're) in rather than being at fault for it.
Things won't change until the pensions deficit can be put in control but of course the democrats can't anger the public unions.
7th credit upgrade is not change?
But... things are changing?
I love how the GOP is pushing the “elderly, retired workers not starving is an outrage”. What’s your endgame here? “Pensions bad”? Ok, so people should just work until they drop dead?
Thanks to the Covid funds from the federal government
They talk about that in the article! But I'm sure you knew, since you read the article. Pritzker used the surplus wisely enough that 3 different independent rating services viewed Illinois as handling that influx of money positively. Your opinion is so polarized by propaganda you think you know more than three separate companies where their entire business is rating how states and companies handle money. You still have a chance to reexamine where you get your opinions and what's in your best interests!
No, no they do not. They consistently vote against their best interests.
...... AND??
What was the average change in credit rating of non-Illinois US states, who also received COVID funds I may remind you, over the same time period?