- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here is an easy $62.5 million to address the states shortfall.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 11:22 am to CarRamrod
Posted on 3/3/16 at 11:22 am to CarRamrod
quote:
the private sector gets 1 person to do the job 2 or 3 would do that work for the state.
That may have been the truth in the past, but nowadays the workload for governmental employees (the peons, not the managers...that is another topic) is greater now than ever before.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 11:28 am to CarRamrod
The people with power in Louisiana basically steal the states money and don't even hide it. Anytime we elect an "Idealistic" Governor we have problems. It's because the oil cartels and energy producers don't want transparency to see that they are flat out thieves. So, I guess as long as we keep a shady Governor in office who "Takes the money" and plays nice with the people who have real power in our state, jobs are better and money flows.
Obviously its BS. We should be fighting to get all that money to make Louisiana better. Better Roads, Schools, Medical Centers, Health, and Jobs. But anytime we elect officials who are idealistic and want to change things for the better, Louisiana goes in the crapper. It's literally BS.
Obviously its BS. We should be fighting to get all that money to make Louisiana better. Better Roads, Schools, Medical Centers, Health, and Jobs. But anytime we elect officials who are idealistic and want to change things for the better, Louisiana goes in the crapper. It's literally BS.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 11:48 am to Quatre Pot
quote:
JBE can't fix constitution you do. Amendments must be approved by the public
The constitution can be rewritten. It's been done before 10 times. The state senate can call a constitutional convention. It's in desperate need of being rewritten.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 11:49 am to MLCLyons
quote:
JBE can't fix constitution you do. Amendments must be approved by the public
The constitution can be rewritten. It's been done before 10 times. The state senate can call a constitutional convention. It's in desperate need of being rewritten.
The Constitutional Convention can be called, but none of the changes happen unless the voters approve it.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 12:55 pm to s-port tiger
quote:
It is time to close Nichols, McNeese, LSU-S, LSU-E, LSU-A, UNO, SUNO, Southern Shreveport, Southern Law, and Grambling.
So your brilliant idea to fix the ailing higher ed system is to dismantle it?
Louisiana ranks near the bottom of the list in nearly every measurable educational statistic (including post-secondary attainment). In spite of what you see as budget mismanagement, Louisiana is at or near the bottom in higher ed expenditures. Also, if memory serves, Louisiana institutions rank in the top 15 in higher ed budget efficiency nationally.
So... the fat is already trimmed. If you want to cut, it needs to come from elsewhere.
quote:
LSU football is an economic engine worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the state
Ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs that would be eliminated by closing all of the institutions you mentioned (not to mention the negative impact of the state's percentage of degreed employees plummeting/students leaving the state for schools in nearby Texas, Arkansas or Mississippi rather than staying home)?
quote:
Thats the real problem here. Open up the books and cut the ridiculous fat that the state spends on state employees. Trim the state workforce by 50% and make people actually work for a living. Eliminate the many depts that have no value and consolidate like actual businesses do.
No argument here. But the point of all this football chain rattling is to leverage budgetary amendments in a "magical special session."
Posted on 3/3/16 at 12:56 pm to Dookie
quote:
OP: I'm sorry, but your attitude (and lack of any perspective) is the exact reason we are in this problem. The idea you want a "robust" junior college instead of a functioning university system is problematic enough
So enlighten us, oh wise one, as to how keeping all of Louisiana's 14 four year universities, with their low enrollments and proximity to each other, benefits the state more than consolidating them into 4-5 universities. We patiently await the depth of your analysis.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 12:57 pm to TigerJeff
Ah, there it is!
You work yourself up in a lather about welfare mommas buying lobster w/ foodstamps, but, you're cool with shoveling money to the Robertsons, Tom Benson, California movie industry, etc
No both are severe problems!
You work yourself up in a lather about welfare mommas buying lobster w/ foodstamps, but, you're cool with shoveling money to the Robertsons, Tom Benson, California movie industry, etc
No both are severe problems!
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:05 pm to Macavity92
quote:
So enlighten us, oh wise one, as to how keeping all of Louisiana's 14 four year universities, with their low enrollments and proximity to each other, benefits the state more than consolidating them into 4-5 universities. We patiently await the depth of your analysis.
First of all, you wouldn't be able to cut McNeese if this were the logic because it's the only school in SWLA. So OP needs to check which schools really should be cut. Second, while the notion of consolidating schools is a fine thought, it's not as easy as bussing kids from one school to the other. That kind of turnover would take years and cost many millions of dollars. Not to mention, as I stated before, the economic impact of people losing jobs and the inevitable "brain drain" that would follow.
Take a moment and think critically about the implications of what you're proposing. Do you really think it would be that easy?
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:06 pm to Geecubed
quote:suuuuure... maybe they have more work but your crazy to think the state is efficient.
quote:
the private sector gets 1 person to do the job 2 or 3 would do that work for the state.
That may have been the truth in the past, but nowadays the workload for governmental employees (the peons, not the managers...that is another topic) is greater now than ever before.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:07 pm to SCwTiger
You misinterpreted my post. I didn't say it didn't happen, its unfortunate that people lost their jobs, I'm saying it didn't happen as much as demonstrated by that article. Several hundred or a few thousand losing their jobs isn't equivalent to 30k.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:12 pm to CarRamrod
Not crazy, because I know the State of Louisiana is the epitome of inefficiency. All governments are. But to generalize that all state workers do nothing is utter bullshite.
The inefficiency is borne from politicians trying to make their cronies happy, not from employees choosing to be lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are several thousand state employees that need to be let go, because they "work" their 8 hours, and go home. But there are just as many state workers that bust their balls, try to be innovative, ambitious, and efficient.
These are the employees that end up either leaving state employment altogether, or turn into the former "workers" because they get work piled on and piled on, until they are in over their heads.
The inefficiency is borne from politicians trying to make their cronies happy, not from employees choosing to be lazy. Don't get me wrong, there are several thousand state employees that need to be let go, because they "work" their 8 hours, and go home. But there are just as many state workers that bust their balls, try to be innovative, ambitious, and efficient.
These are the employees that end up either leaving state employment altogether, or turn into the former "workers" because they get work piled on and piled on, until they are in over their heads.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:13 pm to Geecubed
quote:
That may have been the truth in the past, but nowadays the workload for governmental employees (the peons, not the managers...that is another topic) is greater now than ever before.
oh please.
Maybe government workers have plenty on their plate, but the efficiency of a private sector worker is far, far greater than that of a government worker.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:17 pm to TigerJeff
quote:So much substance to your argument. Nolle prosequi.
pure bullshite
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:18 pm to atltiger6487
quote:
Maybe government workers have plenty on their plate, but the efficiency of a private sector worker is far, far greater than that of a government worker.
This is only true long term. There are plenty of lazy asses working in the private sector, and get to keep their jobs (whether it is because they are family, or because they have blackmail pictures, whatever).
I agree that Civil Service needs to make it easier to fire a classified employee. I think the State would be run much more efficiently.
But, generally, I would say the efficiency of the top employees of both sectors are about the same. Where you get the discrepancy is in the lower level employees. This is because if you suck at your job in the private sector, you are fired (unless the above qualifications apply to you). In the governmental sector, it takes the proverbial "Act of Congress" to fire a classified employee.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:20 pm to Mayhawman
Mayhawman, stereotypes are made, because of observations of certain subsets of a population. Then the stereotype is projected upon the entire population.
Just because you think that all state employees are lazy and worthless, because you had a bad experience at OMV or the public assistance office, does not mean that all state employees fit that bill. That is all I was trying to show.
Just because you think that all state employees are lazy and worthless, because you had a bad experience at OMV or the public assistance office, does not mean that all state employees fit that bill. That is all I was trying to show.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:29 pm to Guava Jelly
quote:
Take a moment and think critically about the implications of what you're proposing. Do you really think it would be that easy?
I have thought about it for years. We have too many full 4 year universities serving a small number of state residents. The average enrollment is about 10,000, but that is skewed by LSU, ULL and Southeastern. Several of these universities have less than 5000 students. We have two separate boards governing those universities. Each university has to have their own administration, physical plant, etc. This duplication of costs is unnecessary, especially in a state our size.
There is no reason why we need full 4 year universities for each geographic area of the state. People may have to travel to go to school.
I doubt the economic impact is as large as you are stating. Many of the areas with these universities have not grown tremendously due to hosting universities. The Monroe/Ruston area has three universities. The combined population of those two towns is under 75,000. Staggering growth has not occurred. Moreover, none of the smaller schools are world class research universities bringing in millions of dollars via their research.
Yes, people would lose jobs. People are losing jobs all over the state right now. When the budget deficit is as large as advertised hard decisions must be made. Very little reason exists for paying for such a bloated system. We would have a stronger university system if we consolidated and focused what money we do have on building a few very strong, populous universities rather than diluting the state's limited funds to maintain facilities in so many different areas.
As for the brain drain, it has been advertised for years. It has either already happening or is overrated. Closing down universities with small enrollments and no real research facilities will not contribute to brain drain.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:37 pm to Mayhawman
quote:
So maybe you can explain how the state dishes out money when it's a tax credit? We don't actually pay them first to come, nor would they be here without incentive.
Many governments of thriving economies do this for industry and it works.
It is difficult to reverse a rep for reneging on business incentives and brings on slow economic suicide.
From people I know who deal with this, the movie companies sell the tax credits to LA residents who use them to lower their tax bills. From what I've been told, the movie companies get other tax breaks lowering their tax bills already and then people who have nothing to do with the movie industry are getting out of paying their share too.
Posted on 3/3/16 at 1:38 pm to Geecubed
quote:
But, generally, I would say the efficiency of the top employees of both sectors are about the same. Where you get the discrepancy is in the lower level employees.
Of course there are highly intelligent and highly-efficient public sector workers. I'm not saying that every single government worker is a lazy buffoon. There are great ones out there.
But on average, the efficiency of private sector workers is far greater than government workers. There are very few reasonable people that would deny that.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News