Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 428
Date:
RE: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?
Permalink  
 


Mr. Evans, or David if I may? That's another story. A surplus is a positive ratio relative to the amount of revenue vs. the expenditures.
We were talking more on long term debt, and the huge increase in it. The long term debt payments, to pay it each year, has sucked up a much bigger percentage of tax revenues under Chris Doherty. All of that extra money could have been used to run the day to day operation of the city. For many years to come, money to pave streets, re-build our infrastructure and other expenditures like PUBLIC SAFETY will not have the resources any longer. While investment and borrowing for investment is normal, the ratio between investment and dividends from those investments have been a complete failure. Our population is declining or stagnant, our tax base is declining and to compound the negative, our taxes were raised, fees were raised, crime is up and services are declining which compounds the problem. All to pay for Chris Doherty's borrowing, increasing debt, patronage hiring, crony contracts and bumbled waste like the sewer contract deal and the court losses and legal fees fighting with the employees. If his actions increased the population, raised revenue, increased the tax base and increased services, it would all be worth it. It isn't happening. And nowhere can I find that to be a fact. Budgets, audits, bond ratings, merchantile taxes, business privelege taxes, wage taxes all show a decline. His policies, at a huge long term cost, are not working. It's time to try something else. What or who can change things is another current question. Since it seems Mrs. Evans is not running for mayor, who else is?
One thing I do know, is Chris Doherty does not deserve another chance, in my opinion. He's had almost 8 years to turn things around and it didn't happen. I hope there's another choice come May.

__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 124
Date:
RE: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?
Permalink  
 


very interesting letter to the editor from 2001: http://www.scrantontimes.com/articles/2001/04/11/letters/1680614.txt

__________________


Site Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5099
Date:
RE: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?
Permalink  
 


Well Ag ... have you been to DD lately ... that 250 million in long ter debt has now grown to 400 million in long term debt according to one of the kids across the hall.

Lighthouse
Posts: 287
Date: Feb 7 2:50 AM, 2009

Hey Stewie, How does saving $2,000,000 a year get us out of $400,000,000 debt when the raises plus the new jobs keep increasing aprox $4,000,000 per year. Your grandkids grandkids grandkids are going to be paying this offblehconfuse



__________________

I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet.  Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3414
Date:
RE: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?
Permalink  
 


Wow I wonder if I can get that person to estimate my bank account balance. :)) Inside of a month I will be rich RICH RICH!!!! lol

__________________

Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))



DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline
Posts: 3768
Date:
RE: Didn't The Legion Tell Us Scranton Had $250 Million In Long-Term Debt?
Permalink  
 


No, I haven't been looking much lately, as "the kids" have kind of been rather boring of late.

As for the debt, I'm sure Shari or someone else can rationalize it as $400 million. Hell, why not shoot for a billion? As I've said all along, embellishing Doherty's long term debit is just about the dumbest thing anyone can do, as it's already too high to begin with, so why add to it? Well I know why they do: because they are greedy and stupid.

Greedy...because they aren't satisifed with the facts that they actually exist. Mind you the facts as outlined in the audit are more than sufficient enough to offer valid criticism of Doherty's fiscal management. Apparently that's not enough for some folks though.

Stupid...because they make themselves out to be crack-pots by quoting dramatically inflated numbers. I'm sure that Doherty loses no sleep after Nelson speaks during Council meetings. "Scranton Slimes", "Quarter billion dollar debt"...yupp, that screams credibility to me. Why not go full-bore crack-pot and say the Lynett family has "kooties" and that Chris Doherty caused a suicide?



__________________
Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.
«First  <  1 2 3 4 | Page of 4  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard