Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

Thread: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

  1. #81
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    What do you care about their qualifications? You do have your own private security don't you? Aren't you just sick of paying for protecting the peasants? We can cut taxes some more too. That leaves plenty to beef up your own "army". The firemen are next, our homes are all equipped with sprinklers.
    How did you know I have my own security? I am talking about the masses....will these 49% be a mix of PC entrants or purely qualified or a balance this should be made public as those who need protection should be made aware.

  2. #82
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    Re: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    How did you know I have my own security? I am talking about the masses....will these 49% be a mix of PC entrants or purely qualified or a balance this should be made public as those who need protection should be made aware.
    I'm sorry for being facetious. It is just that I don't like seeing America go down the tubes sector by sector. They've killed the private sectors wages and are now going after the teachers, police, and firemen. And the fools that cheer them on don't have a clue what is going on.

  3. #83
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    I'm sorry for being facetious. It is just that I don't like seeing America go down the tubes sector by sector. They've killed the private sectors wages and are now going after the teachers, police, and firemen. And the fools that cheer them on don't have a clue what is going on.
    I was not doing the cheering. I have a very hard time with this type of situation. There is a need for system continuity and I really would like to see the retention be merit and qualification based.

  4. #84
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    That's not good enough. The politicians are essentially "hired" by their benefactors in the private sector to procure these lucrative contracts in what is really a kickback scheme orchestrated through the local party boss (who is not an elected official). This way, any accusation of a direct quid-pro-quo between the elected official and the benefactor can be plausibly denied.
    your description of the process is accurate, but sadly your implied argument about relative prevalence is not. in fact, public sector unions more typically play the role that you are ascribing here to private sector benefactors.

    You make it sound as if I'm divulging esoteric information. Government's habit of paying more than fair market value for just about everything it purchases from the private sector is so common that the iconic "$400 toilet seat" has become a cliche.
    that is very true; government does have a tendency to pay more than fair market value. often it pays more than fair market value for labor, for example.

    And why is that, dear? Tell me, what do you know about NJ's pension woes? How did the problem get started? Who is to really to blame?
    I would say the iron triangle of Public Sector Unions, Democrat Politicians, and Taxpayer Money. Public Sector Unions elect or wreck candidates based on whether or not they will negotiate more favorable compensation. Politicians therefore have strong incentives to provide such, but are constrained by current income in their ability to direct state or local funds to the union benefactors. So they negotiate for "out year" benefits such as higher pension benefits, full comprehensive free medical, etc; for which they will be rewarded at the polls, but for which they are also not on the hook to provide.

    Well, you're half right (at least about blaming the politicians), but still very, very wrong.
    well, people will follow incentive structures. politicians primary incentive is usually to get reelected.

    Isn't "pay" the focus of the controversy in the first place, dear?
    not really - usually it's "compensation". Our public servants usually receive a fair to below-average-for-their-education-level paycheck, which is more than made up for in gold-plated benefits and iron-clad security.

    The surest path to engrained police corruption is to not pay the police an adequate salary, forcing them to find other means of supplementing their income.
    It is also a sure way to lower the quality of a critical governing function; which is why cops should be paid better, but paid better rather than compensated better so that we know we can afford it (as it is part of the current budget) rather than trying to off the load onto future taxpayers and future governments.

  5. #85
    Professor
    Sig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-29-13 @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,179

    Re: Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post

    your description of the process is accurate, but sadly your implied argument about relative prevalence is not. in fact, public sector unions more typically play the role that you are ascribing here to private sector benefactors.
    WRONG.

    Public sector unions represent a much smaller percentage of such activity than is noted in any public record. After all, there are relatively a mere handful of such unions compared to an endless number of private interests jockeying for government contracts, and with far less scruples and oversight. What is more, public sector unions are usually the domain of the democratic party, while private interests play on both sides of the political aisle with the same relative ease of access.

    that is very true; government does have a tendency to pay more than fair market value. often it pays more than fair market value for labor, for example.
    Actually, it does not, and you know this. (Shame on you!) Pound for pound, the private sector nearly always pays more. Government waste in the labor department is usually a matter of being overstaffed, not overpaying.

    I would say the iron triangle of Public Sector Unions, Democrat Politicians, and Taxpayer Money. Public Sector Unions elect or wreck candidates based on whether or not they will negotiate more favorable compensation. Politicians therefore have strong incentives to provide such, but are constrained by current income in their ability to direct state or local funds to the union benefactors. So they negotiate for "out year" benefits such as higher pension benefits, full comprehensive free medical, etc; for which they will be rewarded at the polls, but for which they are also not on the hook to provide.
    Are you suggesting that the government take a more aggressive role in regulating the cost of healthcare for the good of posterity? I could not agree more.

    well, people will follow incentive structures. politicians primary incentive is usually to get reelected.
    Yes, even if this means stealing from the public employee pension fund, year after year, so that these politicians can continue their more lucrative pay-to-play schemes with their benefactors in the private sector.

    not really - usually it's "compensation". Our public servants usually receive a fair to below-average-for-their-education-level paycheck, which is more than made up for in gold-plated benefits and iron-clad security.
    Call it what you will. It does not change the point at hand one iota, does it?

    It is also a sure way to lower the quality of a critical governing function; which is why cops should be paid better, but paid better rather than compensated better so that we know we can afford it (as it is part of the current budget) rather than trying to off the load onto future taxpayers and future governments.
    Would it not be better to regulate the cost of some of these "unforeseeable compensations" (ie: healthcare) in the market? This way, it would be that much more easy to gauge such costs as far as they pertain to the salary and benefits packages of government employees. Perhaps, we could get around constitutional restrictions of such regulations by having SCOTUS define healthcare insurance as a form of tax?
    It's like you're dreaming of Gorgonzola when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •