• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Camden To Scrap Police Dept Amid Budget Woes

First, I blame politicians for everything.

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.

Let's see some links, Mr. Sig. So much better than your flappin' gums. Ones that show that states are paying three to five times what things are worth large scale.

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.

If you want some links, try googling "wasteful government spending." You will be inundated with reports and examples.

The Worst Examples Of Pork - Business Insider

The Most Wasteful Pork of 2011 Photo Gallery - All Photos - Conspiracies on truTV.com

Next, exactly what is a "retired investor"?

Someone who is officially retired but dabbles in the market.

Your attempts to patronize me are falling on deaf ears.

That's a shame.

The simple fact is that taxpayers cannot afford your friends and relatives' public pensions.

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 blame politicians for ever having agreed to them in the first place.

Well, you're half right (at least about blaming the politicians), but still very, very wrong.

People are standing in line around the block to become police officers in just about every city in this nation. Why is that if the pay's so bad? Know why? 'Cause it isn't.

Isn't "pay" the focus of the controversy in the first place, dear? 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. America has already learned this lesson the hard way. Are you prescribing a revisitation?

You remind me of a guy I used to work with. He called all the girls in the office honey and sweetie, too. Just before he patted 'em on the ass.

Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so at the moment. Tell you what, Maggie. Get up from your chair and slap yourself on the ass as hard as you can and pretend its from me.
 
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.



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.

If you want some links, try googling "wasteful government spending." You will be inundated with reports and examples.

The Worst Examples Of Pork - Business Insider

The Most Wasteful Pork of 2011 Photo Gallery - All Photos - Conspiracies on truTV.com



Someone who is officially retired but dabbles in the market.

That's a shame.

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?

Well, you're half right (at least about blaming the politicians), but still very, very wrong.

Isn't "pay" the focus of the controversy in the first place, dear? 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. America has already learned this lesson the hard way. Are you prescribing a revisitation?

Unfortunately, I am in no position to do so at the moment. Tell you what, Maggie. Get up from your chair and slap yourself on the ass as hard as you can and pretend its from me.

Okay, props. That made me laugh out loud!! Hahaha!!

I don't claim to have answers about New Jersey, my little kumquat. ;) But saying the answer to police corruption lies in paying LEOs more is just....well....wrong. If LEOs don't think they're making enough money, they can do what the private sector does: find a new job. (Yeah, like that happens.)

Yeah, I know we pay $400 for toilet seats. Who is to blame for that? I don't know who you blame, but I blame the politicians who allow it to continue through a ridiculously complex bidding system that requires companies have a full-time staff of Philadelphia lawyers to even place a bid.

Now, my little pumpkin, back to the NJ pension woes. I'll equate those to Illinois, although I don't know that it's the same. I blame the politicians, first and foremost. Next, I blame the pension systems (which here in IL are administered, in many cases, by the unions themselves. Reason? The teachers' pension funds here, as an example, are using an 8% projected return on investments. Nobody is making 8% on the kinds of investments that are allowed within pension funds. So every single year?? The pensions come up heartily short. Taxpayers simply cannot afford them. Our state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
 
Okay, props. That made me laugh out loud!! Hahaha!!

I don't claim to have answers about New Jersey, my little kumquat. ;)

Well, that's rather unfortunate because NJ is what the discussion is all about. You might as well blow, my intellectually useless honeybunch.

But saying the answer to police corruption lies in paying LEOs more is just....well....wrong. If LEOs don't think they're making enough money, they can do what the private sector does: find a new job. (Yeah, like that happens.)

The answer to police corruption lies in paying LEO a salary commensurate with the job responsibilities. This may come as a surprise to you, but prior to the formation of police unions (and even for a considerable time afterward) corruption was endemic in every metro police department in the land. This is not to say that corruption does not still exist, but it is nothing like what existed 100 years ago. This only stands to reason. After all, a cop who is paid enough to fear losing his salary, pension, and benefits will be much more resistant to corruptive influences than one who is not (i.e: NOPD).

Yeah, I know we pay $400 for toilet seats. Who is to blame for that? I don't know who you blame, but I blame the politicians who allow it to continue through a ridiculously complex bidding system that requires companies have a full-time staff of Philadelphia lawyers to even place a bid.

You blame a system which believes that political donations and free speech are the same thing. That is who and what you blame, sweetie! Where is your mind?

Now, my little pumpkin, back to the NJ pension woes. I'll equate those to Illinois, although I don't know that it's the same.

They are not the same, so let's stop right there. First know what you are talking about before blathering on about a subject of which you are woefully ignorant. This way, you'll seem so much less like a bimbo.
 
Well, that's rather unfortunate because NJ is what the discussion is all about. You might as well blow, my intellectually useless honeybunch.

The answer to police corruption lies in paying LEO a salary commensurate with the job responsibilities. This may come as a surprise to you, but prior to the formation of police unions (and even for a considerable time afterward) corruption was endemic in every metro police department in the land. This is not to say that corruption does not still exist, but it is nothing like what existed 100 years ago. This only stands to reason. After all, a cop who is paid enough to fear losing his salary, pension, and benefits will be much more resistant to corruptive influences than one who is not (i.e: NOPD).



You blame a system which believes that political donations and free speech are the same thing. That is who and what you blame, sweetie! Where is your mind?

They are not the same, so let's stop right there. First know what you are talking about before blathering on about a subject of which you are woefully ignorant. This way, you'll seem so much less like a bimbo.

Go find someone with your level of expertise, Mr. Smarty Pants. I'm done here.
 
The report states, "only 49 percent of current city police officers will be transferred to the new county division." I am curious as to what the criteria is for those who would be chosen for the transfer. It does not always mean the "creme of the crop" or best suited for the job.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom