OT: Public pay & benefits

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Thank you. I dont want privatization of public services nor do I beleive the private sector would do a better job, I just want more transparency and fiscal responsibility there. Its fascinating to me how some people want such a high level of fiscal responsibility and transparency until it hits home. They resort to the same tactics they attack by comparing it to other problems. I hate to state the obvious but:

WRONG + WRONG still does not = RIGHT[/quote]

I didn’t see anybody here or on any other related threads say they were against transparency or fiscal responsibility. Could you post a link to the comment, please?

[CA renter]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=faterikcartman]And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.

/quote]

Now, this is quite true. Take a look at Prop J. There is some propaganda. Extra taxes to “retain” math and science teachers. Did you know the entire district bought EVERY 3rd, 6th, and 9th grader a netbook? This from a district that is so short of funds? I would much rather RETAIN the teachers/smaller classroom size, than spend oodles of money on netbooks. The students can bring home the netbooks with them too. I wonder who the district contracted with for that one? Which private company made LOTS of money on those netbooks? I don’t remember voting on that one do you?

No need to blame the teachers either, they had nothing to do with it. When we blame the public servants, (firefighters, police, teachers, etc) it is essentially blaming the grunts that actually DO the job. It is the corruption at the top that is really the problem.[/quote]

Fantastic, and very accurate post!

[CA renter]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=faterikcartman]And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.

/quote]

Now, this is quite true. Take a look at Prop J. There is some propaganda. Extra taxes to “retain” math and science teachers. Did you know the entire district bought EVERY 3rd, 6th, and 9th grader a netbook? This from a district that is so short of funds? I would much rather RETAIN the teachers/smaller classroom size, than spend oodles of money on netbooks. The students can bring home the netbooks with them too. I wonder who the district contracted with for that one? Which private company made LOTS of money on those netbooks? I don’t remember voting on that one do you?

No need to blame the teachers either, they had nothing to do with it. When we blame the public servants, (firefighters, police, teachers, etc) it is essentially blaming the grunts that actually DO the job. It is the corruption at the top that is really the problem.[/quote]

Fantastic, and very accurate post!

[CA renter]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=faterikcartman]And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.

/quote]

Now, this is quite true. Take a look at Prop J. There is some propaganda. Extra taxes to “retain” math and science teachers. Did you know the entire district bought EVERY 3rd, 6th, and 9th grader a netbook? This from a district that is so short of funds? I would much rather RETAIN the teachers/smaller classroom size, than spend oodles of money on netbooks. The students can bring home the netbooks with them too. I wonder who the district contracted with for that one? Which private company made LOTS of money on those netbooks? I don’t remember voting on that one do you?

No need to blame the teachers either, they had nothing to do with it. When we blame the public servants, (firefighters, police, teachers, etc) it is essentially blaming the grunts that actually DO the job. It is the corruption at the top that is really the problem.[/quote]

Fantastic, and very accurate post!

[CA renter]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=faterikcartman]And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.

/quote]

Now, this is quite true. Take a look at Prop J. There is some propaganda. Extra taxes to “retain” math and science teachers. Did you know the entire district bought EVERY 3rd, 6th, and 9th grader a netbook? This from a district that is so short of funds? I would much rather RETAIN the teachers/smaller classroom size, than spend oodles of money on netbooks. The students can bring home the netbooks with them too. I wonder who the district contracted with for that one? Which private company made LOTS of money on those netbooks? I don’t remember voting on that one do you?

No need to blame the teachers either, they had nothing to do with it. When we blame the public servants, (firefighters, police, teachers, etc) it is essentially blaming the grunts that actually DO the job. It is the corruption at the top that is really the problem.[/quote]

Fantastic, and very accurate post!

[CA renter]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=faterikcartman]And just another word to the wise: every time your presented with a question to vote for a tax increase to pay for so-called essential services like police and fire you’re being hoodwinked. They couch the question like that so they don’t have to cut spending for other things which you wouldn’t vote for if you were presented the choice.

/quote]

Now, this is quite true. Take a look at Prop J. There is some propaganda. Extra taxes to “retain” math and science teachers. Did you know the entire district bought EVERY 3rd, 6th, and 9th grader a netbook? This from a district that is so short of funds? I would much rather RETAIN the teachers/smaller classroom size, than spend oodles of money on netbooks. The students can bring home the netbooks with them too. I wonder who the district contracted with for that one? Which private company made LOTS of money on those netbooks? I don’t remember voting on that one do you?

No need to blame the teachers either, they had nothing to do with it. When we blame the public servants, (firefighters, police, teachers, etc) it is essentially blaming the grunts that actually DO the job. It is the corruption at the top that is really the problem.[/quote]

Fantastic, and very accurate post!

[PatentGuy]

Once of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.

This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.

No, that is not it at all.

This is for the children.

[PatentGuy]

Once of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.

This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.

No, that is not it at all.

This is for the children.

[PatentGuy]

Once of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.

This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.

No, that is not it at all.

This is for the children.

[PatentGuy]

Once of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.

This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.

No, that is not it at all.

This is for the children.

[PatentGuy]

Once of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.

This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.

No, that is not it at all.

This is for the children.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]

Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?

Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?[/quote]

Firefighters take their fire engines to Vons because they are **always on duty** 24/7. There are no breaks of any sort — no lunch breaks, no dinner breaks, no bathroom breaks, etc. If they are in the grocery store (or in the shower, or on the toilet, or eating dinner, etc.) and a call comes in, they have to leave what they are doing and respond to the call. You can’t do that in a private vehicle.
—————-

As for the comparison with military personnel, I personally think military personnel are very much underpaid. If we paid them what they are actually worth, we might think twice about engaging in unnecessary wars around the world (usually for the benefit of private interests, BTW).

Still, military personnel who engage in dangerous jobs do actually get compensated fairly well. They also get other benefits like housing, free medical care, insurance, military discounts (at the PX, for instance) that cops and firefighters don’t get.

That being said, I would NEVER say that our military personnel are overcompensated. They need to make much more.
————–

BTW, can we please stop with the “sitting in the firehouse” and “eating doughnuts/running speed traps” nonsense (BTW, you DO realize that many/most officer fatalities occur during traffic stops, don’t you?). It really shows how ignorant people are about what cops and firefighters really do.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]

Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?

Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?[/quote]

Firefighters take their fire engines to Vons because they are **always on duty** 24/7. There are no breaks of any sort — no lunch breaks, no dinner breaks, no bathroom breaks, etc. If they are in the grocery store (or in the shower, or on the toilet, or eating dinner, etc.) and a call comes in, they have to leave what they are doing and respond to the call. You can’t do that in a private vehicle.
—————-

As for the comparison with military personnel, I personally think military personnel are very much underpaid. If we paid them what they are actually worth, we might think twice about engaging in unnecessary wars around the world (usually for the benefit of private interests, BTW).

Still, military personnel who engage in dangerous jobs do actually get compensated fairly well. They also get other benefits like housing, free medical care, insurance, military discounts (at the PX, for instance) that cops and firefighters don’t get.

That being said, I would NEVER say that our military personnel are overcompensated. They need to make much more.
————–

BTW, can we please stop with the “sitting in the firehouse” and “eating doughnuts/running speed traps” nonsense (BTW, you DO realize that many/most officer fatalities occur during traffic stops, don’t you?). It really shows how ignorant people are about what cops and firefighters really do.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]

Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?

Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?[/quote]

Firefighters take their fire engines to Vons because they are **always on duty** 24/7. There are no breaks of any sort — no lunch breaks, no dinner breaks, no bathroom breaks, etc. If they are in the grocery store (or in the shower, or on the toilet, or eating dinner, etc.) and a call comes in, they have to leave what they are doing and respond to the call. You can’t do that in a private vehicle.
—————-

As for the comparison with military personnel, I personally think military personnel are very much underpaid. If we paid them what they are actually worth, we might think twice about engaging in unnecessary wars around the world (usually for the benefit of private interests, BTW).

Still, military personnel who engage in dangerous jobs do actually get compensated fairly well. They also get other benefits like housing, free medical care, insurance, military discounts (at the PX, for instance) that cops and firefighters don’t get.

That being said, I would NEVER say that our military personnel are overcompensated. They need to make much more.
————–

BTW, can we please stop with the “sitting in the firehouse” and “eating doughnuts/running speed traps” nonsense (BTW, you DO realize that many/most officer fatalities occur during traffic stops, don’t you?). It really shows how ignorant people are about what cops and firefighters really do.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=jpinpb]Just curious, how many of you would be willing to take a 20% cut in your pay? And how many of you risk your lives in your job?[/quote]

Running speed traps is very dangerous. Also sitting in firehouses for 3 days a week watching TV is scary too. BTW, why do firemen take their fire trucks to Vons to go shopping? Why can’t they take private vehicles?

Military careers are dangerous but don’t command near the pay and benefits. Why do Cops and Fireman make more then their counterparts in the military?[/quote]

Firefighters take their fire engines to Vons because they are **always on duty** 24/7. There are no breaks of any sort — no lunch breaks, no dinner breaks, no bathroom breaks, etc. If they are in the grocery store (or in the shower, or on the toilet, or eating dinner, etc.) and a call comes in, they have to leave what they are doing and respond to the call. You can’t do that in a private vehicle.
—————-

As for the comparison with military personnel, I personally think military personnel are very much underpaid. If we paid them what they are actually worth, we might think twice about engaging in unnecessary wars around the world (usually for the benefit of private interests, BTW).

Still, military personnel who engage in dangerous jobs do actually get compensated fairly well. They also get other benefits like housing, free medical care, insurance, military discounts (at the PX, for instance) that cops and firefighters don’t get.

That being said, I would NEVER say that our military personnel are overcompensated. They need to make much more.
————–

BTW, can we please stop with the “sitting in the firehouse” and “eating doughnuts/running speed traps” nonsense (BTW, you DO realize that many/most officer fatalities occur during traffic stops, don’t you?). It really shows how ignorant people are about what cops and firefighters really do.

[Author]

Posts