National Politics and Cops - What's Important? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : National Politics and Cops - What's Important?


RussP
08-13-2011, 15:05
What are the issues we non-LEOs should look for, what are the hot buttons we need to push to identify and elect Representatives, Senators and a President who will benefit Law Enforcement the most?

Yeah, I LOVE to ask questions!! :cool:

Seriously, what's needed.

MeefZah
08-13-2011, 15:29
Everyone has an opinion but I bet no one has an answer.

I've reached the point of total apathy. Who gives a ****? One is the same as the next, all a bunch of self serving *******s who make promises to get elected and then turn their backs on their electorate for four years.

Honeslty, the best candidates to help LE are found at local levels, not state or national.

trdvet
08-13-2011, 15:31
Someone that will put quality people on the bench. The process of selecting Judges and nominating them to the bench is one of the most important things the President does and its effects are felt long after they have left office. I won't get into the political stuff here since we have a forum for that.

RussP
08-13-2011, 15:39
Everyone has an opinion but I bet no one has an answer.

I've reached the point of total apathy. Who gives a ****? One is the same as the next, all a bunch of self serving *******s who make promises to get elected and then turn their backs on their electorate for four years.

Honeslty, the best candidates to help LE are found at local levels, not state or national.Ah, hell, I knew someone was going to say that, BUT, didn't expect it so soon...:cool:

MeefZaw, other than just keeping their promises, what would be one thing at a national level that an elected Representative could do that would influence those local politicians into providing you a better work environment?

RussP
08-13-2011, 15:43
Someone that will put quality people on the bench. The process of selecting Judges and nominating them to the bench is one of the most important things the President does and its effects are felt long after they have left office. I won't get into the political stuff here since we have a forum for that.The discussion of political issues that directly affect Law Enforcement belongs here.

razdog76
08-13-2011, 16:33
I think the biggest problem we face day to day revolves around the judges. Disregarding the law, making it up as they go, and general inconsistency. It seems as though every case going to trial takes at least three court dates. The first is always a continuance because the offender decides it would be a good time to apply for a court appointed attorney, even if it is a slam dunk like a DUS on video.

The only favorable thing I have in my county is that when there is a plea bargain, the charge does not get dropped to lesser included offense.

Perhaps secondly, would be the almost total refusal of agencies to change, even if it means systematic injuries to their employees. For instance, this is demonstrated repeatedly by refusal to address things like updating uniforms to reduce back injury, but any LEO/CO can objectively look at one of their agency, and know that a slight change would be beneficial.

MeefZah
08-13-2011, 17:12
MeefZaw, other than just keeping their promises, what would be one thing at a national level that an elected Representative could do that would influence those local politicians into providing you a better work environment?

At the national level? I do not have an answer to that.

Sam Spade
08-13-2011, 18:30
Secure borders. Support for the citizen's RKBA. That's all that comes to mind; as said, most LE issues are local.

I'd include a commitment to get judicial appointments to the floor, but you just said "Representative".

Cav
08-13-2011, 20:46
Any Republican from the South, will be better than any Democrat from the North, East, or West for all people, and Law Enforcement. But some never get it.

Dukeboy01
08-13-2011, 21:27
Like others have said judicial appointments are the most important issue affecting law enforcement at the national or Federal level. IMO, that means vote for Republicans. I guess border security would be the second most important issue.

The rest gets sorted out (as it should) at the state and local level.

Vigilant
08-13-2011, 21:59
More specifically, vote for Republicans whose last name is not Bush.

Cav
08-13-2011, 22:03
Picking a conservative over a liberal is a big part.

Liberals only want a set agenda for themself, a conservative wants equal treatment for all and are willing to work things out fair.

Liberals will say ban guns. Conservatives will say enforce current laws.

Cav
08-13-2011, 22:07
More specifically, vote for Republicans whose last name is not Bush.

Heck, I would vote for Bush again after this last clown.

I hope it is Obama vs Perry in Nov 2012. Gun rights, jobs, taxes, Law Enforcement, Military, will all get the support and attention they need.

lawman800
08-13-2011, 22:46
Pick someone who will uphold the Constitution. All else will fall into place. Unfortunately, that is no longer something that most politicians can be counted on to do.

ronduke
08-14-2011, 00:56
For how long did various cop groups try to get HR 216 passed? Does anybody think that Obama would have signed this? Bush did.

I believe that one of the longest lasting impacts that a president makes, is who he puts on the U. S. Supreme Court. We have had a number of important cases decided on a 5 to 4 vote.

Off the top of my head, for example, the USSC upheld officers being able to arrest on class c (traffic tickets). They upheld officers being able to chase cars. There are plenty of others, I just can't remember them now. Look at who the democrats put on the USSC and look at how their decisions undermine common sense.

Mayhem like Me
08-14-2011, 07:36
Balance the friggin Budget first above all else, going 4 straight years with no raises, and increasing health insurance costs is killing us.......

Cochese
08-14-2011, 08:02
Rick Perry FTMFW!

siblueg
08-14-2011, 08:56
Can you explain what Rick Perry has to offer? I'm a little unfamiliar with him.

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 09:54
Those of you recommending vote Republican or Democrat based upon only a few issues are giving you uneducated advice.



Truth is you should recognize both parties for being the liars that they are. Each comes with a dose of good and a dose of bad. You need to study each candidate and determine which one you can stomach the longest.


Allow me to explain:
Here in Arizona if you vote Repugnant you will get pro-gun, anti-abortion, and pro-military. They will even claim pro law enforcement. However, I have a hard time calling them pro LE when they are seeking to balance the State budget on our backs. The State Repugnants just passed law that requires me to pay an additional 5% of my salary into the pension while the State and local agencies get to cut 5% from their contributions. Additionally, my health insurance costs are going up (to the tune of $150 more per pay check and we are on a bi-monthly pay system). Did I mention that our salaries have been reduced and our merit increases frozen for the last three years due to the poor economy?


You are also well aware of the Repugnants stance on illegal immigration. In AZ it is a mandate on State and local LE to arrest and book anyone who is an IA. That is all fine and dandy however, when you consider that most if not all LE agencies in AZ have shrunk (mine lost almost 10% of manpower over the last two years, that is to say we have fewer officers to handle the crimes we already have before us) and realize that your community has to pay the fee for investigation, arrest, booking, court fees, and transfer to ICE which in my City is an estimated cost of $1700 per Illegal Alien, it becomes a pretty expensive bill, especially when the alien was only mowing someone’s lawn or putting stucco on a house. I’d be okay with it all if it wasn’t in vain. You see the boarder is not secure. So we go through all that, bearing the financial burden only to have the IA back in your City three weeks later. I compare it to using a bucket to scoop water out your sinking boat without first plugging the hole. You’re still going to sink; you will just be tired when it happens.


On the other side of the coin, the Dipocrates will try to outlaw all your guns (an obvious violation of the Constitution) and legalize all drugs (do I really need to explain the downward spiral of society when that happens). They do want to jack up your taxes every time you turn around which is no fun either. On the bright side, they are pro-labor which if you are in LE you really ought to be pro-labor, because you are in fact labor.

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 10:10
Rick Perry FTMFW!

I prefer Rick Parry.

A for America. A for IowA.

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 10:12
Those of you recommending vote Republican or Democrat based upon only a few issues are giving you uneducated advice.



Truth is you should recognize both parties for being the liars that they are. Each comes with a dose of good and a dose of bad. You need to study each candidate and determine which one you can stomach the longest.


Allow me to explain:
Here in Arizona if you vote Repugnant you will get pro-gun, anti-abortion, and pro-military. They will even claim pro law enforcement. However, I have a hard time calling them pro LE when they are seeking to balance the State budget on our backs. The State Repugnants just passed law that requires me to pay an additional 5% of my salary into the pension while the State and local agencies get to cut 5% from their contributions. Additionally, my health insurance costs are going up (to the tune of $150 more per pay check and we are on a bi-monthly pay system). Did I mention that our salaries have been reduced and our merit increases frozen for the last three years due to the poor economy?


You are also well aware of the Repugnants stance on illegal immigration. In AZ it is a mandate on State and local LE to arrest and book anyone who is an IA. That is all fine and dandy however, when you consider that most if not all LE agencies in AZ have shrunk (mine lost almost 10% of manpower over the last two years, that is to say we have fewer officers to handle the crimes we already have before us) and realize that your community has to pay the fee for investigation, arrest, booking, court fees, and transfer to ICE which in my City is an estimated cost of $1700 per Illegal Alien, it becomes a pretty expensive bill, especially when the alien was only mowing someone’s lawn or putting stucco on a house. I’d be okay with it all if it wasn’t in vain. You see the boarder is not secure. So we go through all that, bearing the financial burden only to have the IA back in your City three weeks later. I compare it to using a bucket to scoop water out your sinking boat without first plugging the hole. You’re still going to sink; you will just be tired when it happens.


On the other side of the coin, the Dipocrates will try to outlaw all your guns (an obvious violation of the Constitution) and legalize all drugs (do I really need to explain the downward spiral of society when that happens). They do want to jack up your taxes every time you turn around which is no fun either. On the bright side, they are pro-labor which if you are in LE you really ought to be pro-labor, because you are in fact labor.


Holy ****, I agree with a political post in CT. :shocked:

merlynusn
08-14-2011, 11:07
I would say the most important issue is judicial appointments. The long lasting decisions affect all LE. I do think most people should identify with a particular candidate as opposed to just voting Democratic or Republican. Both parties have good and bad as Phil said above.

Our current Mayor is a Democrat. He could care less about us and refuses to give us a raise. Needless to say, I won't vote for him again. Same could be said about our current Administration. I won't vote for them because they do politics which I think are wrong (Fast and Furious, not securing the border (TBSing), etc), let alone their judicial appointments (Kagan and Sotomayer).

Getting a budget is very important. Police officers shouldn't be wondering "where is my paycheck coming from?" because they were furloughed because the politicians can't agree on anything. It is not hard to live within your means. I do it every month, why can't the politicians? But because they can't, they don't give us a raise, they increase our benefit costs, and the inflation is going up because they can't figure out that you only spend what you take in. Because of that, it creates a financial hardship on everyone which creates more stress, causes more extra duty work which creates less time away from work, etc. It's all cyclical.

So to recap my long post. First priority would be Judicial appointments and the second priority would be the ability to create a budget that allows all levels of government to live within their means and have a balanced budget.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 11:28
To say that Dems are pro-labor would be like saying the old plantation slave masters are pro-labor. Sure, they want to make sure you can work and provide services, but in the end, you are an expendable part of their power base. They don't care about you, the individual laborer, other than that you pay dues to the union which then gives it to them in the form of labor contributions, and also the bully pulpit where they can count on union votes.

Do you think Dems give a hoot about you, the individual worker? If you had issues which are unrelated to their agenda, you are out of luck. Also, as a cop, you are hated as the enemy of the people's revolution.

SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other union thugs are out there blatantly committing acts bordering on criminal, if not outright criminal, such as harassing corporate executives and their families in public, and also going to their houses to picket and harass them. They promote illegal immigration (for whatever reason I have no idea because it undercuts their own labor base).

One day, you will see how it all comes down. It has already happened I am sure but you don't hear the leftist media cover it, but when a cop has to do his job to arrest an union thug for his acts in the name of the worker, what do you do? Who will be backed by the union bosses? Whose political alliances will hold? What are you supposed to do as an "union" worker? Look the other way because it's one of your union brothers championing the cause for the people?

Don't kid yourself. Police unions are not considered one of theirs. They want the support so they can put you on the list of supporters, but as for the real issues, they don't care about cops and they sure don't care about you.

FOP learned this the hard way when they threw their support to the Dems and then saw their fellow leftist union brothers and sisters in the AFT put out a public statement supporting Mumia. What do you do then? Union in-fighting... wooo... JUICY!

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 11:50
To say that Dems are pro-labor would be like saying the old plantation slave masters are pro-labor. Sure, they want to make sure you can work and provide services, but in the end, you are an expendable part of their power base. They don't care about you, the individual laborer, other than that you pay dues to the union which then gives it to them in the form of labor contributions, and also the bully pulpit where they can count on union votes.

Do you think Dems give a hoot about you, the individual worker? If you had issues which are unrelated to their agenda, you are out of luck. Also, as a cop, you are hated as the enemy of the people's revolution.

SEIU, AFL-CIO, and other union thugs are out there blatantly committing acts bordering on criminal, if not outright criminal, such as harassing corporate executives and their families in public, and also going to their houses to picket and harass them. They promote illegal immigration (for whatever reason I have no idea because it undercuts their own labor base).

One day, you will see how it all comes down. It has already happened I am sure but you don't hear the leftist media cover it, but when a cop has to do his job to arrest an union thug for his acts in the name of the worker, what do you do? Who will be backed by the union bosses? Whose political alliances will hold? What are you supposed to do as an "union" worker? Look the other way because it's one of your union brothers championing the cause for the people?

Don't kid yourself. Police unions are not considered one of theirs. They want the support so they can put you on the list of supporters, but as for the real issues, they don't care about cops and they sure don't care about you.

FOP learned this the hard way when they threw their support to the Dems and then saw their fellow leftist union brothers and sisters in the AFT put out a public statement supporting Mumia. What do you do then? Union in-fighting... wooo... JUICY!


There's the zealotry I come to CT to read! I was worried for a minute.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 12:21
It's the cold, hard truth. Look at the people and associations that trip over themselves to blame cops everytime something happens.

Dems got no love for us.

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 13:18
Dems got no love for us.

And Repugnants do?

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 13:38
It's the cold, hard truth.

No, it's a skewered view of reality.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 14:16
Name the last attack on LE by either group. If you characterize Chris Christie as a Republican attacker, recognize that he attacks unions, not LE. I can't recall direct attacks on LE by conservatives. Damages to LE interests which are in line with Republican principles are not the same thing.

Democrats attack LE directly while claiming to back unions. I'll buy that when they back us as LE, not just another union they can throw on their campaign poster.

Cochese
08-14-2011, 14:23
Can you explain what Rick Perry has to offer? I'm a little unfamiliar with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

I find myself aligning with a majority of his opinions and actions on things related to Texas. He has done a Hell of a job running that state as one of the longest governorships in history. Look at the states economy.

He's also extremely pro-gun (A+ NRA rating)

volsbear
08-14-2011, 14:36
Problem with Rick Perry is that many believe he has run education into the ground in Texas. That won't fly on the national scene.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cochese
08-14-2011, 14:48
Problem with Rick Perry is that many believe he has run education into the ground in Texas. That won't fly on the national scene.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I guess I don't agree with many.

He also increased school funding prior to the 2002 election and created new scholarship programs, including $300million for the Texas GRANT Scholarship Program. [citation needed] Some $9 billion was allocated to Texas public schools, colleges, and universities and combined with a new emphasison accountability for both teachers and students.

Democratic strategists have criticized Perry by pointing to Texas' high aggregated dropoutrate, which is in part explained by Texas' relatively diverse student population. [45] Hispanics, which nationally have double the average dropout rate, [46] comprise nearly half of the student population of Texas. [47] When race and ethnicity are taken into account,however,Texas' dropoutrate is significantly lower than the national average for blacks, hispanics and whites. [48] Texas also does poorly on aggregated SAT scores, another measure that is likely distorted by its high racial gap [49] . For example, Texas is 49th in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and 46th in average math SAT scores (502).

Late in 2005, to maximize the impact of a bipartisan education plan, Perry asked his former rival in the race for lieutenant governor, JohnSharp—a formerTexas StateComptrolleranda member of the Texas Railroad Commission, Texas State Senate and Texas House of Representatives—to head an education task force charged with preparing a bipartisan education plan. Sharp accepted Perry's offer and removed himself as a potentialcandidate for governorin2006.The task force issued its final plan several months later, and the legislature adopted it. [43] Forhis successful efforts, Sharpwas laternominatedbythe Dallas Morning News for the "Texan of the Year"award. [44]

I fail to see how he has run ANYTHING into the ground.

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 15:24
Name the last attack on LE by either group.

Arizona Senate Bill 1609. Republican sponsored bill. Taking $ out of my wallet

lawman800
08-14-2011, 15:31
Arizona Senate Bill 1609. Republican sponsored bill. Taking $ out of my wallet

How does it take money out of your wallet? Because of increasing your contribution to your own retirement or benefits?

Welcome to the real world.

Also, like I said, is it an attack on you, as a law enforcement officer, or something different with an effect on you. Republicans who vote for fiscal responsibility our to cut back government contributions to public employee benefits do not do it out of an anti-LE bias.

To make it easier to differentiate, who said, "the cops acted stupidly" or blame the cops for racism or brutality or enacted laws against us in the criminal arena our made case law against our interests? Generally not the conservatives.

MeefZah
08-14-2011, 16:01
Name the last attack on LE by either group.

SB5 in Ohio, is a direct attack on public sector employees including police, fire, and teachers. It was supported by republicans. The same with Wisconsin's version.


To make it easier to differentiate, who said, "the cops acted stupidly" .


In fact, SB5's main proponent, Gov John Kasich, literally went on the attack against LE, calling an individual officer who wrote him a ticket an "idiot" in a public speech.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 16:30
That's a disjointed presentation. Kasich, first of all, does not have the national prominence of the dem cop haters, having just assumed office this year. He made his comment in january to the EPA regarding a 2008 ticket.

SB5, like all other so-called attacks on cops you guys have presented so far, apply to public sector employees and unions equally. Nobody singled out cops in the legislation. The conservative stance to cut back big government includes reducing the bill for our retirement and benefits. I might not like it, but I don't think it's an attack on me because I'm a LEO either.

When the dems protect unions, it's not you guys they think of. It's the UAW, AFL-CIO, AFT, NEA, SEIU, etc. If the FOP dropped off the face of the earth, they wouldn't loses any sleep because we don't have the clout to bully people to contribute and vote for them.

actionshooter10
08-14-2011, 17:14
Arizona Senate Bill 1609. Republican sponsored bill. Taking $ out of my wallet

I'd be fine with upping my retirement contribution or even upping taxes 10% if it meant our states/country were fiscally sound.

To the OP:

Your question has been answered but I'll hit the high points.

First and foremost is a candidate that will support and abide by the Constitution.

Next, in no particular order,:

Strengthen Border Security and impose signifigant penalties for violating the border.

Balance the Budget

Education Reform (ie. Choices in Public Education)

Cut Entitlements (ie. 6 month limit on unemployment with a lifetime cap of 2 years. 12 month lifetime cap on wellfare. Review the limits for food stamps and strengthen checks and punishments for fraud. Mandatory drug testing every month for any money you receive from the government.)

Encourage personal accountability and discourage dependance on the government.

In short, let's take care of our own house before we worry about others.

Cochese
08-14-2011, 17:17
That's a disjointed presentation. Kasich, first of all, does not have the national prominence of the dem cop haters, having just assumed office this year. He made his comment in january to the EPA regarding a 2008 ticket.

SB5, like all other so-called attacks on cops you guys have presented so far, apply to public sector employees and unions equally. Nobody singled out cops in the legislation. The conservative stance to cut back big government includes reducing the bill for our retirement and benefits. I might not like it, but I don't think it's an attack on me because I'm a LEO either.

When the dems protect unions, it's not you guys they think of. It's the UAW, AFL-CIO, AFT, NEA, SEIU, etc. If the FOP dropped off the face of the earth, they wouldn't loses any sleep because we don't have the clout to bully people to contribute and vote for them.


Probably one of your best posts to date.

Next to suggesting posse comitatus by way of my TBSS. :supergrin:

lawman800
08-14-2011, 17:51
I'm still waiting for you to swing by here to pick me up so we can be a pair of G34 wielding mofos like something out of a bad cop buddy movie.

Cochese
08-14-2011, 17:53
We'll have to take my Audi!

Hollywood D
08-14-2011, 18:10
We'll have to take my Audi!

Saudis in Audis!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJDuZIcQ34

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 18:20
How does it take money out of your wallet? Because of increasing your contribution to your own retirement or benefits?

It not just that I'm required to contribute more, but that they are telling my employer they don't have to contribute what we (my employer and I) both agreed to 15-years ago. I've kept up my end of the bargain, now the Repugnats are telling Cities they don't have to.

Taking money from me is about as personal as a personal attack can be.

To be more clear to you sir, I'm not defending Dipocrates. I'm attacking Repugnants. Big difference.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 18:20
The Audi would be cool. It gives us the certain upscale appearance so we can go to ritzy restaurants.

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 18:23
I'd be fine with upping my retirement contribution or even upping taxes 10% if it meant our states/country were fiscally sound.

Agreed. But to be cliche, if history is an indicator of future performance, the government will take my money, blow it, and then come back for more.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 18:27
It not just that I'm required to contribute more, but that they are telling my employer they don't have to contribute what we (my employer and I) both agreed to 15-years ago. I've kept up my end of the bargain, now the Repugnats are telling Cities they don't have to.

Taking money from me is about as personal as a personal attack can be.

To be more clear to you sir, I'm not defending Dipocrates. I'm attacking Repugnants. Big difference.

Believe me, I'm as conflicted as I can be because I am on the other side of the table negotiating things which can affect me as well. Many cities here have the same clause that the employer pays for the employee's contribution to retirement.

Yes, it was agreed to, but thanks to the recent Bell scandal, these types of agreements came under intense scrutiny as to the propriety of using public funds to pay for private retirement accounts. The employer's contribution is one thing, but the employee should be paying for their own contribution. If not, it becomes taxable, even though it is not taxable when you pay for it. That's how tax law works.

So if the courts or legislature later decide that employers cannot pay for employee contributions, then it doesn't matter if you have a contract to the contrary since you cannot contract to break the law.

ArizonaPhil
08-14-2011, 18:32
Believe me, I'm as conflicted as I can be because I am on the other side of the table negotiating things which can affect me as well. Many cities here have the same clause that the employer pays for the employee's contribution to retirement.

Yes, it was agreed to, but thanks to the recent Bell scandal, these types of agreements came under intense scrutiny as to the propriety of using public funds to pay for private retirement accounts. The employer's contribution is one thing, but the employee should be paying for their own contribution. If not, it becomes taxable, even though it is not taxable when you pay for it. That's how tax law works.

So if the courts or legislature later decide that employers cannot pay for employee contributions, then it doesn't matter if you have a contract to the contrary since you cannot contract to break the law.

I've been paying 7.65% toward my pension for 15-years. Now the Repubs say I need to pay in the 11-13% range. My City was paying 11+% and they are going down to 8+%.

lawman800
08-14-2011, 18:43
That also depends on your state and how the defined pension plan is set up. In CA, the rates are set as 7% from employees and anywhere from 9% to 20% our do depending on which plan you are on. Various unions negotiated for the employer to also pay their 7% which in effect becomes income, and not pre-tax deductions.

Cochese
08-14-2011, 19:38
Saudis in Audis!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJDuZIcQ34

:rofl:

Narkcop
08-15-2011, 04:12
Vote Republican. Most want to do this---
Cut Entitlements (ie. 6 month limit on unemployment with a lifetime cap of 2 years. 12 month lifetime cap on wellfare. Review the limits for food stamps and strengthen checks and punishments for fraud. Mandatory drug testing every month for any money you receive from the government.)

Democrats see our retirement fund as an entitlement to be played with. We all worked for our retirement it is not something given to us.

Agent6-3/8
08-15-2011, 07:57
Vote Republican. Most want to do this---
Cut Entitlements (ie. 6 month limit on unemployment with a lifetime cap of 2 years. 12 month lifetime cap on wellfare. Review the limits for food stamps and strengthen checks and punishments for fraud. Mandatory drug testing every month for any money you receive from the government.)

Democrats see our retirement fund as an entitlement to be played with. We all worked for our retirement it is not something given to us.


Man, I'd love to see this. Especially drug testing to recieve welfare. That would cause a ****strom of epic proportions around here since we have such a large "welfare population."

lawman800
08-15-2011, 09:36
Drug testing for welfare, along with strict limitations on how it can be used, no more cash out option on the EBT, must account for every dime spent, no alcohol, no smoking, no procreating, no sitting around doing nothing.

IOW:

Welfare recipients must turn in receipts for every dollar spent
Only approved items can be purchased on the EBT card, other transactions will be rejected
Drug test for all substances, including nicotine and alcohol
No pregnancy or new children allowed
Must complete 5 job applications a day and work at handout center sweeping or dusting
No cable tv, no playstation, no cell phone, no rims on da g-ride, no luxuries
Welfare amount cut back drastically to minimal levels for bare necessities
Monthly issuance of 5 pound blocks of gub'ment cheese and big loaf of bread for food
All government housing temperature controlled 68 in winter, 75 in summer
Government housing must be cleaned and maintained by recipient

Extra manpower and bureaucracy required for the above is easily paid for with the savings from cutting back the existing welfare program so it's zero cost to the taxpayer. I don't care if there's no immediate savings, but over time, expenditures will start dwindling as people realize welfare sucks.

You want steak? Get a job! You want to have unprotected sex and get pregnant or diseased? Get a job! You want a big tv and cable? Get a job! You want to drink and smoke? Get a job! You want to live like a slob and play with a thermostat? Get a job!

merlynusn
08-15-2011, 10:23
It not just that I'm required to contribute more, but that they are telling my employer they don't have to contribute what we (my employer and I) both agreed to 15-years ago. I've kept up my end of the bargain, now the Repugnats are telling Cities they don't have to.

Taking money from me is about as personal as a personal attack can be.

To be more clear to you sir, I'm not defending Dipocrates. I'm attacking Repugnants. Big difference.

See, I'm in the other boat. We are required to pay 6% of our pay into the pension, matched with 6% by the city. The 401k is also contributed at 5% per state law by the city and I can contribute however much I want to it.

But the city is reneging on what they say by not providing step/merit increases or COLA increases. Unfortunately since NC is a right to work state, there is no actual written contract. (though for some reason, in every other aspect and part of this state, a verbal agreement is a contract, but not with us). But they are increasing our insurance premiums, cutting providing insurance and making us pay for it (against our hiring agreement), etc. So the Democrats in office are taking more money from my pocket for no actual reason other than they want to keep the money for themselves (the city is more financially sound now than it was 5 years ago).

If the state mandated that I had to put more money into my retirement, I'd be pissed in the short term because yes, when you aren't getting raises, every pay cut hurts really bad. But you are still going to recoup that money later on. I don't consider it an attack on law enforcement, but instead an attack on all public sector employees because our greedy politicians want to keep the money saved for themselves. But I don't trust the state to not screw with the pension, which is why I put money into my own 401k and not the city's 401k. I want control of my money and I don't want the city to have control of it.

volsbear
08-15-2011, 11:18
Drug testing for welfare, along with strict limitations on how it can be used, no more cash out option on the EBT, must account for every dime spent, no alcohol, no smoking, no procreating, no sitting around doing nothing.

IOW:

Welfare recipients must turn in receipts for every dollar spent
Only approved items can be purchased on the EBT card, other transactions will be rejected
Drug test for all substances, including nicotine and alcohol
No pregnancy or new children allowed
Must complete 5 job applications a day and work at handout center sweeping or dusting
No cable tv, no playstation, no cell phone, no rims on da g-ride, no luxuries
Welfare amount cut back drastically to minimal levels for bare necessities
Monthly issuance of 5 pound blocks of gub'ment cheese and big loaf of bread for food
All government housing temperature controlled 68 in winter, 75 in summer
Government housing must be cleaned and maintained by recipient

Extra manpower and bureaucracy required for the above is easily paid for with the savings from cutting back the existing welfare program so it's zero cost to the taxpayer. I don't care if there's no immediate savings, but over time, expenditures will start dwindling as people realize welfare sucks.

You want steak? Get a job! You want to have unprotected sex and get pregnant or diseased? Get a job! You want a big tv and cable? Get a job! You want to drink and smoke? Get a job! You want to live like a slob and play with a thermostat? Get a job!

I'll go one further...

Going into offender's homes regularly, I am constantly offended by the people who are drawing enormous welfare subsidies, but live in environments better than my own home which is supported by two college graduates. By and large, this is because while baby mama is unemployed (and virtually unemployable) and qualifies for aid, baby daddy IS employed and does okay given his education.

In my world, every welfare application comes with a completed paternity test. Once paternity is established, baby daddy's finances are evalauted along with baby mama. If baby mama qualifies for aid, the amount of that aid gets deducted and garnished from baby daddy's paycheck (or at least a percentage of it).

As much of a stick in the mud as I can be, I really don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to help a truly needy, motivated individual who has children to raise. My beef is that many of the children involved have fathers who DO work and do virtually nothing to support their children. And this is allowed to happen simply because they were smart enough not to get married.

lawman800
08-15-2011, 12:17
I have no problem helping those in need, as long as it is the minimum to sustain life. There's no reason to give these people more than what working people get it what our soldiers get. You can live on gub'ment bread and cheese and milk. You want any luxury above minimal levels of subsistence? Get a job!