"2nd Most Dangerous City In America" Lays Off Half Of Police/Fire Forces

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Some cities such as Jersey City have had a lot of re-development and rising property values in certain neighborhoods: with young professionals moving in who are of races and ethnicies you would not normally associate with big cities.

With reduced policing, and the more errrr, "typical" inner city residents start crawling back out of their ghettos to commit crimes, will we see a new "White Flight"?
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Well - At the risk of being indelicate: Anyone who had the means/ability to leave Camden did so a long time ago. The entire city is a ghetto.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Once again: YOU are the only one talking about small government being the goal here. Therefore:

Choice (1) Prove it's about "Small Government"

Choice (2) Prove Yourself To Be a Lying Sack of Shit


One or the other, buddy

Choice (3), and the only correct one, Prove you to be a dumb sack of shit.

You are focused on what "it's about" not what it actually IS, which is smaller government and the beast being starved. We are about to see the effects of smaller government in Camden NJ. You cannot deny that 25% cut in city government employment is smaller government. Now before we try small government and starving the beast on federal level, we can see what the effects are going to be on local level first.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
:thumbsup: At least you are consistent, unlike other "small government" proponents here.

The only one talking about "small government" is you... :rolleyes:

Choice (3), and the only correct one, Prove you to be a dumb sack of shit.

You are focused on what "it's about" not what it actually IS, which is smaller government and the beast being starved. We are about to see the effects of smaller government in Camden NJ. You cannot deny that 25% cut in city government employment is smaller government. Now before we try small government and starving the beast on federal level, we can see what the effects are going to be on local level first.


*sigh* I am focussed on what it's about, because YOU said that's what it's about. Of course, you then changed your mind later becuse your position was indefensible.


So - Thank you for showing us what a lying shack of shit you really are.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
*sigh* I am focussed on what it's about, because YOU said that's what it's about. Of course, you then changed your mind later becuse your position was indefensible.


So - Thank you for showing us what a lying shack of shit you really are.

What it's about is subjective. What it is is not. They are cutting government by 25%
We are going to see Camden NJ forced to implement policies that the "small government" conservatives want to voluntarily inflict on the whole of American people. I suggest we all pay attention to what happens there.

Thanks for showing us that
No small government is right for the "small government" right.

It's another one of your right wing fairy tales that you think works in theory, but you don't want to face the real consequences of in practice.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Again: The Small Government movement (which is the strawman topic that YOU brought up) as about minimal government intervention into individual freedoms and business dealings. It is *NOT* about cutting the police forces in a city because it ran out of money.

*Nobody* - Neither Left nor Right - in this thread was cheering because of these cuts.

The entire deal is a line of delusional partisan bullshit that YOU created.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Again: The Small Government movement (which is the strawman topic that YOU brought up) as about minimal government intervention into individual freedoms and business dealings. It is *NOT* about cutting the police forces in a city because it ran out of money.

*Nobody* - Neither Left nor Right - in this thread was cheering because of these cuts.

The entire deal is a line of delusional partisan bullshit that YOU created.

This is "starve the beast." Revenue shortfall forcing the government to cut spending.
The difference is that in Camden NJ it's an involuntary revenue shortfall, while conservatives want to deliberately induce one by cutting tax rates at the federal level. What I am saying is we should pay very careful attention to how involuntary starving of the beast works out in Camden before we do something as stupid as voluntarily subjecting the whole country to it.
What conservatives are saying is, where are our running shoes, we need to run as far away from the real life consequences of "starve the beast" as we can. :D
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Sorry - Your point is a Non~Sequitur: Cutting Police is not on the agenda for 'Small Government' conservatives. Therefore what is happening in Camden can not serve as an example of what Small Government Conservatives want.

And, once again, being a Small Government Conservative is not something that anyone in this thread claimed to be in the first place.

The entire line of discussion is a delusional line of partisan bullshit that you created.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Sorry - Your point is a Non~Sequitur: Cutting Police is not on the agenda for 'Small Government' conservatives.

Which, once again, is not something that anyone in this thread claimed to be in the first place.

Inducing a revenue shortfall to force government cuts is on agenda of "small government" conservatives. That is the essence of "starve the beast." There is nothing in it that specifies which parts of the beast to starve. Both Bush and Reagan tax cuts were completely decoupled from specific spending cuts.
Man, you must be getting great exercise running away from "small government" positions.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
*sigh*


It's not running from small government positions when you're not a small governmnent advocate. Another strawman accusation.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
*sigh*


It's not running from small government positions when you're not a small governmnent advocate. Another strawman accusation.

stretch%20before%201.gif


Very important or you will be sore.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
Yeahh - Keep beating that strawman...


So - Do you have anything to contribute besides more Trolling?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Yeahh - Keep beating that strawman...


So - Do you have anything to contribute besides more Trolling?

You don't actually expect anything honest to come out of one of the biggest partisan hacks on this sites mouths do you?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
You must remember the only shrinkage in government that "small government" conservatives are for, is the reduction of help for the poor and lower middle class & seniors...Like education, welfare, medicare, social security, etc.

They need the defense (police, military) to keep their rich asses safe from the angry poor folks.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Well - At the risk of being indelicate: Anyone who had the means/ability to leave Camden did so a long time ago. The entire city is a ghetto.

You're not being indelicate. Nobody gives a shit about Camden and its black residents, most of all politicians. The residents will vote Democratic no matter what, so putting state tax monies into the city is stupid - why shovel more good money after bad into a money pit of a city who won't vote for you regardless?

And for those complaining about the cut in funding from the state, what would you be spending the money on anyway? Schools? The high school graduation rate in Camden is 40%. Law enforcement? The city has been the top city for crime (or in the top handful) for living memory. Pray tell, what exactly has all the spending in Camden done to improve things? If this is improvement, I'd hate to see how things would be if you devoted yourself to making it worse. If anything, we should reduce spending in the city and see what the effects are; if things remain the same (or at least don't go to hell any more than they already do) then IMHO it's immoral to keep spending tax money on the city when it's not helping things. If anything, it only seems to lead to corruption (see most of the aid we've given to African countries over the years).
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Why does a local gov't have to rely on a state gov't for support? The local gov't has its own budget. If it can't meet that budget, it needs to cut. Why does everyone have to keep getting bailed out for poor planning? Cutting the police force is one step. They also cut other jobs from what I understand. Was it in their budget to count on state aid?

If they don't want to cut jobs and spending, then raise taxes. However, I am sure it will lead to the producers leaving the city and then the city is left only with the takers. But that's for another topic.

More of hte usual astounding rightie lameness.

Who do you think collects the rents paid in Camden?

The people living in the burbs, of course.

Who exploits the cheap labor provided by Camden residents?

The same people.

Camden and other places like it are what the financial elite want to make all of the US into- places to collect rent and mortgage payments from people so hopelessly upside down that they'd be better off paying rent. Places to sell liquor, dope, and chinese trinkets.

Yep- they're going into the belly of the beast, and you think it's all their own fault. Guess what? You're next.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,921
5,544
136
Ditto, watch the beast starving and reach your own conclusions.

This has absolutely nothing to do with with smaller government. It's all about making the very worst out of a bad situation. If the city government was concerned about public health and safety the police would be the last to go. What they're doing is grandstanding, making the situation as bad as it can be so the state will be forced to cover the shortfall. The one thing that won't ever be considered is finding a way to provide basic necessity's with the available money.
The same scenario will be played out again and again as more city's find they unable to meet their commitments. The fundamental problem most of them are running into is retirement benefits. They've been handing out sweetheart deals for a lot of years, now they find they can't afford to pay an entire workforce to stay home for twenty or thirty years. Big surprise. A small city near me went through this a couple years back. 85% of the city's revenue was being paid out in retirement benefits, the situation was unsustainable and the city declared bankruptcy. I expect this is going to happen again and again across the country, and I also expect that no long term solution will developed, other than tax increases.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This has absolutely nothing to do with with smaller government. It's all about making the very worst out of a bad situation. If the city government was concerned about public health and safety the police would be the last to go. What they're doing is grandstanding, making the situation as bad as it can be so the state will be forced to cover the shortfall. The one thing that won't ever be considered is finding a way to provide basic necessity's with the available money.
The same scenario will be played out again and again as more city's find they unable to meet their commitments. The fundamental problem most of them are running into is retirement benefits. They've been handing out sweetheart deals for a lot of years, now they find they can't afford to pay an entire workforce to stay home for twenty or thirty years. Big surprise. A small city near me went through this a couple years back. 85% of the city's revenue was being paid out in retirement benefits, the situation was unsustainable and the city declared bankruptcy. I expect this is going to happen again and again across the country, and I also expect that no long term solution will developed, other than tax increases.

You are making facts up to fit an accusation you are making up. We see this way too much.

The numbers do not support your attack.

Now, I'm one who has said that the nature of power means that 'the people' will get their interests cut before those in power.

All the right-wing ranting and raving about the need to cut this and that 'waste' tends to do little more than cut the BEST spending, leaving the worst in place.

But 'starve the beast' doesn't cut the good spending just for that reason - it forces good spending cuts.

I haven't seen any numbers suggesting Camden is doing anything like you suggest, cutting the police 'first' for political effect.

Rather, it appears you are just being an apologist for the bad policy, blaming the people who are suffering the effects of far larger policies forcing cuts.

Don't pay attention to the corrupt most wealth in the nation and their policies shifting wealth to the top - instead, make up attacks against the city, and make up the facts!

That's not the way to discuss the issue, but it's common.

We will see a lot more of this - but because of the larger problems, not because of cities 'cutting cops first for effect'. But keep on blaming the cities fiddling, while they burn.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Nobody gives a shit about Camden and its black residents, most of all politicians. The residents will vote Democratic no matter what, so putting state tax monies into the city is stupid - why shovel more good money after bad into a money pit of a city who won't vote for you regardless?

And there we have a nominee for the immoral asshole policy of the day post. You have no responsibility as an elected official to those who don't vote for you!

And for those complaining about the cut in funding from the state, what would you be spending the money on anyway? Schools? The high school graduation rate in Camden is 40%. Law enforcement? The city has been the top city for crime (or in the top handful) for living memory. Pray tell, what exactly has all the spending in Camden done to improve things? If this is improvement, I'd hate to see how things would be if you devoted yourself to making it worse. If anything, we should reduce spending in the city and see what the effects are; if things remain the same (or at least don't go to hell any more than they already do) then IMHO it's immoral to keep spending tax money on the city when it's not helping things. If anything, it only seems to lead to corruption (see most of the aid we've given to African countries over the years).

And a pile of steaming ignorance.

Hey, they have a lot of sick people. Let's cut their hospitals, obviously they don't help!

If there's corruption, fix the corruption, don't cut needed services as a 'fix'.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
You are making facts up to fit an accusation you are making up. We see this way too much.

The numbers do not support your attack.

Now, I'm one who has said that the nature of power means that 'the people' will get their interests cut before those in power.

All the right-wing ranting and raving about the need to cut this and that 'waste' tends to do little more than cut the BEST spending, leaving the worst in place.

I'm sorry Craig: the Lies and Strawman arguments in this thread have been yours and Senseamp's. I could see where you might have some justification to make these accusations if it were a Republican run state. But New Jersey is not run by the Republican party. The City of Camden, County Government, State Assembly, State Senate, (the Governor is a republican), (Federal) Congressman, (Federal) Senators, and the President are all Democrats. There is a (D) at nearly every level. And they have been for years. NONE of you have shown the slightest bit of proof of this delusion of a right wing scheme. NONE of you have! Not one article. Not one paper. Not a single scrap of anything to back your accusations.

Since there are DEMOCRATS at every level, then wouldn't it be the case where DEMOCRATS have therefore turned their backs on their loyal constituents? After all, DEMOCRATS approved the budget - UNANIMOUSLY. Therefore wouldn't it be the case that DEMOCRATS have done "little more than cut the BEST spending, leaving the worst in place"?? Wouldn't it be a case where the DEMOCRATS have FAILED to protect the people who keep them in office?? Isn't it clearly the case that DEMOCRATS caused the problem??

If there's corruption, fix the corruption, don't cut needed services as a 'fix'.

DEMOCRATS approved the budget - UNANIMOUSLY


SHOW ME where this is some right wing scheme!


Cos the numbers clearly support my attack.
 
Last edited: