Omaha Forums

I could probably do that.  I would need to bring it to work because of its size.

Thanks Brad.

Group: Using sheriff would save

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100809/N ... would-save

Matt Wynn. OWH wrote:A group of Omaha business people on Monday announced a plan it says could save the city up to $7 million per year.

Almost half of that amount could be saved by handing off law enforcement duties in west Omaha to the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, said a spokesman for Omaha Alliance for the Private Sector, Dave Nabity.

Matt Wynn, OWH wrote:According to the group’s plan, the city could eliminate police positions by outsourcing the areas west and north of Interstate 680 to the sheriff’s department. Savings also would occur because sheriff’s deputies are paid less than police officers, according to the group.

Haven't some cities like completely eliminated the police force having the Sheriff's office handle it all?[/u]

Brad wrote:Haven't some cities like completely eliminated the police force having the Sheriff's office handle it all?

Some small cities and towns have done it. It's fairly popular here in Florida where you have lots of small and medium sized cities within the county. It's not anything that could realistically happen in Omaha though. If anything, we'll likely go the Denver route of having the city police handle everything except the jail and process serving...if/when Omaha and Douglas County consolidate.

Just saw some ad on TV the other night where officers were complaining that they'd have to work til they were a whopping 59 before they could collect their full pension, and that this was somehow a bad thing. Oh noes, the horrors of working until you're 59!!

OmahaBen wrote:Just saw some ad on TV the other night where officers were complaining that they'd have to work til they were a whopping 59 before they could collect their full pension, and that this was somehow a bad thing. Oh noes, the horrors of working until you're 59!!

try chasing someone down at the age of 60 and tell me how that goes...

"2Adam36, 10-8 code 12, I've broken a hip."


for those of you that want some proof of the Police in action keeping you safe, here's the recently released video of the police chase from Tuesday.

2Adam29 wrote:

OmahaBen wrote:Just saw some ad on TV the other night where officers were complaining that they'd have to work til they were a whopping 59 before they could collect their full pension, and that this was somehow a bad thing. Oh noes, the horrors of working until you're 59!!

try chasing someone down at the age of 60 and tell me how that goes...

"2Adam36, 10-8 code 12, I've broken a hip."


for those of you that want some proof of the Police in action keeping you safe, here's the recently released video of the police chase from Tuesday.

Yeah...like there aren't jobs they can push the "elderly" cops into, like school resource officers, manning the intake desk, etc. If you're still working the street beat at that age, you probably aren't that great of a cop to begin with.

OmahaBen wrote:Yeah...like there aren't jobs they can push the "elderly" cops into, like school resource officers, manning the intake desk, etc. If you're still working the street beat at that age, you probably aren't that great of a cop to begin with.

Those positions are rather limited though. Oh, and working the "street beat" is not at all a reflection of how good of a cop someone is. Many cops prefer to stay in that role through their whole careers.

As "street beat" as it gets are undercover narcotics officers, and they sure as |expletive| aren't newbies...

Bosco55David wrote:

OmahaBen wrote:Yeah...like there aren't jobs they can push the "elderly" cops into, like school resource officers, manning the intake desk, etc. If you're still working the street beat at that age, you probably aren't that great of a cop to begin with.

Those positions are rather limited though. Oh, and working the "street beat" is not at all a reflection of how good of a cop someone is. Many cops prefer to stay in that role through their whole careers.

Oh, so if you are incapable of performing your job, we should just let you retire early and draw a pension for life.  Maybe I can try that on my boss - "Sorry, I can't perform my job that well, why don't you just let me hang out at home for the rest of life and you can continue to pay me that whole time."

joeglow wrote:Oh, so if you are incapable of performing your job, we should just let you retire early and draw a pension for life.  Maybe I can try that on my boss - "Sorry, I can't perform my job that well, why don't you just let me hang out at home for the rest of life and you can continue to pay me that whole time."

Who is incapable of performing their job?

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:Oh, so if you are incapable of performing your job, we should just let you retire early and draw a pension for life.  Maybe I can try that on my boss - "Sorry, I can't perform my job that well, why don't you just let me hang out at home for the rest of life and you can continue to pay me that whole time."

Who is incapable of performing their job?

I say no one and they should have to work until 60 or 65 before retiring.

Or at LEAST before they begin collecting their pension (if they MUST continue to receive on at all).

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:Oh, so if you are incapable of performing your job, we should just let you retire early and draw a pension for life.  Maybe I can try that on my boss - "Sorry, I can't perform my job that well, why don't you just let me hang out at home for the rest of life and you can continue to pay me that whole time."

Who is incapable of performing their job?

I say no one and they should have to work until 60 or 65 before retiring.

Exactly.  

There's no reason for them to retire before they're 50 - especially when said retirement costs the City of Omaha hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

Anyone see their new commercial?  If shows a bunch of police officers stating when they can get their full pension.  Most are in their 50's, with the last lady saying she would qualify at 62.  2 MAJOR problems with this ad:

1.  You don't tell me when the employees speaking started working for the force.  If this gal started at 42, then you are damn right I would not expect to be able to qualify for a full pension until at least 62 under the crappiest  of contracts for the taxpayers.

2. If you want us to believe these are all people who started working for the force when they were in their 20's, then you are ignorantly proving my point:  NO ONE should able to draw a pension until 62 without steep discounts..

To add further insult... these guys go off and take second jobs... effectively doubling their income.

Stargazer wrote:To add further insult... these guys go off and take second jobs... effectively doubling their income.

Honestly, I really don't care what anybody does after he/she retires.  And I don't even care when somebody retires.  But my tax dollars going to pay a 47-year old almost $90,000 per year for life is just absurd.

joeglow wrote:Because others have a track record of it.

Excellent logic.

As a side note, THIS is what I hate about politics.  People have no convictions.  They are willing to sell out any beliefs they may have, so long as it is to support their party.  You have people who claim political contributions have to impact when it supports their position, and yet, when Bush goes to war, these same people yell and shout that he is supported by big oil.  The simple fact is that these things DO matter in almost all cases.

joeglow wrote:The simple fact is that these things DO matter in almost all cases.

Yeah, I think we see how you work that filter.

"If it agrees with my stance, it matters."

Am I reading this right? Is it in question that any organization or lobbying effort will donate funds regardless of party so as long as what ever "it" is, benefits their cause?

Of course they do, it happens everywhere in this country on a daily basis. Kind of like how Obama makes all these sneaky little oil deals while Bush was considered the "oil man." If a deal can ultimately further one's agenda in American politics, they'll cut the deal, plain and simple.

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:The simple fact is that these things DO matter in almost all cases.

Yeah, I think we see how you work that filter.

"If it agrees with my stance, it matters."

Nice deflection.  I never said that.  I hate corruption when anybody does it.  

That said, this all comes down to a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT - these pensions WILL bankrupt our city.  I like how you ignored the article I posted above, but it is happening in cities all over the country.  And yet, those who benefit from it continue to try and screw people over and those incapable of putting common sense ahead of politics line up like lemmings to support their leader.

joeglow wrote:Nice deflection.  I never said that.  I hate corruption when anybody does it.

Yet you equate union contributions to corruption but excuse it when Stothert does it.

Gotcha.   

That said, this all comes down to a VERY SIMPLE CONCEPT - these pensions WILL bankrupt our city.  I like how you ignored the article I posted above, but it is happening in cities all over the country.  And yet, those who benefit from it continue to try and screw people over and those incapable of putting common sense ahead of politics line up like lemmings to support their leader.

What article?

I apologize.  It was in a different thread that appears to have been deleted.  Basically, it was an article showing how government pensions are bankrupting cities all over the country and is only going to get worse.  It also explicitly mentioned how police and fire are among the worst because when their viability is analyzed, the consistent response is "you want people to die."

I'm just guessing here, but it is the same piece from the Star Telegram a couple weeks ago? That one has been making the rounds on the blogosphere and has pretty much been discredited.

Looks like even this contract is not good enough for many of our officers:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/101353609.html

Lets see if the corrupt union votes against it.

joeglow wrote:Looks like even this contract is not good enough for many of our officers:

Just curious, but since when does one Lieutenant writing a letter equate to "many of our officers"?

Lets see if the corrupt union votes against it.

Calling someone (or an organization) corrupt is a pretty serious claim there. You should seriously watch that, because that |expletive| gets people on the business end of slander and libel lawsuits. Granted the police union isn't going to bother, but someone else might.

Just a heads up.

Calling someone (or an organization) corrupt is a pretty serious claim there.

yeah right.

At least in his letter this officer admits there has been 'blantant abuse" of the current pension plan with the spiking and over time hours.

I find it ridiculous that two of the biggest budget issues are Police and Fire contracts, however we do not require our Police and Fire personnel to live in Omaha.  How can we expect them to care about our budget when it doesn't effect them.  Way too many of our personnel live outside the city.  Its time for Omaha to enact a residency policy.

Very few metropolitan police departments have residency requirements.

joeglow wrote:Looks like even this contract is not good enough for many of our officers:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/101353609.html

Lets see if the corrupt union votes against it.

The "corrupt union" passed it with 82% voting in favor of it.

Mr.Nuke wrote:

joeglow wrote:Looks like even this contract is not good enough for many of our officers:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/101353609.html

Lets see if the corrupt union votes against it.

The "corrupt union" passed it with 82% voting in favor of it.

That's much higher than the last contract that didn't have nearly as many concessions in it. That contract only passed the union membership by about a 60/40 split IIRC.

I think the "they just want to rape the taxpayers!" crowd can now take a real healthy dose of STFU.  :mrgreen:

Bosco55David wrote:

Mr.Nuke wrote:

joeglow wrote:Looks like even this contract is not good enough for many of our officers:

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/101353609.html

Lets see if the corrupt union votes against it.

The "corrupt union" passed it with 82% voting in favor of it.

That's much higher than the last contract that didn't have nearly as many concessions in it. That contract only passed the union membership by about a 60/40 split IIRC.

I think the "they just want to rape the taxpayers!" crowd can now take a real healthy dose of STFU.  :mrgreen:

HAHAHAHAHA!  You honestly believe that?  Great, they were willing to play "just the tip" with the raping and we should be happy?

I don't know what to tell ya buddy. I've seen you make several references to the fact that you don't make very much money and apparently live on very small budget, so I don't think it's hard to see where your problem with a well compensated and well paid profession comes from.

I guess you're just going to have to live with it. That, or you could always throw your hat in the ring for the next hiring process.

Bosco55David wrote:I don't know what to tell ya buddy. I've seen you make several references to the fact that you don't make very much money and apparently live on very small budget, so I don't think it's hard to see where your problem with a well compensated and well paid profession comes from.

I guess you're just going to have to live with it. That, or you could always throw your hat in the ring for the next hiring process.

Bosco55David wrote:I don't know what to tell ya buddy. I've seen you make several references to the fact that you don't make very much money and apparently live on very small budget, so I don't think it's hard to see where your problem with a well compensated and well paid profession comes from.

I guess you're just going to have to live with it. That, or you could always throw your hat in the ring for the next hiring process.

Glad to know how much you pay attention.  I do better than the police.  However, that is because I busted my |expletive| for 4 years at a college prep school, picked an in demand profession, worked full time (plus 80-100 hours during all breaks) for 5 years in college to pay my own way and passed the CPA exam within a year of getting my Masters.  

That said, that has nothing to do with this.  It has everything to do with me putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to CLEARLY see that the current contracts you see all over the country are flat out NOT sustainable.  It is me putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to see the ruin traditional pensions have wrought on private companies that did not move away from pensions to traditional 401(k)'s.  The ONLY reason you still see them in government is because government, by its very nature, is inefficient and sees itself has having an unlimited supply of money.  Sadly, those in the police/fire profession REFUSE to look at the facts, as they want to "get theirs," even if it means screwing over the entire city/state in the process.  I have an obligation, as a citizen, to stand up and call out their clearly corrupt behavior.  And I invite ANY of these tool sheds to try and sue me over this.

joeglow wrote:
That said, that has nothing to do with this.  It has everything to do with me putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to CLEARLY see that the current contracts you see all over the country are flat out NOT sustainable.  It is be putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to see the ruin traditional pensions have wrought on private companies that did not move away from pensions to traditional 401(k)'s.  The ONLY reason you still see them in government is because government, by its very nature, is inefficient and sees itself has having an unlimited supply of money.  Sadly, those in the police/fire profession REFUSE to look at the facts, as they want to "get theirs," even if it means screwing over the entire city/state in the process.  I have an obligation, as a citizen, to stand up and call out their clear corrupt behavior.  And I invite ANY of these tool sheds to try and sue me over this.

Well said. +1

joeglow wrote:Glad to know how much you pay attention.  I do better than the police.  However, that is because I busted my |expletive| for 4 years at a college prep school, picked an in demand profession, worked full time (plus 80-100 hours during all breaks) for 5 years in college to pay my own way and passed the CPA exam within a year of getting my Masters.

Granted I might be mistaken here, and I'm too lazy to dig through 2000+ posts to try finding it, but I'm fairly certain it was you that made several references to not being able to afford shopping anywhere besides Walmart.

If I'm mistaken, my apologies.

That said, that has nothing to do with this.  It has everything to do with me putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to CLEARLY see that the current contracts you see all over the country are flat out NOT sustainable.  It is me putting my financial knowledge to work and being able to see the ruin traditional pensions have wrought on private companies that did not move away from pensions to traditional 401(k)'s.  The ONLY reason you still see them in government is because government, by its very nature, is inefficient and sees itself has having an unlimited supply of money.  Sadly, those in the police/fire profession REFUSE to look at the facts, as they want to "get theirs," even if it means screwing over the entire city/state in the process.  I have an obligation, as a citizen, to stand up and call out their clearly corrupt behavior.  And I invite ANY of these tool sheds to try and sue me over this.

I'm not going to bother pointing out all of the inaccuracies in this, but do me a favor. Tell me where you went to school so I can make sure none of my family member EVER go there.

Thanks.

Bosco55David wrote:
I'm not going to bother pointing out all of the inaccuracies in this, but do me a favor. Tell me where you went to school so I can make sure none of my family member EVER go there.

Thanks.

Ahhh.  Ad hominem.  A clear sign someone has great points.  

However, I do love the non-financial worker telling me all about finances.

joeglow wrote: Ahhh.  Ad hominem.  A clear sign someone has great points.  

However, I do love the non-financial worker telling me all about finances.

Not quite Joe. Attacking you would have been an ad hominem. I'm attacking whatever school allowed you to hold such fundamentally flawed viewpoints. Although to be fair to your alma mater, your staunchly conservative, teabag party sympathizing viewpoints were probably well formed before you even saw the inside of a college classroom. Also while I respect your profession, let's be honest here, you're an accountant, not an economist.

Either way, the issue has been settled for now and it's pretty clear you have absolutely no interest in considering viewpoints other than your own, so it's really not worth my time to keep debating the issue. Guess we'll see what happens in a few years.

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote: Ahhh.  Ad hominem.  A clear sign someone has great points.  

However, I do love the non-financial worker telling me all about finances.

Not quite Joe. Attacking you would have been an ad hominem. I'm attacking whatever school allowed you to hold such fundamentally flawed viewpoints. Although to be fair to your alma mater, your staunchly conservative, teabag party sympathizing viewpoints were probably well formed before you even saw the inside of a college classroom. Also while I respect your profession, let's be honest here, you're an accountant, not an economist.

Either way, the issue has been settled for now and it's pretty clear you have absolutely no interest in considering viewpoints other than your own, so it's really not worth my time to keep debating the issue. Guess we'll see what happens in a few years.

I am an accountant who is used to analyzing financial statements.  I am used to looking at cash flow statements.  I am used to seeing the impact traditional pensions have had on both.