Stamford Civil Servants Paid Over $100K

Posted in the Stamford Forum

Comments
1 - 20 of 32 Comments Last updated May 6, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Tom

Burlington, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 2, 2013
 
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/...

Simply outrageous! As someone who has worked for $90 a day in Stamford as a substitute teacher, I am thoroughly disgusted with this story in today's Advocate!!! What are these people doing to justify these salaries? Don't forget to add at least 50% to these wages in pensions, health care and other benefits? And how do you suppose the taxpayers feel about this? Union wages and benefits = a license to steal from the commonweal.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 2, 2013
 
Tom wrote:
http://www.stamfordadvocate.co m/news/article/Six-figure-sala ries-soar-in-Stamford-4397523. php
Simply outrageous! As someone who has worked for $90 a day in Stamford as a substitute teacher, I am thoroughly disgusted with this story in today's Advocate!!! What are these people doing to justify these salaries? Don't forget to add at least 50% to these wages in pensions, health care and other benefits? And how do you suppose the taxpayers feel about this? Union wages and benefits = a license to steal from the commonweal.
The "common wealth" is just another license to steal, theft of over 100k or just $10 is still theft.
Publius

Polska, Poland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 18, 2013
 
As i. Recall the value added provided by my substitute teachers, $90 a day is about right. if you want to get paid lke a real teacher, get a teaching degree, get an M.A., apply for a job, get a job teachng, get tenure and you;ll be able to receive more money.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 18, 2013
 
Publius wrote:
As i. Recall the value added provided by my substitute teachers,$90 a day is about right. if you want to get paid lke a real teacher, get a teaching degree, get an M.A., apply for a job, get a job teachng, get tenure and you;ll be able to receive more money.
Doesnt change the fact that it is stolen money.
Publius

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 19, 2013
 
You can argue that teaching salaries are too high. You can argue that the job protection level is excessive. You can argue that civil servants receive benefit packages significantly better than those available in the private sector.

But when you refer to "stolen money" you mark yourself as outside the sphere of rational discussion.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 19, 2013
 
Publius wrote:
You can argue that teaching salaries are too high. You can argue that the job protection level is excessive. You can argue that civil servants receive benefit packages significantly better than those available in the private sector.
But when you refer to "stolen money" you mark yourself as outside the sphere of rational discussion.
Do you think that all tax payers paid taxes out of the kindness of their own heart?
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 19, 2013
 
Taxes are set through an orderly elective process in which ciTizens choose representatives to make decisions for the community. You just don't like their decisions, so you stand outside the community and grouse.

If you have the courage of your convictions, run for office yourself and se how many votes you get. There is an election in November for mayor, bd of finance, bd of ed, and bd of reps. Pick your position, and see how you do.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 19, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
Taxes are set through an orderly elective process in which ciTizens choose representatives to make decisions for the community. You just don't like their decisions, so you stand outside the community and grouse.
If you have the courage of your convictions, run for office yourself and se how many votes you get. There is an election in November for mayor, bd of finance, bd of ed, and bd of reps. Pick your position, and see how you do.
Your answer is non-responsive

The question was, do you think that all the tax payers pay taxes out of the kindest of their own hearts?
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 20, 2013
 
my answer was responsive, but your question misses the point. Read Rousseau or Montesquieu for a deeper understanding of how society is organised through government. Or read the DOI or Preamble, which were based on their works.

People pay their taxes, not out of the kindness of their heart, but from an enlightened understanding in their brain of their self-interest as part of society,

"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We pay taxes in exchange for the safety and protctions provided by government because we understand that even an expensive gvernment is preferable to anarchy.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
my answer was responsive, but your question misses the point. Read Rousseau or Montesquieu for a deeper understanding of how society is organised through government. Or read the DOI or Preamble, which were based on their works.
People pay their taxes, not out of the kindness of their heart, but from an enlightened understanding in their brain of their self-interest as part of society,
"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
We pay taxes in exchange for the safety and protctions provided by government because we understand that even an expensive gvernment is preferable to anarchy.
The doi also states that the purpose of government is to protect INDIVIDUAL rights.
Countless court cases state that the government has no duty to protect.
you state "we pay taxes" you are referring to the collective, i dont think that you can speak of everyone's thoughts.
If i take money or property from another through force or threat of force, is that not considered a crime?
I for one do not consent to be governed, will the government stop threatening me?
I think that your comment about people's self interest is just table dressing that cloaks the true ruling by government, which is by force.
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 20, 2013
 
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our 'Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

In fact, the DOI refers many times to "the people". not to individuals. Else how could they have written of "the name and authority of the good people...", while knowing that a very substantial portion of those "people" were Tories, committed to remaining with the crown. No, they coverede that by referring to themselves as the ; "representatives" in general congress assembled. And again, in the preamble "We the People" by virtue of being their elected representatives. "We the People" IS the collective; the founders were comfortable with that.

As for the "stealing" part, it is purely manufactured out of whole cloth. In fact, if you steal from me, and i go to court for recovery , is that stealing too? You have conflated ANY taking with illegal taking,and that is unsupported by the history of crimina and civil laws over millenia.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our 'Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
In fact, the DOI refers many times to "the people". not to individuals. Else how could they have written of "the name and authority of the good people...", while knowing that a very substantial portion of those "people" were Tories, committed to remaining with the crown. No, they coverede that by referring to themselves as the ; "representatives" in general congress assembled. And again, in the preamble "We the People" by virtue of being their elected representatives. "We the People" IS the collective; the founders were comfortable with that.
As for the "stealing" part, it is purely manufactured out of whole cloth. In fact, if you steal from me, and i go to court for recovery , is that stealing too? You have conflated ANY taking with illegal taking,and that is unsupported by the history of crimina and civil laws over millenia.
Let me rephrase the question, is taking of money by force in order to provide a service at any time justified?
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Apr 20, 2013
 
<g> You write as if governments hadn't been collecting taxes since the beginning of recorded history. Resoundingly, yes, the exacting of taxes by a legitimately constituted government acting according to representative process, is justified.

Or would you prefer that on December 8, 1941, the US govt asked for donations to fund a defensive war? To say nothing of asking for volunteers to fight it?

Actually, "force" is rarely required to support the taxing policy of a municipality. They don't have to forceyou to pay. They just take your property, sell it, and take the back taxes.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
<g> You write as if governments hadn't been collecting taxes since the beginning of recorded history. Resoundingly, yes, the exacting of taxes by a legitimately constituted government acting according to representative process, is justified.
Or would you prefer that on December 8, 1941, the US govt asked for donations to fund a defensive war? To say nothing of asking for volunteers to fight it?
Actually, "force" is rarely required to support the taxing policy of a municipality. They don't have to forceyou to pay. They just take your property, sell it, and take the back taxes.
And the taking of property is not force?

By a legitimate constituted government?

By whose standards is this legitimacy based on?
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Apr 20, 2013
 
The founding documents refer to We the People, or "the People" referring to the consensus of the community derived from elected leaders or representatives. They never considered that meant every individual, aas i stated before.

But they did belive, as we do today, that a democratic process, even though slightly flawed, is the best meansd to determinie the will of the people as a whole, and that notwithstanding opportunities for minority expression, the will of the majority shall prevail within terms established by the constitution.

But you never answered my question. On December 8, 1941, should the US Govt have just asked for donations to respond to a direct attack?
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
<g> You write as if governments hadn't been collecting taxes since the beginning of recorded history. Resoundingly, yes, the exacting of taxes by a legitimately constituted government acting according to representative process, is justified.
Or would you prefer that on December 8, 1941, the US govt asked for donations to fund a defensive war? To say nothing of asking for volunteers to fight it?
Actually, "force" is rarely required to support the taxing policy of a municipality. They don't have to forceyou to pay. They just take your property, sell it, and take the back taxes.
........ Actually the IRS just had its' 100th birthday. In 1913 it was 1% and people didn't like it then. We might be legitimate in our Constitution and process of Gov't, formerly the best damn one in the world. What makes it former is that we have no legitimate representation. They're a bunch of lying crooks. They gave Ernie, a convicted felon what, 1/4 million $$ in tax money to run for office? Ayala is allowed to stay? Our taxes are paying a top heavy inbred political society that doesn't represent us, they see us as minions to give them money. So get real and trim that budget! YOU try to even get on a ticket, a lot of towns you can't because they won't let you, go try the paperwork professor!
CTM

Sandy Hook, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Apr 20, 2013
 
AG Power Grab: Out of control in Connecticut (by John Lott)
National Review Online ^| August 22, 2002 | John R. Lott

Posted on Thursday, August 22, 2002 2:21:38 PM by Washingtonian

August 22, 2002, 9:00 a.m.

AG Power Grab

Out of control in Connecticut.

By John R. Lott Jr.

he last decade has seen state attorney generals use the power of the courts to shape public policy in unprecedented ways. Among the most aggressive in litigation ranging from tobacco to guns has been Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, though for Blumenthal this was just the warm up. Even if the ideas that he is now advancing fail in Connecticut, they provide a dire warning of what other state attorneys general may soon start trying.

In just 12 years, his office has ballooned in size, more than doubling its budget from $13 million to almost $27 million and increasing the number of cases completed by 65 percent. Yet, despite this growth, Blumenthal has gone so far into actions previously reserved for other parts of the government that he often neglects the real duties of his job.

On August 9, the Connecticut supreme court checked Blumenthal for overstepping his authority. The court unanimously ruled that Blumenthal's jurisdiction is largely limited by state statute to representing state agencies and officials in lawsuits brought by or against them, although the attorney general had claimed broader powers.

Unsatisfied with his traditional role, Blumenthal had gone after the administrator of an academy accused of mishandling state funds. The court noted that it was up to the Connecticut commissioner of education, not Blumenthal alone, to bring the case.

Blumenthal has received harsh words before. For instance, last December, New York state's highest court found that Blumenthal's office was "mishandling" and making "missteps" in a paternity case. The Connecticut Law Tribune reported that "the direct criticism by the court raised eyebrows in Albany ."

The state supreme court pointed out in its decision two weeks ago that the attorney general's office had been established in 1897 because of the inefficiencies in having "each state agency and department [retain] its own legal counsel." But in July, the Connecticut Law Tribune reported that because his staff was so busy, the attorneys in Blumenthal's office "will no longer serve as counsel to state boards or as counsel to agency staffs ."
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
The founding documents refer to We the People, or "the People" referring to the consensus of the community derived from elected leaders or representatives. They never considered that meant every individual, aas i stated before.
But they did belive, as we do today, that a democratic process, even though slightly flawed, is the best meansd to determinie the will of the people as a whole, and that notwithstanding opportunities for minority expression, the will of the majority shall prevail within terms established by the constitution.
But you never answered my question. On December 8, 1941, should the US Govt have just asked for donations to respond to a direct attack?
What led up to the attack? Was it provoked? If there ever was a real direct attack you would not have to force anyone to help DEFEND the country from within, there would be plenty of volunteers.
Look what happened after 9/11, thousands lined up to be slaughtered for flawed us foreign policy, without even a declaration of war as required by your silly constitution of no authority.

But we are getting off topic.

People pay taxes under duress and threat, what would happen if walmart conducted business in such a manner?

So i form a group and subjugate another group of people to our dictates and threaten them to pay us for our services forced upon them and tell them our authority comes from some document signed over over 200 years ago and if they dont like it they can try to join our team of gangsters and change things?
Am i hearing you correctly?

Everything else you speak of is just window dressing, we are all just human beings, we arent presidents, board members , mayors etc. those are all facades.
Voluntarist

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Apr 20, 2013
 
PubliusTi wrote:
The founding documents refer to We the People, or "the People" referring to the consensus of the community derived from elected leaders or representatives. They never considered that meant every individual, aas i stated before.
But they did belive, as we do today, that a democratic process, even though slightly flawed, is the best meansd to determinie the will of the people as a whole, and that notwithstanding opportunities for minority expression, the will of the majority shall prevail within terms established by the constitution.
But you never answered my question. On December 8, 1941, should the US Govt have just asked for donations to respond to a direct attack?
You didnt answer my question, the taking of property is an act of force, correct?

And who determines the legitimacy?

If you are claiming that the constitution determines the legitamacy, how would it?
How would a document drafted and signed (not by me nor anyone alive today) hold any legal effect today?
It certainly isnt a contract.
PubliusTi

Berlin, Germany

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Apr 21, 2013
 
So we move from political theory to sociological theory. Man, from his inception has been a social animal, forming first famioy groups, then tribal groups, then small city-states and ultimately nations. This has happened all over the world in vastly disparate cultures.

Now, although the vast majority of humans adapts well to group socialization, not every individual does. There have always been "hermit" types who see themselves functioning best outside the normal range of social relationships. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is not the norm.

The question, then, is to what extent should the great majority of socialized humans adapt to the non-social preferences of the small minority? Most Americans, e.g., feel themselves bound by their allegiance to their country and its constitution; most Americans feel themsleves to be a part of a nation with a set of processes that has come down over 200 years.

You are welcome to set yourself aside and reject that constitution, that social contract, and choose to be a loner, though i wonder if you refuse to ride on streeets paved by the government, or call on police when you need them, or the fire department when your house is burning. Since you do not accept that you might be bound to the idea of a nation, i wonder why you woud respond if the nation were attacked, or woud you hide behind the fiction that the attack was"provoked".

There are, btw, several countries where govt has failed and there is much more individual "freedom", like Somalia. Somehow i suspect you would be even less happy there, despite having no effective tax laws.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Stamford Discussions

Search the Stamford Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 9 hr HughBe 68,430
Many illegal immigrants live in public housing (Jan '09) Jul 27 MrCracka 5,606
Restaurant News: Burger Time latest joint to sq... (Sep '09) Jul 26 Kunta Kante 12
Facing Depression (Feb '11) Jul 24 1 Citizen 15
63-year-old Stamford Motors dealership is sold (Mar '09) Jul 23 Les Williams 16
WWE Promotes Stephanie McMahon & John Laurinaitis (Jun '07) Jul 23 amw 8
A deluded consensus on discrimination Jul 21 Drilling for the nerve 2
•••
•••

Stamford News Video

•••
•••

Stamford Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Stamford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Stamford News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Stamford
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••