“It’s a little too quiet” - US Politics February 2021

Like there’s way more headlines based entirely around confusion of what was suppose to communicated there with that slogan then there is for “1400 vs 2000”

And also AOC wrote an amendment that was $2000 instead of $600 so you know....there’s some dishonesty in that tweet (or maybe a short memory) but whatever works if it gets folks more money I guess.

I thought what defund the police brokedown to was that it was easier to continue to throw money at an established institution no matter how successful the consequences were for certain sections of society as opposed to money spent on a solution that was more built for purpose.

I was wondering if people in the US from certain sections of society grew up with the idea that if one was in trouble they could ask a policeman since it was a standing thing in the UK. Your neighborhood beat bobby as somebody who wouldn't be seen to automatically turn around and try to arrest you which is the impression left on a lot of society by experience. But there are a lot of people whose experience of teh police in general is absolutely negative so they're not going to be people who would defuse a situation would probably do the opposite.
So expecting every problem to be something taht could be answered by police is just mindless for some people. Expecting them to be people who could talk people down when they are in a manic state when what they represent is actually going to add to the situation.For somewhat connected reasons putting police into schools is counterproductive for those who are involved, people get pushed from minor problems in school to be categorised as criminal which means they have been messed up before they've even started when a different approach would at least not be pushing them into a position where some arbitrary official thought they needed to be controlled.
Also just throwing more and more armaments to them is not the best way to deal with situations.
Defunding police normally means that there is more funding available for other alternatives which might actually be more win win than people being controlled against their wills and having an armed foe show up to deal with situations that don't need more accelarants.

I would prefer a new system where teh end user was aprt of the design of how problems were dealt with than having something imposed on them. That thing that is imposed on them at the moment has a long negative history of how it was set up, for what purposes and what the designation of crime si ahd how egalitarian its deployment is, or rather clearly isn't.

oh yeah was going to say money spent on a solution that was more built for purpose and didn't have thge same supposed proven track record. & stresstaht that thagt track record is only positive from one perspective and is heavily negative from another.
Is certainly not objective in the way it is supposed to be.

Private prisons need population. I listened to a talk a couple of weeks ago where that was pretty much stressed. Where the supposed idea of a prison as a place where you put those who will not fit into society to keep them out of creating danger for others to being a location that has ulterior motives for its existence that needs people to have crimes structured for them to fall the wrong side of to create population for, I think that is true of prisons in general if they are wrong for the wrong motivatiion which is why they're also a subject of defunding or abolition for a number of people.

Huh? No dude there’s “what does defund the police mean?”
articles from The Guardian The Cut and even Good Housekeeping etc

If you don’t know who you meant, it really is okay to say so. Without a link, I’m going to remain dubious that Good Housekeeping is running contextual explainers on individual Big Don Abernathy posts in ILX politics threads though, after your previous pointers went nowhere.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/a33024951/defund-the-police-meaning/

Good morning!

pretty sure people are lying when they say they don't know what it means. it's literally what it sounds like. these explainers keep trying to water it down or make it more complicated than it is

do people thunk they're being subtle by repeatedly harping on about how unhelpful the phrase is. say what you fucking mean

or think even

speaking of disingenuous cynicism. this is absolutely fucking disgraceful

“We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity.” Fred Hampton #BlackHistoryMonth

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) February 5, 2021

I do not think Cory Booker is disingenuous. I don’t think he’s right, either.

He’s disingenuous becz of not completing that quote.

that new Fred Hampton movie coming out is going to result in a whole lot of ppl showing their asses, I think

Not looking like minimum wage will be part of reconciliation bill

― curmudgeon, Sunday, February 7, 2021 12:03 AM bookmarkflaglink

Minimum wage in budget reconciliation was always dicey because after the CBO cost estimates the provision would have to not violate the Byrd rule.

As for why it's not in now, I don't want joe manchin any names....

"pretty sure people are lying when they say they don't know what it means. it's literally what it sounds like. these explainers keep trying to water it down or make it more complicated than it is" are you going to pretend like there aren't two different takes on this slogan on the left? There are absolutely people who are saying "shift responsibility for x, y, and z to social services" and people who want the police force 100% abolished.

When I was 12 my middle school liaison officer arrested me for two counts of shoplifting. The first time I didn’t steal anything (I was accused of taking a candy bar), the second time I wasn’t even at the store. But he told me if I fought it I’d have to pay two citations instead of the one, which alone was $180. It was a pretty traumatic experience for me, especially the way my parents treated me after that. Either it was incredibly sloppy “police work” or they made something up to hit a quota. Amazing how an experience like that makes you distrust authority forever

Glad someone linked that Good Housekeeping article. Imagine how much of a crazy nut I would have to be to have made something like that up.

When did Bernie join Team $1400?

I strongly oppose lowering income eligibility for direct payments from $75,000 to $50,000 for individuals and $150,000 to $100,000 for couples. In these difficult times, ALL working class people deserve the full $1,400. Last I heard, someone making $55,000 a year is not "rich."

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 7, 2021

When politicians start talking about income thresholds, reporters should ask them what year they think it is.

reporters are often the ones demanding that they provide their position on income thresholds

Scoop: Senior Dems putting final touches on 22-page bill -- obtained by WaPo -- sending families $:

-- $3,600/yr per kid 0-6
-- $3K/yr per kid 6-17

Phaseouts: $75K singles, $150K couples

$ to start hitting bank accounts in July; aim is to send monthlyhttps://t.co/2amHkXp6Gs

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_WaPo) February 7, 2021

75k is about the 75th percentile fwiw

Quick how do I invent a fraudulent kid

Tweet from a pal:

Why are people surprised Romney supports direct payments-per-child? Utah leads the USA in household size and is among the lowest in per capita income. These are direct payments to his constituents at a higher level than the rest of the country.

there shouldn’t be any phaseouts but still - straight into my veins

Quick how do I invent a fraudulent kid

Seriously. Well, good for whoever benefits from it. Kids are expensive, or so I'm told.

Quick how do I invent a fraudulent kid

Well, when two people love each other very much ...

Tweet from a pal: _Why are people surprised Romney supports direct payments-per-child? Utah leads the USA in household size and is among the lowest in per capita income. These are direct payments to his constituents at a higher level than the rest of the country._

Yeah, there's nothing not to be fine with there. Mitt ... doing his job?

Lol

Things moving in the right direction! pic.twitter.com/Jfpal5AClA

— Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) February 7, 2021

I’m just anti-family tbh

The implication of that tweet seems to be he’s doing something for the wrong reasons. Not that it matters what his reasons are, but if you represent people who disproportionately benefit from cash payments to large households with low incomes then you better advocate for those payments!

Amend it to offer a free vasectomy and one time $10k payment.

I read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism recently. What a world. Do we have a thread for that? And is it possible to block threads?

Lol Booker keep going man, you're almost there!

I like the Vic Berger's Ron & Nancy pic because it's the only time Nancy's massive noggin has looked proportional

this is a good thing and I have a feeling something like this is going to pass. Romney's approach was a replacement for TANF; Ive seen people dislike it because of that and other say TANF is fucked up administratively anyway so replacing it would be ok. Anyway, I'm unlikely to benefit from these since we make too much money and our kid is getting old, but I would have greatly appreciated something like this when he was young, it would have changed our lives in a number of ways.

xpost Yeah, caek, I think you're reading too much into that tweet. My pal was just responding to people shocked Mitt would be for this, and he was basically, wait, why wouldn't Mitt be for this, this makes perfect sense.

I read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism🕸 recently. What a world. Do we have a thread for that? And is it possible to block threads?

I genuinely believe coming into existence is an irreparable harm and parents are responsible for it.

I just read The Dialectic of Sex and Shulamith Firestone largely otm

how's the lawsuit vs your folks going

Like I said irreparable

lets just face it, life is the source of all crime so preventing the further spread of it must be seen to be positive.
Judge Death must be seen to have a point surely

I started reading David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence but then I thought, eh, life is short.

I haven’t read it but I figure I don’t need to be convinced

Once you've come into existence the harm is already done and "never to have been" is a foreclosed option. So, spilt milk.

benatar is a dick. most popular antinatalism seems to adopt a basically racist faux universalism when it's not being openly eugenicist. if it has to be a thing it should only apply to imperial beneficiaries

white people, more or less

Glad someone linked that Good Housekeeping article. Imagine how much of a crazy nut I would have to be to have made something like that up.

tipsy perhaps I'm having a stroke but

one rallying cry has gained momentum across the country

written on protest signs, on social media, or even on painted street murals

a call from many activists for decades

movement has grown more popular

some organizations are indeed calling for the abolishment

Proponents

supporters of defunding

opponents of defunding

many activists counter

A 2016 report from the Obama White House’s Council of Economic Advisers

Other studies have shown

more and more lawmakers across the United States have been answering the pressing calls

none of these seem to name or specify which people gabbnebb was referring to? And the article seems to draw the opposite conclusion to "lost/settled"? Can you quote the bits you meant, if I'm misreading?