"Defund the police" doesn't really mean "defund the police"

[T. A. Gardner]

Half of the Los Angeles budget goes to funding the police. 50%. And that does not include all the money paid out for lawsuits against criminal cops. That has to be true for other big cities like New York and Chicago. We won't have clean water, good schools, the arts, and tent free streets while giving more than half of the city budget to militarized police.

That's because Progressive Democrats run those cities, not because of particular funding issues.

[AProudLefty]

Im not guessing, I know you are willingly obtuse..
what is defunding? it means removing funding ( since you are obtuse I'll make sure you understand the obvious)

That is the point, dumbass. They used the wrong word. They never meant stopping funding the police completely.

Because of the unfortunate term, the right wouldn't give it up. So we need to retire that term.

So now do you understand?

[NiftyNiblick]

As much as I respect the "Squad,"

I don't think that reducing police salaries will help attract better candidates to service,
and better candidates are what we desperately need, everywhere.

Property taxes are crippling, but I shut up and pay them.
Reduced service is far worse than high taxes.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No. I was telling Dukkha that he misunderstood the point of the OP.

but... I don't think an honest reading would lead to that conclusion, ergo ...troll.

(everybody's doing it)

[AProudLefty]

As much as I respect the "Squad,"

I don't think that reducing police salaries will help attract better candidates to service,
and better candidates are what we desperately need, everywhere.

Property taxes are crippling, but I shut up and pay them.
Reduced service is far worse than high taxes.

Nobody is asking for a reduction in salaries.

[NiftyNiblick]

Nobody is asking for a reduction in salaries.

How does one avoid that with reduced funding?

[AProudLefty]

How does one avoid that with reduced funding?

The police sometimes have too much military grade stuff they never need and the funding could be redirected to something useful. That's one example. It's like with any organization, it can be bloated with all the unnecessary extra stuff and money.

[NiftyNiblick]

The police sometimes have too much military grade stuff they never need and the funding could be redirected to something useful. That's one example. It's like with any organization, it can be bloated with all the unnecessary extra stuff and money.

Good point.

[ExpressLane]

I've heard this at least a few dozen times since the phrase 1st appeared last summer. And I 100% get the reasoning, and that it doesn't really mean "defund the police."

But c'mon - why do they keep using it then? Because what the rest of America hears is "defund the police," as in, stop funding police.

Democrats & liberals need to work on their rhetoric and messaging, and realize what kind of an impact words have. Carville was talking about this same thing earlier this week. Wise up.

If it doesn't really mean defund the police then why has NYC and other major cities actually reduce funding for the police.

[AProudLefty]

Good point.

This article explains it way, way better than I could.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...it-have-merit/

[NiftyNiblick]

This is a problem for me:
reformers speak of breaking Police Unions.

I never take sides against unions.
It would be a moral impossibility for me.
I've supported organized labor my entire adult life.
I've advocated for the abolition of right to work laws for my entire adult life.

The problem isn't police unions per se.
The problem is communities making absurd contractual concessions to them in bargaining.
And we know exactly why they do it--
bargaining chips in exchange for not meeting wage and benefit demands.

I wish that I saw a solution to this problem, but I vainly sought good solutions to similar problems my entire working life.
At least to this point, they haven't existed.

[AProudLefty]

If it doesn't really mean defund the police then why has NYC and other major cities actually reduce funding for the police.

Defunding means stopping providing fund completely.

[Darth Omar]

I've heard this at least a few dozen times since the phrase 1st appeared last summer. And I 100% get the reasoning, and that it doesn't really mean "defund the police."

But c'mon - why do they keep using it then? Because what the rest of America hears is "defund the police," as in, stop funding police.

Democrats & liberals need to work on their rhetoric and messaging, and realize what kind of an impact words have. Carville was talking about this same thing earlier this week. Wise up.

And here I was hoping you’d try to gaslight us lol.

[Darth Omar]

The police sometimes have too much military grade stuff they never need and the funding could be redirected to something useful. That's one example. It's like with any organization, it can be bloated with all the unnecessary extra stuff and money.

Sort of like the federal government lol?

#defundthegovernment

[goat]

That's because Progressive Democrats run those cities, not because of particular funding issues.

It's because good paying jobs have disappeared and left cities to fend for themselves. The school to prison pipeline pays off city officials which leaves generation after generation of kids in despair. Poor neighborhoods are contained and used to keep the courts filled with people who don't know their rights and will plea to anything to get a release date. The entire system is corrupt.