Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 27 2024 22:19 brian wrote: it’s consistently one of the biggest tourist cities in the entire world, more people see it and document it than most places. and news outlets still get to write that shit and have their readers believe and repeat it.
better let all those millions know to avoid it. maybe insta will blow up with all these personal anecdotes of crisis in the streets. along with the aliens.
it’s funny, my father (we’re new yorkers, he’s a long islander though. it’s where most of the conservatives live, courted by the exorbitant tax rate) repeats the same nonsense, but can’t be pressed to actually articulate any experience he or anyone he knows has had relating to any migrant crisis.
i hit the city several times a year, have many friends that live in manhattan and brooklyn. the complaints are the same as they have been for years. it smells like trash at night, and it’s just too close to new jersey for comfort. and actually that’s it. they love it.
leave it to the home of the statue of liberty to actually be proud to welcome huddled masses. the shame they bring upon themselves lol. self own indeed. they ought to abandon principle when it becomes remotely difficult or politically inconvenient.
On June 27 2024 22:37 farvacola wrote: Had a nice visit to NYC just the other week to see a show, take in some sights, and eat some good food. Visited three of the five boroughs and nary a “migrant crisis” to be seen. Maybe I missed them.
made up immigrant crisis? must be election season again. time to roll out the imaginary dead horse to beat. unfortunately even facing the same play book i bet the dems have nothing better to roll out to beat it this time. its like mariano in the late 90s, or ovechkin now. you know exactly what’s comin but you can’t beat it.
You’re trying to dispute whether NYC is having a migrant crisis?
Their own mayor has said the issue will destroy NYC.
The majority of New Yorkers agree with that statement. 81% of Democrat voters in NY consider the migrant crisis “a serious problem.” Perhaps all these NY Democrats watch too much Fox News?
Do you somehow dispute that 160,000 migrants have shown up to NYC? Not encountering any while going to see a broadway show means nothing. Not seeing any fish in a teacup of water from the beach doesn’t let us conclude there are no fish in the ocean.
On June 27 2024 22:19 brian wrote: it’s consistently one of the biggest tourist cities in the entire world, more people see it and document it than most places. and news outlets still get to write that shit and have their readers believe and repeat it.
better let all those millions know to avoid it. maybe insta will blow up with all these personal anecdotes of crisis in the streets. along with the aliens.
it’s funny, my father (we’re new yorkers, he’s a long islander though. it’s where most of the conservatives live, courted by the exorbitant tax rate) repeats the same nonsense, but can’t be pressed to actually articulate any experience he or anyone he knows has had relating to any migrant crisis.
i hit the city several times a year, have many friends that live in manhattan and brooklyn. the complaints are the same as they have been for years. it smells like trash at night, and it’s just too close to new jersey for comfort. and actually that’s it. they love it.
leave it to the home of the statue of liberty to actually be proud to welcome huddled masses. the shame they bring upon themselves lol. self own indeed. they ought to abandon principle when it becomes remotely difficult or politically inconvenient.
On June 27 2024 22:37 farvacola wrote: Had a nice visit to NYC just the other week to see a show, take in some sights, and eat some good food. Visited three of the five boroughs and nary a “migrant crisis” to be seen. Maybe I missed them.
made up immigrant crisis? must be election season again. time to roll out the imaginary dead horse to beat. unfortunately even facing the same play book i bet the dems have nothing better to roll out to beat it this time. its like mariano in the late 90s, or ovechkin now. you know exactly what’s comin but you can’t beat it.
You’re trying to dispute whether NYC is having a migrant crisis?
Their own mayor has said the issue will destroy NYC.
The majority of New Yorkers agree with that statement. 81% of Democrat voters in NY consider the migrant crisis “a serious problem.” Perhaps all these NY Democrats watch too much Fox News?
Do you somehow dispute that 160,000 migrants have shown up to NYC? Not encountering any while going to see a broadway show means nothing. Not seeing any fish in a teacup of water from the beach doesn’t let us conclude there are no fish in the ocean.
i very much dispute the framing of the problem as a self own, or some kind of migrant crisis. the problem is, as any, a money problem. The quote from Mayor Adam’s isn’t implying it’s a problem in the sense that we need less migrants. he is implying we need more help to help them.
is florida getting slammed by hurricanes and needing federal relief similarly a self own? or maybe just the right thing to do? while i’ll take any opportunity to slam desantis for voting no on federal aid for other victims of weather, I’ll still say definitively federal aid for helping anyone that needs it is important. is it a crisis that we have asylum seekers coming to the city? no. of course not. isn’t a self own? no. should there be more funding for it? yes.
what do you see as the problem here? something more than a budgeting item? because identifying how to ear mark money falls far from a migrant crisis. at least, i guess, in my book.
here’s the end of that same speech from coming up on 11 months ago.
We will continue to do more than any other city or level of government in the nation to accommodate asylum seekers because that's who we are, a city of empathy, of compassion and care. And we know, in the long run, asylum seekers will contribute to our strength, like so many before them. They have already begun to make homes, to give back to their communities, to become New Yorkers.
On June 27 2024 22:19 brian wrote: it’s consistently one of the biggest tourist cities in the entire world, more people see it and document it than most places. and news outlets still get to write that shit and have their readers believe and repeat it.
better let all those millions know to avoid it. maybe insta will blow up with all these personal anecdotes of crisis in the streets. along with the aliens.
it’s funny, my father (we’re new yorkers, he’s a long islander though. it’s where most of the conservatives live, courted by the exorbitant tax rate) repeats the same nonsense, but can’t be pressed to actually articulate any experience he or anyone he knows has had relating to any migrant crisis.
i hit the city several times a year, have many friends that live in manhattan and brooklyn. the complaints are the same as they have been for years. it smells like trash at night, and it’s just too close to new jersey for comfort. and actually that’s it. they love it.
leave it to the home of the statue of liberty to actually be proud to welcome huddled masses. the shame they bring upon themselves lol. self own indeed. they ought to abandon principle when it becomes remotely difficult or politically inconvenient.
On June 27 2024 22:37 farvacola wrote: Had a nice visit to NYC just the other week to see a show, take in some sights, and eat some good food. Visited three of the five boroughs and nary a “migrant crisis” to be seen. Maybe I missed them.
made up immigrant crisis? must be election season again. time to roll out the imaginary dead horse to beat. unfortunately even facing the same play book i bet the dems have nothing better to roll out to beat it this time. its like mariano in the late 90s, or ovechkin now. you know exactly what’s comin but you can’t beat it.
You’re trying to dispute whether NYC is having a migrant crisis?
Their own mayor has said the issue will destroy NYC.
The majority of New Yorkers agree with that statement. 81% of Democrat voters in NY consider the migrant crisis “a serious problem.” Perhaps all these NY Democrats watch too much Fox News?
Do you somehow dispute that 160,000 migrants have shown up to NYC? Not encountering any while going to see a broadway show means nothing. Not seeing any fish in a teacup of water from the beach doesn’t let us conclude there are no fish in the ocean.
i very much dispute the framing of the problem as a self own, or some kind of migrant crisis. the problem is, as any, a money problem. The quote from Mayor Adam’s isn’t implying it’s a problem in the sense that we need less migrants. he is implying we need more help to help them.
he literally embraced the notion of welcoming huddling masses in that same speech. identifying that more resources are necessary to help those in need is far from a self own.
is florida getting slammed by hurricanes and needing federal relief similarly a self own? or maybe just the right thing to do? while i’ll take any opportunity to slam desantis for voting no on federal aid for other victims of weather, I’ll still say definitively federal aid for helping anyone that needs it is important. is it a crisis that we have asylum seekers coming to the city? no. of course not. isn’t a self own? no. should there be more funding for it? yes.
what do you see as the problem here? something more than a budgeting item? because identifying how to ear mark money falls far from a migrant crisis.
here’s the end of that same speech. i’m definitely sensing the impending doom ✌🏻
We will continue to do more than any other city or level of government in the nation to accommodate asylum seekers because that's who we are, a city of empathy, of compassion and care. And we know, in the long run, asylum seekers will contribute to our strength, like so many before them. They have already begun to make homes, to give back to their communities, to become New Yorkers.
I'm utterly dumbfounded how you can insist that the "migrant crisis" is made up and then post transcripts from the mayor with quotes such as
But as I declared nearly a year ago, we are facing an unprecedented state of emergency.
we are past our breaking point. New Yorkers' compassion may be limitless, but our resources are not. And our partners at the state and federal levels know this. We continue to face impossible decisions about allocating our resources, and that means a lose-lose for our most vulnerable New Yorkers as well as those seeking asylum.
We saw the effects clearly last week outside the Roosevelt Hotel. Adult asylum seekers were sleeping on the pavement because our shelter system was full.
And everyone is saying it's New York City's problem. Every community in this city is going to be impacted. We have a $12 billion deficit that we're going to have to cut. Every service in this city is going to be impacted. All of us.
New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don't see an ending to this. I don't see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City. Destroy New York City. We're getting 10,000 migrants a month. One time we were just getting Venezuela. Now we're getting Ecuador. Now we're getting Russian-speaking coming through Mexico. We've got Western Africa. Now we're getting people from all over the globe have made their minds up that they're going to come through the southern part of the border and come into New York City.
I don't doubt you visit New York several times a year. I'm just wondering why you think we should believe you when you say the migrant crisis is "made up" vs the actual mayor and the majority of New Yorkers who say it's not?
Also, I agree that if NYC had unlimited resources then they would be able to support unlimited migrants. They don't. That's what makes it a crisis.
because identifying where money comes from or goes isn’t a crisis, much less a migrant crisis. did Trump create a budgeting crisis giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy?
no?
then i don’t see a migrant crisis in identifying .5% of that for asylum seekers. feel free to let us know what you think the crisis is, because we’re on the better part of a year out from it and I’m not seeing the fall out. is it just that? we need to identify where the funding comes from?
On June 27 2024 01:19 Salazarz wrote: So when it comes to public schools, cutting funding is just to get rid of waste and corruption. But when it's about cutting funding to police departments, suddenly there's no waste or corruption to be had and it's just woke libtards empowering criminals?
Huh.
I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up.
Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory.
Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it.
If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else.
The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work.
You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself.
If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control.
The correction is immediate state or federalDrumpf takeover of the force, emergency relief, mobilizing national guard if necessary, investigation, prosecution, and electoral solutions where applicable (ex. voting a new sheriff, DAs who prosecute criminals, etc.). You use the remaining money to employ new officers and train them and build a force that isn't corrupt. Additionally, politicians are themselves corrupt and keep getting voted for unchallenged in these jurisdictions anyway.
If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government.
In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, the federal governmentDrumpf should probably only do the second one, although there are people called libertarians who think the government should do neither, the government anyway needs to do both better if it's going to do them at all.
Over 15% of school teachers report experiencing violence from students; then there's violence from parents as well,
and the 300 something school shootings per year.
Violence! That's terrible. Some schools experience a lot of violence, many teachers never experience any.
I looked this up because it seemed so implausible that you didn't source it yourself. It's historically under 50, doubled to about 100 since 2018, and spiked in the heat of covid/the Biden administration to 250. Defined as "any time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason." The number of active shooter situations was 2. There is definitely room for dissection in these statistics. https://www.statista.com/statistics/971473/number-k-12-school-shootings-us/
On June 27 2024 01:19 Salazarz wrote: So when it comes to public schools, cutting funding is just to get rid of waste and corruption. But when it's about cutting funding to police departments, suddenly there's no waste or corruption to be had and it's just woke libtards empowering criminals?
Huh.
I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up.
Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory.
Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it.
If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else.
The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work.
You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself.
If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control.
The correction is immediate state or federalDrumpf takeover of the force, emergency relief, mobilizing national guard if necessary, investigation, prosecution, and electoral solutions where applicable (ex. voting a new sheriff, DAs who prosecute criminals, etc.). You use the remaining money to employ new officers and train them and build a force that isn't corrupt. Additionally, politicians are themselves corrupt and keep getting voted for unchallenged in these jurisdictions anyway.
If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government.
In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, the federal governmentDrumpf should probably only do the second one, although there are people called libertarians who think the government should do neither, the government anyway needs to do both better if it's going to do them at all.
Eh, if you’re going to bring up the risk of getting shot for police vs other professions then I don’t think schools is the perfect contrast of a place where nobody gets shot.
Certainly the rules of engagement re:shooting children are considerably broader for police than they are for teachers.
Wouldn't it be so nice if the idea of school choice had some kind of provision in it - so parents wouldn't be forced to send their children to dangerous places, especially when they don't have the economic freedom to do the only other universal option which is homeschooling. If only school choice advocates considered this. Some way to choose safety over violence.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: 'Private option' for education is not an option for most students, either. Average cost of private schooling is over $12,000 per year, which is way beyond what vast majority of Americans can afford.
I don't want to sound unfair but have you not figured out what a voucher means? Is this your first time being exposed to it?
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: The US doesn't spend more than annualized minimum wage of a worker per student, either. US expenses on primary & secondary education are near the top of OECD, but not particularly remarkable and similar to those of other advanced economies such as UK, Germany, Netherlands, South Korea, or the Nordics.
Two things are going on here: 1) Don't underestimate how low the federal minimum wage is 2) When an average exists, it's usually formed both by some things which are below it, and other things which are above it. Some places are spending $8k and absolutely killing it. Others $25k and getting killed.
There will always be a bottom 10% of something, but if you're doing $25k a year per student and getting nothing, you're beyond saving.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: If you 'stop incentivizing shit schools' by cutting off budget from public education, you're not going to have students be better educated somewhere else, because it's not as if there are empty high quality schools around just waiting for students to attend them while the clueless students are stuck in shitty schools presumably because... the government is giving too much money to those schools? I don't know.
There are literally other schools that have excess/flexible capacity. If not, you open them.
The key mistake you seem to be making is you are viewing schools as a SimCity-esque public utility, something akin to water. Public water has basically 2 states - you have water, or you don't have water. Maybe 3 states - drinkable, filter/boilable, or poison/no water. Schools are not like that. You should reconsider your perspective on what a school is. If you have a school somewhere, and it's shit, it's not true that any school you could open there would be shit. A school is something like a public business. It has facilities, personnel, equipment, students, training, materials, curricula, teams, spirit, an atmosphere, a schedule, lunches, all this kind of stuff. If you manage it well, you will flourish. If not, you will crash and burn. Someone will always be the best and worst, but that doesn't mean you have to accept dog shit as the worst. There is nothing intrinsic about a geography such that if you had a bad school there, it couldn't be improved at all. This is status quo nihilism.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: It's honestly so weird that you think that inefficient and corrupt police departments need intervention from federal government to set them straight, meanwhile inefficient and corrupt schools are best fixed by a blanket funding reduction on the entire public school system.
The government in general is best fixed by blanket funding reduction. Specific failures like schools that need to be condemned are best fixed by not giving people who fail MORE money to continue to fail.
Your point is taken to a degree - The key differences between schools and police are again that the police are militarized, and have a monopoly, whereas schools are in principle more numerous (yes, there are rural places too). That means if you're going to reorganize, or take over, or do something with a law enforcement agency, the people doing it have to be higher in the food chain, the totem pole, the chain of command. You could probably more generally use state bureaus to intervene in rogue municipal agencies, and federal ones to intervene in rogue state agencies. I'm not sure of the exact conventions now, but that's how it should be done, and mainly it needs to be done more, and faster. Other issues related to this are courts move slow and Congress doesn't pass laws - like qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture should have been fixed long ago.
But you couldn't for example use local police to take over a rogue state police. It has to come from a higher authority. Schools aren't like that. Literally the citizens can just show up and vote new leadership. Often directly to school boards. I personally view the citizens as the highest authority, but rhetorically you can understand the difference I'm referring to here - average citizens aren't in positions of power or authority over government employees.
My point is broken schools can be disincentivized at the district level. But broken districts may require a state level intervention too, you're correct. Federal governmentDrumpf can probably stay out.
Also I very clearly said
On June 27 2024 02:38 oBlade wrote: You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools,
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: There's just so many strange assumptions and ideas in your post.
They aren't in my post, they're hallucinated in your head because you're having a conversation with a strawman.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: Like, where's the '40% of students are learning nothing' coming from?
Baltimore, clearly mentioned in my post on that page that you read, it's a pretty common example known among people who are familiar with the discussions surrounding performance and school choice.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: Where are you even getting the idea that schools are these wasteful
My mistake, all schools in America spend every cent perfectly and deliver top quality education of the highest tier.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: and corrupt organizations from?
Didn't say corrupt.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: Most teachers and principals talk about dire lack of funding and their inability to afford the tools they need to provide for their students' needs, and given that even relatively poor and 'cheap' countries such as Czechia or Estonia are spending ~$10,000 per year on each student, ~$15,000 in the US sure doesn't sound like a lot of money.
1) Who are the teachers and principals? 2) What are the tools they need? 3) Why do you expect me to trust theorycrafted people without first explaining 1 and 2 in detail, when any person, asked if they would be better off with more of someone else's money or less of someone else's money, would choose more? There's a total lack of objectivity there which I can't excuse given the utter lack of specifics in your claim.
If I were a principal and my school were spending $20k per student and getting shit, I would try adapting or copying the good schools before asking for $30k. Which by the way, private schools have to do because OTHERWISE NOBODY WOULD PAY MORE FOR A SUBSTANDARD PRODUCT.
Make sure you don't count tertiary education if you source OECD figures of national average spending per student, when comparing to American K-12 system - that would be apples to oranges. $15k is a reasonable figure if your district is delivering excellence. Although many manage to do it with half, there is certainly wiggle room due to regional economic differences.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: Incidentally, the US spends 2x as much per police officer as the UK and 3x as much as Germany.
How much would Germany have to spend per officer to police the US?
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: But sure, it's schools that are cesspits of waste that can't get anything done and need their budgets slashed, not your police force.
Certain schools, yes. Note:
On June 27 2024 02:38 oBlade wrote: If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government.
On June 27 2024 21:36 Salazarz wrote: You're a perfect example of the hypocritical 'small government!!!111' conservative who is in reality just full of shit.
California spends $40,000 per homeless person per year. San Francisco $140k. They have tent cities and streets of RVs. Biden spent $43 billion on high speed internet and nobody has gotten access. NYC built a subway for $2.6 billion per mile. Also, grow up.
On June 27 2024 01:19 Salazarz wrote: So when it comes to public schools, cutting funding is just to get rid of waste and corruption. But when it's about cutting funding to police departments, suddenly there's no waste or corruption to be had and it's just woke libtards empowering criminals?
Huh.
I don't think anyone had mentioned police, but since you brought it up.
Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt, and have the same vacations as children. Police officers can be shot. Ergo you have to at least provide funding equivalent to the number of police officers you need to fight crime multiplied by a police officer's salary. The main reason is that, despite how clever you probably thought that sounded, there is no private option for police. There is no "police choice." Private security are not officers of the law, and indeed they usually barely even qualify as private security when all they (can) do is watch people walk out of a store with its entire inventory.
Additionally, law enforcement except for the FBI, DEA, ATF, Homeland Security, and probably someone else (CIA and NSA are considered "intelligence" as they don't arrest/take custody of people, inside the US at least), is not federal. That means again, like schools, they are outside of the federal government (hereafter "Drumpf")'s purview. Most police spending is local, followed by state, followed by federal. Very little federal funding goes to other branches. However, to address your point, we are more than familiar with Drumpf's view of the FBI and are pretty sure he's up for reforming it.
If you need more than the annualized minimum wage of a worker to teach a single kid for a year, something has gone wrong, objectively, doubly so if they aren't even learning anything. If you cut so much funding for police that your embattled jurisdiction has no choice but to lay off officers, your "crime rate" will go down in the sense of you don't have enough people to make arrests. If you stop incentivizing shit schools, the idea is not that you raise averages by removing students from the system, but by letting them be better educated somewhere else.
The idea of school choice is very much wound up together with funding. If you cut funding for a school (actual funding, not just the federal help money part), you have to let the parents (family) choose what school they go to also. That includes vouchers. Otherwise, instead of a better school, you just have no school. Which, while amounting to a total lack of public education, is probably still a utilitarian improvement over spending $20k a year to teach 40% of your students NOTHING. You could even just subsidize a nuclear family's homeschooling with that, and with one stone improve about a dozen social problems that get no attention by dumping the same money in schools that don't work.
You should not ONLY reduce school funding to improve schools, but the federal government does not and should not control local school boards. But you can see revolts even among deep blue jurisdictions like in California as they replace school board members, realizing that unlike what they previously thought, they can't just leave the Democratic party on autopilot and expect everything to work out by itself.
If a police department is corrupt, or not functioning, the solution is not to cut funding. Then the corrupt people will fire the non corrupt ones, protect each other more, and worsen both policing and corruption because they have tighter control.
The correction is immediate state or federalDrumpf takeover of the force, emergency relief, mobilizing national guard if necessary, investigation, prosecution, and electoral solutions where applicable (ex. voting a new sheriff, DAs who prosecute criminals, etc.). You use the remaining money to employ new officers and train them and build a force that isn't corrupt. Additionally, politicians are themselves corrupt and keep getting voted for unchallenged in these jurisdictions anyway.
If any law enforcement department is bloated compared to an apparent lack of work for it to do, the solution would be first redirection if possible, otherwise yes, cutting - just like the rest of government waste - done at the appropriate level of government.
In short, schools and police are different, the government should do both, the federal governmentDrumpf should probably only do the second one, although there are people called libertarians who think the government should do neither, the government anyway needs to do both better if it's going to do them at all.
Over 15% of school teachers report experiencing violence from students; then there's violence from parents as well,
and the 300 something school shootings per year.
Violence! That's terrible. Some schools experience a lot of violence, many teachers never experience any.
I looked this up because it seemed so implausible that you didn't source it yourself. It's historically under 50, doubled to about 100 since 2018, and spiked in the heat of covid/the Biden administration to 250. Defined as "any time a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason." The number of active shooter situations was 2. There is definitely room for dissection in these statistics. https://www.statista.com/statistics/971473/number-k-12-school-shootings-us/
But man, that violence is terrible.
There are plenty of reasonable critiques one can make about American schools, and the amount of violence that takes place within their walls is actually one such reasonable critique:
(Violent incidents tend to be physical altercations, ranging from unarmed fights to brawls with weapons. Teachers are generally the ones who need to break up those fights and put themselves in harm's way, even if the original altercation was between students. In high schools and even in middle schools, these can be especially dangerous because a good percentage of teachers are physically smaller or weaker or much older (40+ years old) than teenagers. Non-violent incidents would likely include acts like cyber-bullying, verbal bullying, or making bomb/security threats.)
Please don't trivialize the actual violence that most schools and most teachers face as nothing more than "Public school teachers can get crayon on their shirt". That's inaccurate and disrespectful.
Also getting the same time off as students isn't all wonderful. It's true that teachers get a lot of time off, even after accounting for the extra time they put in outside of normal school days, but there is no flexibility on when those days off will be. Teachers always need to use their time off at the same time as kids are off, which can be a fairly significant limitation. I've worked on a teacher's schedule and in a non-school workplace, and I've found the ability to take off on normal business days (when kids are in school) is very valuable, even though I don't get as much time off.
which also necessitates teachers, historically underpaid, are forced (strongly encouraged?) to take their vacations only on the busiest and most expensive vacation times of the year.
On June 28 2024 06:49 micronesia wrote: Also getting the same time off as students isn't all wonderful. It's true that teachers get a lot of time off, even after accounting for the extra time they put in outside of normal school days, but there is no flexibility on when those days off will be. Teachers always need to use their time off at the same time as kids are off, which can be a fairly significant limitation. I've worked on a teacher's schedule and in a non-school workplace, and I've found the ability to take off on normal business days (when kids are in school) is very valuable, even though I don't get as much time off.
On June 28 2024 06:51 brian wrote: which also necessitates teachers, historically underpaid, are forced (strongly encouraged?) to take their vacations only on the busiest and most expensive vacation times of the year.
These are very valuable and underrated points. While I appreciate that my workload is lighter during the summer than during the other seasons, I generally can't go on vacations from September to June. Going away for a weekend or during holiday/spring break means not being able to plan lessons, grade papers, or simply take a breather during the school year, and I am not permitted to take three or more consecutive days off school. My wife's family takes ski trips throughout Europe and North America every winter... trips that I can never attend, due to my work schedule as a teacher. I enjoy summer vacations and our summer trips, but I also have very real restrictions outside of July and August.
On June 28 2024 05:56 brian wrote: because identifying where money comes from or goes isn’t a crisis, much less a migrant crisis. did Trump create a budgeting crisis giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy?
no?
then i don’t see a migrant crisis in identifying .5% of that for asylum seekers. feel free to let us know what you think the crisis is, because we’re on the better part of a year out from it and I’m not seeing the fall out. is it just that? we need to identify where the funding comes from?
The crisis is having to spend billions they don’t have to support migrants they didn’t anticipate. Money doesn’t grow on trees. New York is proposing to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its department of education to fill the hole. One of their high schools had to temporarily return to remote learning so the school could be used to house migrants during a storm. Children were told not to come to school because their school was being used as a temporary migrant. Just because you don’t recognize the downstream affects of the migrant crisis doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You need to really reflect on why everyone in New York government is calling this a crisis and you’re the only one that’s not.
But the biggest irony is that you think that the federal government needs to chip in money in the same way they do after a catastrophic weather event. So it’s not a crisis but the federal government should give them crisis aid? Can you see the contradiction in your beliefs there?
On June 28 2024 05:56 brian wrote: because identifying where money comes from or goes isn’t a crisis, much less a migrant crisis. did Trump create a budgeting crisis giving a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy?
no?
then i don’t see a migrant crisis in identifying .5% of that for asylum seekers. feel free to let us know what you think the crisis is, because we’re on the better part of a year out from it and I’m not seeing the fall out. is it just that? we need to identify where the funding comes from?
The crisis is having to spend billions they don’t have to support migrants they didn’t anticipate. Money doesn’t grow on trees. New York is proposing to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from its department of education to fill the hole. One of their high schools had to temporarily return to remote learning so the school could be used to house migrants during a storm. Children were told not to come to school because their school was being used as a temporary migrant. Just because you don’t recognize the downstream affects of the migrant crisis doesn’t mean there isn’t one. You need to really reflect on why everyone in New York government is calling this a crisis and you’re the only one that’s not.
But the biggest irony is that you think that the federal government needs to chip in money in the same way they do after a catastrophic weather event. So it’s not a crisis but the federal government should give them crisis aid? Can you see the contradiction in your beliefs there?
i’m arguing with the framing as a migrant crisis. it pins ‘blame’ (for lack of a better word,) on the immigrants. and the rhetoric on migrant crisis is that the migrants themselves cause problems, which they very much do not. this isn’t something you’ve said, though, so I do need to acknowledge that.
call it a humanitarian crisis (like the government officials are,) and im on board, maybe begrudgingly. we all know what humanitarian crises are. people in need. migrant crisis, not so much. that is very much not the conversation republican new yorkers are having regarding the ‘crisis.’
i actually won’t (and didn’t intend to, if i have,) argue for federal funding, i do support it myself, but I understand the opposing view as well.
On June 28 2024 01:40 Slydie wrote: I find it sad that governments still gets away with the "cut budgets to improve quality" bs.
This is pure political spin, and it never works in real world. Politicians will never know enough details about the inner lives of institutions to have any idea what they are talking about. Institutions even have incentives to cut first where it hurts the most politically, to scare politicians from further cuts, and regaining funding in the future.
The quality WILL suffer, and consequences can be disastrous.
Maybe one can. But if one is going in with ‘x seems too expensive we’ll announce arbitrary cuts’ you’re not really doing serious policy.
You have to actually identify what supposed inefficiencies are there in the first place in order to cost cut or make things more efficient. You need actual alternatives.
US tertiary education is ludicrously expensive, we have multitudes of other nations to compare that with and identify how to drive costs down a bit.
Populists don’t deal in policy, they deal with what feels good to whatever base they’re appealing too.
On June 28 2024 08:08 micronesia wrote: I don't think I have the stomach to watch it live lol... I'll wait and get the highlights later on.
Hopefully the mic muting actually works as intended.
Me neither. I’ll check some transcript snippets and that’ll be that.
I don't blame either of you. I'm going to try to watch the livestream tonight, and take notes to upload as a post (although my internet has been inconsistent recently).
On June 28 2024 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote: Rough start for Biden already. This is going to be tough.
Trump is doing nothing but talking bollocks, but he’s doing it well. Biden looks decidedly low energy and unconvincing in countering them, even when he’s right
On June 28 2024 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote: Rough start for Biden already. This is going to be tough.
Trump is doing nothing but talking bollocks, but he’s doing it well. Biden looks decidedly low energy and unconvincing in countering them, even when he’s right
Yeah, the clips and highlights probably won't capture this dynamic that well. 12 minutes in Biden lost his train of thought. Happens to everyone, but not a great start.
Biden has this look he gets that just looks like an elderly person that doesn't recognize where he is or how he got there. Could just be an aesthetic thing, but it's not a good look.
EDIT: Trump missed the opportunity to hit Biden the first time he lost his train of thought but about 21 minutes in he pounced on the 2nd time.