Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skyhawk96

Does defund mean defund?

Recommended Posts

It is really pretty simple. 

Taking away all funding for police means abolishing the police. No one is saying that.

On the other hand, police budgets have gone steadily up in this country, fueled by police unions with support from law and order politicians. Like any organization that continues to see its budget increased, it looks for ways to spend the money, to justify its existence, and to find new initiatives that require additional funding. It is the same process that has seen our defense budget grow to mammoth proportions.

To justify their existence, the police need to make more arrests. If crime seems to be under control, then it is hard to get more funding, officers, cars, etc.

So we wind up with a lot of people arrested for minor crimes - like drug possession of small amounts of drugs, or trying to pass a fake $20, or sleeping/walking/driving/jogging while black. Poor people cannot afford top-notch legal representation and do not have President Trump lobbying the Justice Department on their behalf, so the jails and prisons swell with people convicted of minor crimes. And the taxpayers foot the bill for the police, the prisons, the lawyers, etc. 

De-funding means cutting the budget instead of automatically increasing it every year. AOC says it needs to be real de-funding - not taking money from the police and then giving it to the schools so they can hire police, so that the overall spending on police is as much or more. It makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Don't think the MAGA ring covers this one.

 

But I agree it's a stupid slogan. Mean different things to different people

I keep hearing defund doesn't mean defund, yet Galaxy Super Brain AOC, a congressional rep, believes that it does. Why would someone allow her to distort the message? Shouldn't they be denouncing her? Setting her straight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Skyhawk96 said:

I keep hearing defund doesn't mean defund, yet Galaxy Super Brain AOC, a congressional rep, believes that it does. Why would someone allow her to distort the message? Shouldn't they be denouncing her? Setting her straight?

De-fund means reducing the budget, not eliminating the budget entirely or doing away with the police. If people meant that, they would say eliminate or abolish the police force, not de-fund them. Read AOC's post above - if she is talking about limiting overtime, she is obviously not talking about doing away with the police. Use your own Galaxy Super Brain - reading comprehension is your friend.

People are so programmed to blindly support the police. and ever-rising budgets, that the departments have grown out of control. The de-fund idea is valid - there are other ways to address crime besides arresting people, throwing them in jail and forgetting about them. Take some of the money to improve living conditions in low income areas, spend more on education and scholarships. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Skyhawk96 said:

I keep hearing defund doesn't mean defund, yet Galaxy Super Brain AOC, a congressional rep, believes that it does. Why would someone allow her to distort the message? Shouldn't they be denouncing her? Setting her straight?

I think it means different things to different people, which is what makes it a terrible slogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same for pretty much everyone - reduce spending on police and re-purpose the money to help poor communities and reduce crime that way.

The issue is not with the term, but with the MAGAs who want to pretend that it means taking all of the money and abolishing the police - so they can whine about AOC and other Democratic bogeymen/women.

Anyone can read AOC's statement and understand that she is not talking about abolishing the police, or even a major de-funding. Just an actual reduction, not a shell game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there's plenty of waste at all levels of government.  There should be a 'defund x' on just about everything.  If the $ comes from taxation, there will always be those who mismanage it.  However, a reduction in funding might not get the immediate or even long term results they want.  It could result in less $ to pay the qualified officers, fewer capable officers on the street, and increased crime.  Think its bad now, wait till they have less $.    With better management and real oversight waste would be found and repurposed on things to improve the quality of law enforcement.  Continuous improvement top to bottom.  I do agree something needs to be done but chanting defund it doesn't look like the best step.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But throwing money at a problem is not the solution - and that is what has been going on with the police. 

Fewer police will mean fewer people arrested for petty crimes, fewer lives ruined, fewer people in prison. I am in favor of weeding out the bad apples - which reduces payroll. The savings can be spent on more education, better training, and better pay for the police.

It is a minority, there are some police that are racist and want the job so they can bully people, especially minorities. They need to go.

And get rid of the for-profit prison system. They lobby for tougher sentences and more police so their cashcow contnues to grow and be more profitable - while ruining lives for minor offenses and costing taxpayers a fortune. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spur's Addiction said:

I think it means different things to different people, which is what makes it a terrible slogan.

Seems pretty clear to me.

de·fund
/dēˈfənd/
 
verb
US
  1. prevent from continuing to receive funds.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merriam Webster  - the first site that i pulled up - has only one defintion - "to withdraw funding from". That can mean all or some funding - in this case it is some.

As is obvious from AOC's statement above, which is consistent with what most politicians and protesters are saying. Yes, "reduce the police budget" is clearer, but not as succinct or dramatic. 

And the dramatic part certainly woke up the Rightwingers, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ace Dilcock said:

But throwing money at a problem is not the solution - and that is what has been going on with the police. 

Fewer police will mean fewer people arrested for petty crimes, fewer lives ruined, fewer people in prison. I am in favor of weeding out the bad apples - which reduces payroll. The savings can be spent on more education, better training, and better pay for the police.

It is a minority, there are some police that are racist and want the job so they can bully people, especially minorities. They need to go.

And get rid of the for-profit prison system. They lobby for tougher sentences and more police so their cashcow contnues to grow and be more profitable - while ruining lives for minor offenses and costing taxpayers a fortune. 

So crime will continue or rise by your plan and that’s better for the innocent people so the criminals don’t get in trouble.  This is the same dumb shit that public schools have done to discipline and it’s one of the biggest obstacles to our education system.  Studies as a whole show you stop crime early before it escalates.  Your suggestion works opposite of actual reason.  🤦🏻‍♂️ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime is the end result of the poverty and harsh conditions facing minorities. To reduce crime, you have to address the root cause - spending more money on police does nothing to help that.

So how has the massive police presence done so far? Crime is still pretty high, huh?

Will more cops help? More police just means that more people will be arrested for petty crimes - so the crime rate goes UP. And people will have their lives ruined and will be turned into habitual criminals, And we will pay more for prisons, along with more for the police, And we will not be any safer - because the added police are just taking petty criminals off the street, not robbers, murderers and rapists.

De-funding actually makes sense - even if just means cutting the bad cops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Maybe this should be 'defund the Police Unions'. They appear to be a huge part of the issue with allowing guys like Chauvin still having a job after some 19 complaints filed against him prior to him killing George Floyd.

I believe that was a department issue. Would someone claim that the police Chief in Minneapolis is racist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Maybe this should be 'defund the Police Unions'. They appear to be a huge part of the issue with allowing guys like Chauvin still having a job after some 19 complaints filed against him prior to him killing George Floyd.

Great point and breaking up the union strong hold should be priority #1.  I don't agree that we should just "stop arresting people" as another poster put it.  If its an crime that warrants arrest, then the police have a job.   Those are laws and the police do not make those, thy enforce them.  The laws and in particular the sentencing needs to be changed in many areas.  I don't think you just stop enforcing crime just because it's too costly or you want to prop up some other social program.  The system is partially broken as is our approach to crime in this country, but again - the lazy simple answer to remove funding will not deliver the results wanted unless further action is taken.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Skyhawk96 said:

I believe that was a department issue. Would someone claim that the police Chief in Minneapolis is racist?

Most often it's the unions that prevent the the department from firing people, Or just bury the process in red tape. I am not sure in this particular instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Maybe this should be 'defund the Police Unions'. They appear to be a huge part of the issue with allowing guys like Chauvin still having a job after some 19 complaints filed against him prior to him killing George Floyd.

I agree 100%...I don't know how you accomplish this but I am all for it!  There should not be a layer of protection between the police offices and those that they are charged to serve and protect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Spur's Addiction said:

Maybe this should be 'defund the Police Unions'. They appear to be a huge part of the issue with allowing guys like Chauvin still having a job after some 19 complaints filed against him prior to him killing George Floyd.

the union didn't have anything to do with 3 officers standing there doing nothing while their buddy was murdering someone

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boca Bobby said:

the union didn't have anything to do with 3 officers standing there doing nothing while their buddy was murdering someone

Hard to say. Maybe they were hesitant to take action because of the unions. Not defending their actions. just speculating.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, carolina_corpsman said:

Ace, the great white knight

Crime is the end result of the poverty and harsh conditions facing minorities.

 

Yeah, ole Joe Biden has made a few similar racist comments but he has a "D" next to his name so it's cool.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Boca Bobby said:

the union didn't have anything to do with 3 officers standing there doing nothing while their buddy was murdering someone

But the Union had everything to do with this dirtbag still wearing a badge after numerous complaints filed against him.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carolina_corpsman said:

Dude just implied minorities are criminals and that they are poor, but I'm the racist. Can't make this shit up.

No dumbass, I POSTED that. I go with facts, not lies spin, and innuendo. Crime is higher in minority communities. Saying that makes me a fact-driven realist, not a racist.

But you finally got something right - you are the racist. Now that you have come to grips with it, try to get the hatred out of your heart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

GCF Copyright

Copyright © 2009-2020 GamecockFanatics.com - All Rights Reserved. GameCock Fanatics is an independent, fan based website. This forum is not sponsored by, or affiliated with, the University of South Carolina, or any other organization.

GamecocksFanatics.com

Youtube-Logo.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...