Except for a drop in crime the rate over the last few decades?

400 Bad Request

There is also a call to split up patrol and the investigative side. Most departments throw all their money into the patrol side because it looks better to the public. The media also mostly reports on crimes taking place, not the follow-up.

If you look at most departments, the closure rate for major crimes is comically low. We constantly read stories about rape kits going untested. If you've lived in any major city, you know what a joke it is to report property crimes and expect them to put any effort into investigating it.

So this way you have your patrol who can write tickets and stand outside schools during shootings. Then have a separate department within the government that is tasked with solving crimes and rooting out criminals.

If they are fully responsible for that, shouldn't we question why the murder rate was dramatically up in 2020? Heck, why it was up over the past 5-6 years? Their funding has increased a lot. So where is the money going?

Pew is pretty respectable. I guess they may have screwed the pooch here but I think this is pretty legit. This is October survey, they have a link to their methodology at the bottom for their Sept survey ... no idea why they didn't have their Oct methodology but their Sept approach prob gives you an idea.

Your point about abolishing vs reducing police funds is valid. But didn't think Nobody was talking about defund 100% as I think everyone here agrees that was stupid. It was decrease funding to the police which I thought was the discussion topic. But could be wrong

Jesus Christ, you just validated my argument and you say this as someone who has probably never had an in depth discussion with a Police Officer, you indicated last year you had never been on a ride along and don't see what officers go through every day/night dealing with shit people.

And tell me do Lawyers, psychiatrists and mediators make more than Police? Yes, they, do, yet cops have to incorporate all these skills into their jobs. Your whole agenda with police, like always is to paint everyone with a badge with a single broad brush, without taking the time to gather a full understanding of the job.

There is little to nothing to show for those resources because they are not being used correctly and the problem getting in the way most of the time is unions. If police were trained in all aspects of their jobs and given adequate down time, stress and poor decisions would drop. It would enable departments to better screen and get rid of idiots that should not have a badge.

We have a problem in law enforcement now because very few people want to do this job anymore because society as whole shits on them, no matter how hard they try to do the right thing. And in terms of resources, how is it working out for Seattle after they slashed budgets? It isn't.

Instead of looking at this through a singular lens of all cops suck, let me hear your solutions to reform and improvement? All I ever hear from you is bitching about law enforcement and how bad they suck.

...

You ever wonder why? Maybe it's the same reason we shit on Comcast.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would a good person with good intentions want to associate with a group that protects bad people? Cleaning up the bad apples in police departments would go a long way to improving their reputation in the community and encouraging good people to join the ranks.

The public loves firefighters and paramedics. Two incredibly important professions who have to make life-saving decisions on a regular basis.


Split law enforcement up into two branches. The patrol side and the investigative side. Both sides work together to an extent (like prosecutors and police), but also separate from one another so that budgets don't overlap and goals aren't muddled.

Stringent oversight from independent parties that have the power to fire the worst officers and replace them with better ones. Increase funding to organizations tasked with investigating police officer misconduct. Hold police officers to the same standard as the general public.

Tie bonuses to civil payouts made for police misconduct and civil rights violations. If your fellow officer is costing you money out of your check, perhaps that will be the motivation needed to turn them in.

Invest in things that we know reduce crime. Mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and education. Decriminalize certain non-violent crimes that eat up resources and provide no benefit to the public.

But we know all those ideas would be fought tooth and nail by police officers.

Fair enough.

Nobody, do you want to change your original statement or were you really referring to getting rid of the police vs decrease funding?

I wasn't speaking for myself, I was saying that there are people who really do want to get rid of police.

There are polls that clearly say many want to reduce police funding.

If you have polls that show many want to completely get rid of police, let us know.

It's a really hard time to be a public servant. It's a very easy time to complain about everything on the internet and pretend that counts as activism.

I think the biggest thing people miss with police agencies is that there's a few thousand of them in the U.S. And if you care, you end up taking on the burdens of the failings of agencies in other places you have nothing do with. Even though every agency is different - some are run perfectly, some are solid, some are disasters. But when you're in public service, you kind of share all of the failings more than you share all of the successes.

I've been to a bunch of wellness/therapy type-sessions over the last view months, trying to figure out my own place in all this. I conduct about 5 police trainings a year, read police transcripts and watch police videos probably every day. I have an incredible respect for what they do. I couldn't do it. I wish people saw what I see every day. But I can't really tell them. They just want to talk about what happened in some other agency 1,000 miles away a month ago. None of the good work done matters.

But we're trying. It's fucking hard. My mental health is shot. But this matters to me so much. But I'm still the bad guy. What I want is what I've always wanted - to have smarter police, more minority officers, better trained police, more liberal officers, more bookworm law-obsessed police (those are the best). That gets harder and harder because it seems the left wants to abandon what we do and leave it more and more to far right wing elements.

It's hard to vent anywhere because neither side is sympathetic to a liberal in law enforcement. We're kind of on an island. So I appreciate your posts on this.

How about this? I'll concede that you win whatever argument you're having against people who literally want to get rid of every single police officer. Congrats, you completely owned those people with their very stupid arguments. Do you have anything to add to the more complex discussion?

What the hell are you talking about?

Lathum asked for an example of someone who wished to get rid of the police and I gave him one.

I'm responding to both posts. Your "many liberals want the police to be abolished" is a dumb strawman argument, but I concede that you won against it.

Your entire post was solid and I appreciate you sharing. One of our son's is in law enforcement and I train with a bunch that are really good, salt of the earth guys and it pains me that people don't take the time to fully understand how difficult the job is, when I have been out there with officers and experienced it. It takes a special breed of person to do it and do it well.

I snipped part the above because I am really interested in hearing more about the bolded piece?

How is it a "dumb strawman argument"?

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vgqowgyn...nTabReport.pdf

Go to page 44

The polled roughly 1400 people, 11% favor abolishing it. So about 144 people. Thats not many.

Show me examples of politicians running on that platform. Mayors advocating it. Etc...

Two things here and to clarify, outside of media, which paints two very different pictures, depending on lean, and neither does a good job capturing the whole picture. My reference was more to the constant abuse they take while doing their jobs, often from complete pieces of shit, trying to instigate their own viral moment with an angry cop. You would honestly be shocked at the amount of crap officers get while responding to the simplest of calls. Yeah, it's part of the job and should be expected from those that have little to no respect for anything civil or lawful. But it drains you and when just one cop responds, even engaging with words, or trying to move someone away from a volatile situation, it gets put out everywhere. For each one of these there are thousands of interactions that people poking them don't get what they want.

And don't mistake this as blind defense, LEOs acting badly still need to be called out and held accountable. In terms of the other professions you mentioned, when was the last time those other two professions were presented as anything but heroes in the media? Yet they are prone to mistakes that cost lives, insensitivity and all the other flaws that some officers possess. It just isn't good print in most cases.


This is good shit and mostly viable, more on the non-violent crimes in a bit, which should be pushed back on. I don't think Police would object too harshly to any of those outside of the non-violent crimes piece. All of the other ideas help Police, but they will also all require resources, which refute the defund argument. One thing that needs to be decriminalized nationally is weed, and the three areas taxes from doing that would help the most would be law enforcement, mental health and education/school security. Plus expunge records for MJ related offenses nationally so these people have a path to become contributing members of society, which will impact crime.

In terms of decriminalizing things like petty theft, you have seen the impact of that in some places, California as a big example with the smash and grabs, freight train looting etc. These are not victimless crimes as they affect bottom line, which affects consumer prices. In addition, the more people with criminal leanings get away with, the more they will push the envelope. Soon, business owne4rs will get fed up and take matters into their own hands, then these non-violent crimes will become violent, either with a business owner defending their property, or being attacked for trying to do so. By not letting people that do this shit go scott free, you reduce the chance of things escalating to violence, by not making it attractive.

Don't reward people with no punishment for being idiots. If you want to reform these folks, or not ruin their lives for being selfish idiots, offer a path to expungement, while making them responsible for restitution, manual labor crews/community service (cleaning roads, poor neighborhoods, etc) with the end result being if they stay out of trouble for x years they are good.

They don't, then they serve time and lose their opportunity to atone. Finally, get tougher on crimes that involve any type of weapon or result in any type of injury. Put out a deterrent, while also adding reforms in the penal system to reward someone that serves their time and stays out of trouble after release. It is working well in some Scandinavian countries.

Bottom line is, there will never be a perfect and all encompassing solution, but allowing people to commit crimes with impunity, is definitely not the right direction.

23% of liberals favor abolishing the police and another 17% are unsure. Extrapolate that out to millions of liberals out there then I'd say that fits the definition of "many" pretty well.

where are you seeing those numbers?

dola- found it, you are still talking about a very small sample size.

That's still a good sample size for a national poll.

If you know of any polling that shows different results then please share it.

Most service workers deal with considerably more abuse, make a fraction of what officers make, and can't retaliate and must follow the law.

I'm not saying decriminalize property theft. I'm talking more about marijuana. And with other drugs, the goal should be getting people drug treatment which not only saves taxpayer money in the long run, but is more humane.

Speaking of theft, asset forfeitures are currently more than all burglary losses combined in this country. A wildly unpopular tactic that has only grown.

And then you have the fact that law enforcement ignores theft if the individual is wealthy enough or it is being done by a corporation. Wage theft tops robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny in this country combined. So the policing of that is wildly disproportional and another reason why many people don't trust the police or feel they work for them.

I'm surprised moderates was at 12%.

This was Jun 2020. I assume it'll be less now. Good thing that craziness has withered away some.

I will say Dems lost the messaging on defund the police and it's killing them in some elections. They let the GOP frame the Dems messaging by using the fringe element of the party that wants all police abolished.

The GOP has an either you're with us or against us attitude which means everyone is on board with the message. Dems are still trying to have nuanced messaging with varying opinions within the party. With the current partisanship in the country that's how you lose elections.

They literally have control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I don't think policing played much of a role in any of this. It was mostly about race. That's a far more motivating factor.

This is not even remotely true and you know it. You're merely spouting your personal spin here with absolutely no basis in fact. Tell me the last time you saw waitress being heckled and filmed by multiple tables in a restaurant on a daily basis. You're telling me that those customers would have been allowed to do that?

Again, you have absolutely zero credibility speaking on this piece until you go on a ride along and see for yourself. Chicago would be a great place to do that.

We agree on the Marijuana, but you should have stated that as non-violent crime encompasses a hell of a lot more than drugs.

Support for defund the police has dropped significantly this year and candidates wanting increased police presence did well in the California and other primaries.

As they should have and it sends a message to politicians to get better connected to their constituents, which Dems need to hear, so they quit missing on all the Softballs that the GOP lobs at them, just begging to be taken advantage of.

At this stage of the game, minus peoples frustration with inflation, there should be no way the GOP takes control of both chambers in November, but sadly that is where we are heading.

Have you ever worked a retail job? It's pretty brutal. I see cops all the time and have rarely witnessed what you're describing. And if that did take place, those people would be falsely arrested or have the shit kicked out of them. Usually, when a citizen gives a cop attitude, there are consequences. And again, if they are being treated poorly by the public, there is probably a good reason why.

Protests are a different story. There is definitely a lot of backlash at those. But there are also a lot of documented crimes committed by police and no arrests made. So I can see why people would be upset at police for failing to do their job.

Chicago doesn't really do ride alongs for the general public anymore. It's reserved for politicians, celebrities, and writers from friendly media outlets. Also, two cops murdered my Aunt a few decades ago and much of the department attempted to cover it up. Thankfully someone admitted to it in a broader FBI investigation and they were able to convict the murderers on federal charges. But the other cops who helped cover up the murder of an innocent woman never saw any kind of justice. So it's not the company I'd choose to keep. And standing outside a school shooting as parents are zip-tied to prevent them from helping seems like a miserable experience.

People aren't owed respect. They have to earn it.

Yes I have and was never treated badly, albeit a different time, but my kids have held jobs in the service industries in these times and don't relate near the stories my son in law enforcement, the guys I know in law enforcement and what I have seen on ride alongs in bad parts of town show.

Every thing you mention relating to Cops, is heinous and needs to be addressed, punished, etc but again, you say you are not the company you choose to keep, meaning you refuse to acknowledge the 1000's of positive, neutral interactions that occur in relation to the bad.

That is literally the same as Blake Masters cherry picking high crime areas in Chicago to blame all black people for mass shootings and gun violence. For sure have your opinion on police and we get you don't like them, that's fine. But damn, be reasonable. Respect should be given as a courtesy and lost if one does not deserve it. That is why we have the divides we do right now, everybody judges the appearance, politics, beliefs and not the person.

No, it's just my opinion. I find police officers in this country to be corrupt, biased, and some of the worst ROI of our tax dollars. I'm sure there are very good people who are cops, but I also know they don't do enough to rid forces of the bad ones.

Maybe there are people who are assholes to cops for no reason. But I believe that most of the people who are not respectful toward cops have a reason for it. You can ask just about anyone if they've had a bad experience with an officer and they'll have a story to tell you. Cops don't respect me or my city, so I don't know why I should care if the guy with the Punisher tattoo had his feelings hurt because someone didn't hold the door open for them at Wendys.

I'm about the whitest white guy who ever whited, and even I have a story about an asshole cop.

To me this is the worst part. I've had bad experiences with customers and with employees in customer service, to use a corollary to one of your comparisons. That gives me zero right whatsoever to treat the next one of those people I find poorly because of a past experience with someone completely different who fits into that 'group' or 'box'. That's a thoroughly disgusting approach.

We need to treat people as what they are. People. Individuals. People who have stories about asshole cops tells me nothing. There are people with stories about asshole everythings, and human nature being what it is, those stories are often embellished (just as police often have the urge to embellish the behavior of those they interact with).

There are so many examples we have of body cams showing people just flat out making things up - and no, I'm not minimizing the many examples of police doing horrible things either. I have an asshole cop story too, albeit only a very mild one. I would hope that among people on this board, who generally - much to their credit - have a strong affinity for knocking down negative stereotypes, that we would be better than this at not erecting entirely new ones.

Even without inflation it would be a major historic outlier if it didn't happen. When you have one party in power in a midterm election with close margins in Congress, that's just what almost always happens.

Agree that they’re not owed it, but IMHO for a better society, the default position should be to respect other individuals, unless that individual (not group) has shown that they don’t deserve it.

While your default position seems to be that the police are wrong in all cases, TBF your list of things that would improve the force are good suggestions, and I agree should improve the service.

Senator Murphy announces a bipartisan deal on gun control:


Chris Murphy on Twitter: "🚨NEWS: We have a deal. Today a bipartisan group of 20 Senators (10 D and 10 R) is announcing a breakthrough agreement on gun violence - the first in 30 years - that will save lives.

I think you’ll be surprised at the scope of our framework.

1/ Here’s what it includes:"

The difference is that the good cops protect the bad cops. Your comparison would be more accurate if the "good" customers vehemently defended the bad customers actions, lied to protect them, and even broke the law doing so.

Police have to work as a unit and if the good cops allow the bad cops to do bad things, it should reflect on the entire department

Noticed that Biden broke the 40% approval level on 538, currently 39.8% which is the lowest for his Presidency.

Not sure what the timing is but he should be rolling up his sleeves soon and campaigning for the Dems (or not I guess).

I can see him getting a bounce if Russia is pushed back (not stale mate). A bounce back on the markets will help. I can see the SCOTUS abortion ruling (assuming same as the preview we saw) and his reaction/promises will galvanize the base.

But even if inflation improves, it will only improve some and there's enough negatives to last through Nov. Don't think there are any other major bills that will move the dial (even the Gun bill).

So its pretty much a given that Dems will lose ground in the mid-terms (as that is true for most Presidencies). Likely lose the Senate but will they lose the House too (probably)?

I find it amazing the same people who support Trump are making a big deal of Biden getting his foot stuck in a bike pedal. Could you imagine what it would be like if Trump got on a bike.

The Texas GOP this weekend added to their platform a call to repeal the Voting Rights Act and a call to have a referendum on secession in 2023.

Theater for the ignorant...

Other planks in the TX GOP include, Biden isn't the legitimate President, states should be able to nullify federal laws, and the legislature should elect all statewide offices rather than voters.

Is there much of anything besides slavery they aren't trying to bring back from 1860?

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that party platforms are where you go to learn what a party believes. If someone wants to register or remain registered as a Republican in Texas, this is the platform of the party they are joining or remaining in.

Thankfully they outlawed slavery, but otherwise, they are suggesting that the federal government lacks the authority to overturn slavery if the state still wants it.

my party platforms

Fuck the Texas GOP, and fuck those who support them.

Texas GOP party adopts anti-LGBTQ platform, refers to being gay as ‘abnormal’

Yep, 100%.

You see, that all sounds terrible. But what if I tell you the other side is forgiving $10,000 in student loans to people? Makes the GOP look better doesn't ?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

FTFY

But to answer your question, no it really doesn't make the GOP look better :)

You make a compelling point.

Edit: This was in response to Grantdawg. It was a lot funnier when it was going to be right after his post....

Literally, all the GOP has to do is say inflation and gas prices from now until November, but they just can't help but go full-fascist.

The election is starting to look a lot like previous ones where the GOP pisses away the structural advantages due to lousy Senate candidates. I don't see how the GOP can't retake the House, but the Senate is looking more and more likely to stay with Dems. In PA, NV, and GA, so far, the GOP has bad candidates.

dola

Looks like Israel is going to dissolve the Knesset and go to elections yet again.

I was thinking along the same lines and bought 843 shares of Dems keeping Senate on PredictIt a couple weeks ago. The price was .24 and has only increased to .25 so far.

Dems need to win 4 of these seats to keep the Senate: AZ, GA, NH, NC, NV, PA, WI. I think .25 is crazy low given the current state of those races.

The only one of those I feel is pretty safe for Democrats is NH, especially with both Sununu & Ayotte choosing not to run on the GOP side.

For the rest, it's pretty much the same story: the Democratic candidates are all good, and most of the GOP opponents have some pretty serious issues that once upon a time would have turned off the "middle" and also a good number of GOP voters. If Trump's base turns out for them, however, and/or if Democratic voter participation is depressed (whether due to voter suppression or general malaise) it's easy to see the GOP running the table on the rest of those states.

I could see that happening, but I don't think there's a greater than 75% chance the GOP wins 4 of those races.

And then the GOP will kill the filibuster and pass everything they've dreamed of while dems sit around wondering what happened.

If they only need to win 4, I don't really know why the odds are so low. Like you said, NH is likely going to end up Democrat.

Fetterman will win Pennsylvania. Oz is such a bad candidate and there is a reason so many Republicans were quietly irate at Trump's endorsement of him.

Kelly is quite popular and scandal-free in Arizona. Polls show him up double-digits on all the Republican challengers. That will tighten, but I'd be surprised if he lost.

Then you need one more. Ron Johnson is very unpopular in Wisconsin. Although by November, that state may have eliminated every voting booth in Milwaukee. Warnock probably has a 50/50 shot in Georgia. And I'd say the Dems have at least a 50/50 shot in Nevada.

A lot can change and there is of course the possibility of Dems just sitting home because the party doesn't do anything.

I don't think it is just that. The youth vote maybe, but the youth vote is a fickle to begin with. There are plenty of Democrats that are unhappy about inflation and will stay home because they don't feel either party is helping them.

We no longer have a separation of church and state. The constitution is dead.

"But a State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."

What kind of bullshit, moronic statement is this? No members of the community were excluded by Maine's law. They were only excluded if they chose to send their kids to specific schools. There were many Christians and people of all faiths who received tuition assistance to go to many schools in compliance with Maine's law.

That ruling is a tough one for me. There is much I don't like about it. It really does open the door for religious extremist to further isolate children, and shovel dangerous doctrine into their skulls on the government dime. Not just Christian extremist, but other religions as well.

On the other hand, many of these voucher programs further leave poor children behind. Most of the time if there were a private school a poor child could attend in their neighborhood, it was going to be religious affiliated. This will at least make such programs more available to some kids.

This has always been a tough needle to thread.

it is on it's last legs to be sure, but the modern misconception of separation of church in state is among the major contributors to killing it.

Looking forward to funding the local Scientologist school that pops up in the neighborhood. Although I get the feeling these rulings will only be enforced for certain religions.

They don't want poor kids getting vouchers, they want the rich kids in the neighborhood to use the vouchers to go there over the public schools. I live in Dekalb County, the schools are hit or miss. If you think St. Pious, IHM, St. Thomas Moore want the kids from Buford Highway, you are nuts. They want the rich parents from Decatur and the likes using their public vouchers to go there. That's the thing about vouchers, it's never been about access for underrepresented or poor areas, it's about the people that already go there wanting tax credits for not using the county system.

It's corporate welfare for private business.

Apparently we do not give the organizations that hide/support pedophiles enough.

If I'm an extremist or cult leader it sounds like these rural areas in Maine would be a perfect place to settle down and make the state pay for the "education" of the children.

You’d thin QAnon would be all over this!

Miked, my understanding is in places like the New York and Boston there are many more parochial schools that do cater to poorer areas that will benefit greatly from this. But even in Georgia, almost all private schools have a religious connection. Not just the elite schools, either. I know of several smaller private schools in my county that would exand if they had more public funding. Our church as a matter of fact had private school for awhile. It went under because they couldn't afford to run on what people were able to pay. I imagine lots of churches and synagogues will dive into the school business if they can get public funds.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I don't get why Biden would propose this when he knows the Dem leadership is not supportive?

Regardless, the tax holiday does seem too little to really make a difference. Don't think there is an immediate solution unless its asking our frenemies (and Venezuela) to pump more heavy crude.

Biden doesn't seem to have a strategy other than to punt and say it's the Feds job to fight inflation.

Biden announces a likely doomed gas tax holiday - POLITICO

The Maine case is a clusterfuck from start to finish.

I grew up in Maine and my family still lives there. I am very familiar with the state. There are plenty of secondary schools littered throughout the state. Very, very few kids (even those living on actual islands, like my Dad did, growing up in the 40s & 50s) are all that far away from a secondary school. Sure, in extreme cases you maybe have to drive an hour (at most), or take a ferry like my Dad did, but that's the choice you make for living very much in the middle of nowhere, and the religious schools cited in the petition are certainly not any closer.

In this particular case, I looked up where the two petitioners actually live. The first set, the Carsons, live in Glenburn, which is a suburb of Bangor, the third largest "city" in the state (only 30,000 people, to give you a sense of scale). Bangor has both a well-regarded public high school and a well-regarded non-denominational private school that takes kids funded by the state through the school choice program which is at the center of this case. There are also another 5 decent high schools within a 30 minute drive of Glenburn.

The second set, the Nelsons, live in Palermo, which is halfway between, though a little offset, from both Augusta (the state capital) and Waterville, a town of decent size. Both have decent high schools. In fact, 6 public high schools are within a 30-40 minute drive from Palermo.


Let no one think this is a case of genuine hardship. Because Maine is such a rural state, including communities that live on islands, the state long ago developed a system of schools* throughout the state and then later supplemented that with the school choice program which provides funds for kids from the many small towns (think less than 5000 people) for which running a high school is too costly. These people are choosing, nay expecting, the hard-earned tax dollars of their fellow citizens to be used to send their kids to private, sectarian schools.



*including outposts of the University of Maine system that explicitly serve rural parts of the state, of which 3 are within a 30 minute drive from both petitioners.


A few other points:

1. I've read elsewhere that the case probably never should have been heard as there's no actual hardship being experienced by the petitioners and generally hardship is a requirement for standing.

2. It's worth pointing out that the current Maine program allows for public funds to be used at private institutions that are run by religious organizations, as long as religious teaching (e.g. proselytization) is not part of the curriculum.

As anyone who has worked with local school districts knows, there are well-funded, right-wing organizations working to gut public schools to get voucher programs/charter schools approved and then redirect public funding to those, often sectarian, institutions. This ruling puts another tool in their arsenal. Given the background of some of the Justices, Alito & Barrett in particular, it's very hard to not see the connection.


IMO, Maine had a system that provided a crucial benefit for truly remote (and always poor) families while making a good faith effort to keep a separation of church & state. This sectarian-motivated ruling destroys that.

Hasn't worked in Germany, tried pretty much the same thing. Of course the companies claim that it is working and prices would be even higher without it but even if that's true: Good luck getting people to 'buy' that distinction towards it working or not. Fact is that after it was announced prices hiked, then fell from those inflated highs (think shops hiking prices just before a special sale) for a day or three after coming into effect and then rising again to above where they were before it came into effect.

It is worldwide inflation caused by pandemic-caused supply chain issues and pandemic-caused pent-up demand being unleashed on an economy with pandemic-caused supply restraints.

The President can't fix it any more than he can fly. Personally, I'm happy that the President is acknowledging the role that Congress and an independent Fed play in our separation-of-powers based republic.

It isn't the comforting lie of "I alone can fix it." But after four years of Trump, I'm tired of all the comforting lies.

Yeah I don't understand how world wide inflation and rising gas prices are an issue the president can fix. He can't force China to stop shutting down, he can't force trucking companies to pay better, he can't force companies to put securing redundancies in supply lines over profits, ect.

Inflation followed by a recession was pretty much a given when shutdowns were combined with pumping money into the economy to get us through those shutdowns. Now we act stunned that it's happening.

I agree with Edward. We should nationalize all fossil fuel industries.

Halting federal gas tax seems like a horrible idea. Somehow I feel like both the stations and the wholesalers will just claw back most of that as profit. I dunno what the solution is, but that’s not it.

Don't think anyone is saying Biden can fix inflation immediately. I am saying that Biden can help reduce the impact of inflation if he is willing to pay the political price. Similar to my discussion with Brian, I do not believe that Biden could/can not lessen the impacts (and reduce the odds) on inflation.

On inflation and recession being a given, the best minds then (Powell, Yellen) said transitory inflation and I honestly don't remember reading much about recession back in first 3Q of 2021.

Assuming you agree that stimulus money had helped fuel inflation (or in general, there is too much money around) why do student loan forgiveness now (vs pause). An estimate is $370B. And for that matter, is it time to remove the pause.

Also the Trump tariffs on China (and think Canada also). Should he get rid of those?

Backlog in western ports to offload goods. Can Biden step in and help the union and management do better (e.g. work 24/7)?

Can Biden swallow his pride and re-engage SA (and Venezuela) and give them what they want (whatever that is) to increase heavy crude production?

There's probably other ideas out there that Biden can do if he is willing to pay the price.

Sorry you have reading comprehension issues.

still shocked that none of this goes back to trump dumping a trillion dollar stimulus on top of an economy that was on the upswing.

Yep, it's dumb to even consider. It's like "here's some pocket change to help you buy a hamburger for your family to share" level of usefulness.

Good to know talks between Schumer & Manchin are continuing. Article doesn't provide an estimate on total $ but I'm sure it won't be near the $1.75T. Deficit reduction requirement is interesting, hope they can come up with a good compromise.

Back burner no more: Dems set Manchin talks on party-line bill to simmer - POLITICO
And also ...

Could have a lot to do with the Fed adding almost $5T to their balance sheet since 2020, too.

Federal Reserve Board - Recent balance sheet trends

SI

Printing money excessively is just about the best way to cause inflation.

Sure looks like SCOTUS has opened the door to eliminating any and all gun control laws.

And they severely limited Miranda rights.

If Hillary won, the court would've ended up with a 5-4 liberal majority. It would've been the first clear left leaning majority since the Warren Court era. That wasn't enough of an incentive for the selfish left wingers who voted Stein or stayed home. They did more damage to left wing causes than any right winger or "sellout centrist" could ever hope to achieve.

Bingo.

Short sighted, egotistical, immature, without a true grasp of what was at stake.

On the dems for not making that the true point of the entire election. Leadership completely missed the boat.

I've missed this idea running through conservative legal circles, but it seems that the SCOTUS conservatives are pretty clearly adopting the idea that any law without historical precedence in the U.S. is potentially unconstitutional. They really are working on moving the U.S. back to the pre-Civil War nation.

I've been saying this for a while. Trump wanted to "make America great again" by taking us back to the 1950s and the extremist saw the opportunity and were like, "Fuck that, we're going back to the 1850s."

Well at least the ruling did make clear that it is not ruling out background checks, or gun safety course requirements that some states have. They make clear that the gun owner must be "law abiding" which I guess is where any future gun restrictions are going to pivot. It does call into question whether red-lining or the fix in the girlfriend loop-hole will be able to stand. I also wonder about an assault-rifle ban.

Trying to find any legal rationale in their decisions seems pointless. They contradict themselves in the same ruling.

I think he made a good point. You're insinuating Biden has some power to force private business to change their pricing. If there is something you believe Biden should do, lets hear it. Otherwise, he has as much control over gas prices as he does over the cost of an iPhone.

People want capitalism and then mad when markets do things they don't like.

Can you quote me where you think I said or insinuated we should nationalize all fossil fuel industries?

Nationalizing the industry is really the only way to control what the price is. How does Biden force a company to lower their prices when he has no control?

Let’s not go off on a tangent. Let’s discuss specifically what I was accused of saying ‘nationalizing all fossil fuel industries’. Quote me on where I said or insinuated this.

I’ll be glad to discuss other things I have said. But let’s settle this one first?

You didn't say that. His comment was in jest because you were insinuating Biden somehow had control over what gas prices are.

Okay, got that out of the way.

I said Biden can lessen the impact of inflation if he is willing to pay the political price and listed some options including talking to our frenemies. If this is what makes you think I believe Biden had control over gas prices, we’ll agree to disagree.

If there was some other quote, please let me know

Sure, but after the last few SCOTUS decisions, it's pretty clear the idea that laws have to have been around for decades or centuries is going to be used as a reason to invalidate all sorts of things.