preventable police shooting. Looks like there are more preventable justified police shootings than what we are typically led to believe. Some people didn't have to die, and just blaming the victim doesn't get at the truth of the matter.

count me in. Many of the cops I know well have told me this same thing. In fact, ALL of the cops I speak to tell me this.

Here's the problem. Police department funding is at record lows in many places and costs are at record highs. In fact, that is one reason why Mari thinks civil forfeiture is a necessity, to better fund our men in blue.

Now I disagree with that, on constitutional grounds, but his point about the shortages in funds for these programs and the police in general, is quite accurate.

So are you, and the public at large, willing to pay more taxes to better fund the police? You think those higher taxes are going to go over well in poor, urban neighborhoods? Can they afford higher taxes?

Its a real problem Matt.

One solution to that problem would be to raise taxes on the very rich only, but that's clearly very divisive. Of course, there is also the matter of the US's defence spending, which if and when that gets curtailed could solve this problem somewhat, but that also doesn't seem particularly likely.  I don't know, it's hard to see a solution that could be rendered in the near future.

It was a total disaster. Some French moved to the UK and other nations, many famous people in France threatened to do the same, business owners said they would relocate those businesses outside of France, etc etc etc

The just "stick it to the rich" sounds great in theory, but doesn't help in any practical sense and actually hurts society.

No, I don't have the answer either, but SOMETHING needs to be cut AND we need real growth policies to expand the tax base (i.e. increase the number of people working) or we are going to lose our safety nets as well.

to improve the de-escalation training issue:

1. Change the culture. Meaning, make it OK to ask for help, and not making taking control as rapidly as possible the main goal, but rather the safety of all those involved. Reduce the competitive spirit of the job. Hard to do when everyone is competing for promotion, so the criterion for promotion needs to reflect the importance of having the ability to communicate with a broad spectrum of people, and de-escalation skills. Side note; there are times when taking control as rapidly as possible is the best solution to safeguard and maintain the safety of all involved, However, that should not be the operating procedure across the board.

2. Redistribute the pie. Perhaps trimming 2 to 3 percent of the top 3 or 4 categories, represented in the chart, and spending it for de-escalation training may go a long way.

It does seem to be some peoples solution to EVERY problem though.

In fairness, there are varying levels of sticking it to the rich. France and their 75% was far too harsh; I was thinking more along the lines of a 1 to 2% increase on the current situation. Whether that materially changes things is another question though.

Forgive me for not knowing my American political history (it's almost like we aren't taught it in school in Europe or something, weird), but wasn't there some absurdly high tax rate on the very rich (90%+? I don't know where I'm pulling that number from) in the not too distant past?

Oh, and the 'something' to be cut? The somewhat inappropriately named 'defence' budget. Whether you agree with the wars that have been waged in recent years or not, surely the notion that too much has been spent in doing so is not debatable?

You cant cherry pick taxes and leave all other factors out.  

Clinton benefitted from a Dot Com boom that eventually went bust (and led to recession) and had the great fortune of being prez in the very early days of the internet, which skyrocketed productivity and increased profits. He actually lowered the cap gains rate.

Eisenhower's America did not have any real global competition as the worlds super power economies of today (UK, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc) were either in ruins or in the process of building back up their infrastructure and not being able to compete with America globally at that time.

Re: the number of military bases, I cant disagree with that. How many "righties" will tell you that? If we are going to cut across the board, there cant be any sacred cows. We can cut defense spending by cutting waste and redundancy, not by making America less safe

but they were more than offset by huge loopholes and tax shelters which allowed most of the truly rich to pay no taxes whatsoever. People love to spread the myth about the Reagan tax cuts for the rich, but the truth of the matter is taxes actually went up for the rich under Reagan as thousands of millionaires found themselves paying taxes for the very first time.

Unfortunately the Tax Reform Act of 1984 was amended so often and so quickly that in just a couple of years it was bore little resemblance to it's original form

...Because you reminded me of something very relevant to this discussion - nuclear missiles. There are something like 4000 of them being maintained in the US right now, despite Colin Powell describing them as 'useless' after his period in office. Ignoring the cost of maintaining them just briefly, I would suggest that not having 4000 of the most dangerous weapons ever created in human history would probably be safer than having them at all? It's not like there haven't been causes for alarm either - see the link below.

But then there is also the cost. How much does a nuclear missile silo cost per year to keep running? I can't imagine it's cheap. I also can't imagine a scenario where launching any number of these things actually happens, and even if it did, I certainly can't imagine a need for 4000 of them.

America is like a 19 year old frat boy who likes everyone to know he has a 9" cock when a 7" one will do just fine. lol

I cant conceive of a need for that many nukes and I cant think any super pro-military person would be able to give you a plausible answer either.  

If memory serves, and I could be wrong, but aren't you the one that thinks we should have zero nukes, or was that more of just an academic point you were making

but I seem to remember a certain POTUS promising us millions of "shovel ready" jobs. I wonder what ever happened to all those jobs?

and please spare me the "righties blocked everything" line as the Dems had a super majority at the time.

Truer words have never been spoken.  
    I think you're thinking of someone else. While there's probably an argument to be made that there should be zero nukes altogether, I'm not entirely of that opinion nor do I think I've expressed as much, primarily because there might actually be some scenario where having a VERY LIMITED number on hand makes sense - whether that's just to serve as a deterrent to war or if in fact they do need to be used for their intended purpose. 4000 though I would suggest is at the very least 3800 too many, and even then that's an exceptionally generous estimate. At some point, what is the difference between having 40 nukes and 4000? 40 will accomplish everything that 4000 does, unless you intend to bomb the same place more than once in short order for some unfathomable, inhumane reason.

The Left doesn't ever talk about that. Just put it on the Chinese credit card? Are they willing to cut ANYTHING other than defense?

I don't think that there's an unwillingness to cut anything other than defence, it's just that that happens to be the largest, most expensive and most internationally reputation harming elephant in the room.

We do want the black guy to have success and we are doing our best to protect him from fucking everything up, by blocking things, but unfortunately he is the consummate fuck-up that no matter how hard we try we just cannot keep him from fucking things up.

You're welcome
2016 = GOP WH, Senate and House
   

A thought that comes to mind is the asset forfeiture program as it relates to drug busts of major proportion.

It was a few years ago and I still lived in Los Angeles when an asset forfeiture maneuver was done involving a yacht owned by a local businessman (can't recall the name offhand) who was importing cocaine and marijuana into the US from Colombia via the Panama Canal. His yacht slip was in Marina Del Rey.  

The boat was valued at $12 million US, the drugs they confiscated (3 tons of high grade Colombian blow, 1 ton of marijuana) had an estimated street value of $200 million (mostly from the high price of pure coke at that time).

The marijuana was destroyed, but all but 2 pounds of the cocaine were NEVER ACCOUNTED FOR!

The yacht in question wound up being sold at auction for under $500,000 to the Marina Dey Rey Yacht club representing an anonymous bidder. A few years later, it wound up in the posession (for a short time) of Rafael Pérez, disgraced police officer and a key figure in the Rampart Division corruption scandals of the late 90's as well as suspected murderer of rapper Notorious B.I.G.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

Asset forfeiture is a sham under its current configuration. It should bring $500 million to $1 Billion a year into law enforcement coffers, and this is assuming all the drugs themselves can be accounted for in evidence lockers.

I have no doubt my tale of corruption is but one example, and there are hundreds if not thousands across the US.

On the other hand, if a mere 2% of our defense budget was trimmed by cutting the waste and redundancies (theres that word again) and those monies ($11 billion +) then transferred to education and law enforcement, it would go a great distance towards easing the budget restrictions currently in place. Even the most ardent hawks acknowledge there is a factor of waste in our military appropriations and budgeting process.

There is an INCREDIBLE unwillingness to cut anything else. Where do you see it happening? And defense isn't our most expensive cost, entitlement programs are.

As for our "international reputation" I don't give a shit about what outsiders think about our budget.  

Many of those judging would be the first to come crawling to us on their hands and knees if China or Russia invaded or threatened them, so that hypocrisy would quickly show itself. lol

They won't even agree to slow down INCREASED spending, much less offer any actual cuts.

All these so called Draconian "cuts" in spending they were so vehemently against were no more than slowing increased spending, no actual cuts even made it to the bargaining table, well except in defense of course.

and I was shouting at the top of my lungs how bad an idea it was ever to leave.  

I can't stand McCain, but he hit the nail on the head when he said "I don't care if we are there for another hundred years as long as our kids aren't dying"  

Well, now that we left and it looks like we HAVE to go back, now our kids are going to die, all because Obama left in the first place.  

I do agree with you about the right, but not about the Tea Party except to agree that they, like the rest of the right are too busy trying to stop gays from getting married to do any of the things they were voted in to do in the first place. Not the least of which is overturning ObamaCare.

Now as far as high speed trains go, we better learn how to operate our slow speed trains before I ever get on a high speed train with the safety record like Amtrak's

They are a MAJOR financial loser, when we are already swimming in red ink and they subsidize mostly rich liberals.

Yeah, that sounds like smart economic policy. LOL

I don't doubt that entitlement programs cost more, but that was not the point I was making. It's hard to argue that said programs aren't necessary. It's however not difficult at all to argue that the US's spending on defence (and truly, I fucking hate calling it that. If no one is attacking you, you aren't defending against anything. Invading other countries for whatever purpose a politician claims is not defence.) is wholly unnecessary and extravagant. I mean, you yourself agreed with my point regarding nuclear weapons. Iraq was started on a basis of weapons that didn't exist. I believe it was you who mentioned the abundance of military bases worldwide that simply don't need to be. How any of that 'defends' the US is beyond me.

I wasn't referring to the budget when I mentioned reputation, more the perceived proclivity for warmongering, inaccurate or not. Worldwide the feeling is that if there's a fight the US can wedge themselves into they will, whether they're requested to or not. Self appointed judges, jury and executioners of the world. You can argue that statement all you like, I'm making no comment as to how valid it actually is - it is just the sentiment of the rest of the world.

As for other things to cut, I don't know. I'm not an economist. I'm also not nearly as far left as some of the people here who will likely have other answers. Cutting expenditure is not the only way to increase your bank account; the only reason defence is brought up so consistently is that it is SUCH an egregious overspend. Raise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and fuel; get more cars off your broken roads, protect the environment and keep some more people out of hospital or the grave while you're at it. Use that money to fund the police, which was the original topic here.

how many times does it happen that Congress votes to finance weapons systems, planes, etc. when the generals, admirals and the Pentagon does not even want them. I'm not an expert on Asset forfeiture, however I think it would work, and still protect the innocent if the property where held until the person was found guilty, then sold for profit to support the police department who made the bust. Or, return the property if the person has been found innocent, or had no charges brought against him/her.

Completely agree, I was looking into how much a train journey to a another relatively nearby city (400 miles) would cost recently for a weekend break. It would have been cheaper and quite literally 15 times quicker to fly first class.

I CLEARLY said that because Obama pulled out, NOW many of our kids are going to die needlessly when we could have kept a decent sized force, just like we do in every other country we invade with very liitle cost in money or lives by shuffling troops from places we really no longer need to be in like Germany.

The vast majority of Americans were fed a lie that our kids would keep dying if we stayed, and also fed the lie that Iraq was capable and willing to fend for itself after 35 years of rule under Saddam.

Dude, your lack of knowledge about things US, which is understandable, is only surpassed by your "Mr. Know everything citizen of the world" bullshit.

Sure SOME people in the world, including some HERE, think that about US foreign policy, and there are hundreds of millions or more, around the world who think otherwise, who appreciate the US and what it has done in history to protect our allies from speaking German and Russian, or just having their throat cut or shot by some Communist, Nazi or totalitarian regime.

MILLIONS of Americans have died keeping the world from totally falling into the hands of despots.

And stop with this "I AM NOT SAYING IT, THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SAYING IT" nonsense. If that is what you believe, and that is CERTAINLY the implication, just have the balls to say it and own it.

You are obviously a somewhat intelligent guy, that adds to this board with thoughtgful discourse at times, but every once in awhile your anti-Americanism comes shining through, which is fine btw as this is a free speech board for the most part, but making ridiculous, asinine generalizations is usually the work of a few others here. Others you needn't emulate.

I don't even know where to start, you are so far out there on this post.

Until and unless the world gets off of oil, we HAVE to project power in that part of the world. Leaving created exactly the power vacuum that GHW Bush  feared. It has created a stronger, bolder Iran that knows we are so weak under this President that we will grovel for any kind of deal, no matter how bad it is.

and genius, Iraq isn't "Osama's" land and it never was.

It's not about Iraq's wants or interests, it's about our own. We need a presence "somewhere" in the ME. We invested a LOT of money and lives to make that happen, just for your hero to throw it all away.

American culture, which there are actually many, is not necessarily anti-American, though Republicans usually take it as such.  

and YOUR hero has already flushed plenty of money down that particular toilet with zip to show for it.

Invading Iraq didn't make Iran stronger, leaving it did.

So there's more money to better train the ones we have? We really don't need so many police in this country. Nor do they need tanks and military equipment. Why is it that when it comes to not executing US citizens, what the cops need is more training that we can't afford, but funding never seems to be an issue when every podunk town in America has armored humvees, tanks and SWAT teams

Do you get your news from any source beside Huff Po, the Daily Kook and the Guardian?

He also gets his news from al-jazeera and other terrorist run media.

 
Thank you
2015 = 28

...you deliberately chose your words carefully and didn't speak in absolutes so I have no problem with what you said.

But now let's contrast that with what at our foreign friend said:

"Worldwide the feeling is that if there's a fight the US can wedge themselves into they will, whether they're requested to or not. Self appointed judges, jury and executioners of the world. You can argue that statement all you like, I'm making no comment as to how valid it actually is - it is just the sentiment of the rest of the world."  

That isn't a sweeping generalization the OP is always moaning about others making here? You think he is uniquely qualified to speak for "the rest of the world?"  

If you notice, he says he cant comment on the validity of that statement i.e. he is incapable of giving HIS OWN feelings on the topic, but yet he is apparently capable of knowing the REST of the worlds opinion? That makes sense to you Matt?

He spoke in an absolute to give the appearance the whole world en masse is against America's foreign policy. You think that is fair to America, to give that obviously false impression?

Imagine if any Rep or Dem here spoke in an absolute about blacks or Jews or gays in a negative fashion, and added that that is "the sentiment of the rest of the world" too, you would have had a hissy fit and called them out. As I would as well.

Now do you see the point I am making?

-- Modified on 8/20/2015 8:57:25 PM

YOUR hero is fkin dumber than Palin and "Georgie" is more popular than him.

That should keep you awake at night. Lol

I guess that magical (D) next to his name makes it all ok, huh Laff?

Boot licking Obama is all the rage right now. How does that leather taste?

If you want to believe that what I'm saying is just one man's opinion, fine. Continue to close yourself off from the rest of the world.

that many share that view you have made.

But It is YOU saying it was the WORLDS opinion, which is absurd.

And please, you of ALL people should not be busting balls about ANY generalizations made by others here, as you have done so on several occasions. You went past a generalization into speaking in absolutes.

I like your posts for the most part and think you add a unique perspective to this board, but I will call you out on your nonsense when need be.

You are smart enough to know the point I was making and it would have been nice for you to acknowledge its validity.

Enjoy your weekend GB.