Welcome to the New Police-less World

[togor]

"Abolish the police" is a slogan. Only extremists on the right, ad maybe left, take it literally.

Nonetheless the fact remains: if cops are punching a clock, getting paid, then they ought to provide value to the city. If they want to have a conversation with the Chain of Command over how best to do that in changing circumstances, that is entirely appropriate. But to slouch on the job and get protected by the union for doing so, if that's what they're doing, well there's no excuse for that.

[Art]

"Abolish the police" is a slogan. Only extremists on the right, ad maybe left, take it literally.

Actually not. The strength of the MPD is set in the city charter at a minimum number of about 75% of current strength. In Minneapolis changing the charter requires a referendum. The proposal being worked on by the committee to be placed on the ballot wouldn't be necessary unless the number of cops being cut was more than 25% of the current force, surely a lot more since if we were just tinkering around the edges here we wouldn't need a referendum. In fact, the way things are now, I figure the force might well be reduced by 25% by attrition within a couple of years, the way things are now. The plan being talked about (though far from finalized) would lay most of the burden of public safety on community volunteers and non police health care and social workers. So while people with a badge and a gun wouldn't go a way completely their numbers and role would be drastically reduced.

The voters of Minneapolis can reject the proposal, but we're talking about probably the most liberal city in the United States.

If it weren't for extremists on the left "Abolish the Police" wouldn't be a slogan and the Mayor of Minneapolis, hardly a right winger wouldn't have been hooted of the stage at a rally when he suggested that abolishing the police force was a bad idea.

[togor]

The point being that the right is taking it literally to score political points because it sounds scary. Amplifying the most extreme rhetoric you can find in the other camp is a common practice. For example, it may be news to you that Social Security will be bankrupt in 3 years*

*according to some interpretations of Trump's proposal to adjust payroll tax withholding

[Art]

The point being that the right is taking it literally to score political points because it sounds scary. Amplifying the most extreme rhetoric you can find in the other camp is a common practice. For example, it may be news to you that Social Security will be bankrupt in 3 years*

*according to some interpretations of Trump's proposal to adjust payroll tax withholding

So we're changing the subject. Actually Social Security is de facto bankrupt now. all of it's income has been going into the general fund for decades. Actually I don't favor payroll tax cuts because the beneficiaries are going to pay for it on the back end.

I wonder what your position was when Barack Obama did the same thing you're critical of Trump for doing now???

https://cei.org/blog/trump-adopts-one-barack-obama%E2%80%99s-better-ideas-payroll-tax-cut

[togor]

Art your link doesn't work.

I found this liberal piece attacking Obama's holiday. But that was negotiated with Congress, right? Trump's approach is problematic because people are on the hook for the taxes next April, one way or another.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamas-tax-holiday-a-pois_b_793526

Everyone just wants free stuff from the government now. And I mean *everyone*.

[Art]

Art your link doesn't work.

I found this liberal piece attacking Obama's holiday. But that was negotiated with Congress, right? Trump's approach is problematic because people are on the hook for the taxes next April, one way or another.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamas-tax-holiday-a-pois_b_793526

Everyone just wants free stuff from the government now. And I mean *everyone*.

Try the link now.

you are correct that the Obama Social Security tax cut was not one of the multitude of times he acted unilaterally through executive orders. It was a bad idea then and its a bad idea now. Benefits are paid based on "contributions." A cut in "contributions" on the front end is a cut in benefits on the back end. The fact is attempts to help fix the problem by taking steps like raising the retirement age to 70 have been futile and will continue to be. Trump's plan isn't really a tax cut its an interest free loan.

Trump proposed a plan to abolish the payroll tax and pay Social Security benefits out of the general fund (which is where the money comes from anyway.) At that point Social Security truly becomes welfare. That's going nowhere.

[togor]

Art, you're now coming out on the principle that Presidents "should not act unilaterally through executive orders a multitude of times"?

Just want to check first.

[Art]

Art, you're now coming out on the principle that Presidents "should not act unilaterally through executive orders a multitude of times"?

Just want to check first.

All presidents act unilaterally through executive orders, some just do it more. The problem with an executive order is the next guy can undo everything you did.

[Vern Humphrey]

All presidents act unilaterally through executive orders, some just do it more. The problem with an executive order is the next guy can undo everything you did.

My first act after being inaugurated will be to cancel all existing Executive Orders.

[togor]

All presidents act unilaterally through executive orders, some just do it more. The problem with an executive order is the next guy can undo everything you did.

Yes.