Political Roundtable Part XXXIII

[daoneandonly]

Yes, AFM, as mentioned, I don't have kids in the public education system. I myself went to a private university as well. I went there because that's what worked best financially for my family and myself; it wasn't necessarily where I wanted to go. I paid out of pocket for my Masters degree because my employer at the time wouldnt. None of this makes me special or deserving of a thing. The reason I bring it up is for these things to happen, sacrifcies had to be made. I didn't get the full college experience as I had to stay home. In order to pay for the postgraduate degree (which I actually regret, seeing how it's not a biggie in IT), I had to forgo all sorts of splurges, outings, vacations, etc.

I guess my point being is a lot can be done if people were more willing to sacrifice certain aspects instead of expecting things to be just given or handed out.

[queridiculo]

LOL, repugnicants just can't help themselves.

Mike Johnson already a vote shy.

[queridiculo]

Yes, AFM, as mentioned, I don't have kids in the public education system. I myself went to a private university as well. I went there because that's what worked best financially for my family and myself; it wasn't necessarily where I wanted to go. I paid out of pocket for my Masters degree because my employer at the time wouldnt. None of this makes me special or deserving of a thing. The reason I bring it up is for these things to happen, sacrifcies had to be made. I didn't get the full college experience as I had to stay home. In order to pay for the postgraduate degree (which I actually regret, seeing how it's not a biggie in IT), I had to forgo all sorts of splurges, outings, vacations, etc.

I guess my point being is a lot can be done if people were more willing to sacrifice certain aspects instead of expecting things to be just given or handed out.

Sacrifices

Goes to show how out of touch you are.

You really think you had it tough because you had to skip spring break.

Snowflake much?

[daoneandonly]

Yes, AFM, as mentioned, I don't have kids in the public education system. I myself went to a private university as well. I went there because that's what worked best financially for my family and myself; it wasn't necessarily where I wanted to go. I paid out of pocket for my Masters degree because my employer at the time wouldnt. None of this makes me special or deserving of a thing. The reason I bring it up is for these things to happen, sacrifcies had to be made. I didn't get the full college experience as I had to stay home. In order to pay for the postgraduate degree (which I actually regret, seeing how it's not a biggie in IT), I had to forgo all sorts of splurges, outings, vacations, etc.

I guess my point being is a lot can be done if people were more willing to sacrifice certain aspects instead of expecting things to be just given or handed out.

Sacrifices

Goes to show how out of touch you are.

You really think you had it tough because you had to skip spring break.

Snowflake much?

No, I, don't, and I didn't ask your opinion since you're still the same name-calling poster who wished death on me. If you had reading comprehension 101, you'd realize that the sacrifice comment was tied into the previous post about people who want their student debt wiped out yet still seem to have money for streaming services and vacations. Yeah, they are not willing to make small sacrifices and expect taxpayers to cover their partying college tenure.

And why is a US political board relative to you when you don't even live here or pay even a meager sum in taxes?

[queridiculo]

No, I, don't, and I didn't ask your opinion since you're still the same name-calling poster who wished death on me. If you had reading comprehension 101, you'd realize that the sacrifice comment was tied into the previous post about people who want their student debt wiped out yet still seem to have money for streaming services and vacations. Yeah, they are not willing to make small sacrifices and expect taxpayers to cover their partying college tenure.

And why is a US political board relative to you when you don't even live here or pay even a meager sum in taxes?

Letting your imagination run wild again ey?

Yeah, exactly, it's without a doubt all these wellfare college queens that are looking for handouts that are asking for student loan forgiveness.

Not possibly countless young folks that are victims of predatory lending, or retirement age folks that have already paid back their loans over multiple times and are still facing ruinous payments.

The truth is that you're simply lacking in compassion, and you're twisting your let them eat cake mentality into all kinds of nonsensical takes to justify why it's acceptable to be a stone cold antisocial ****.

Sacrifices , or the legend of yer ole bootstrap.

[queridiculo]

I will add that your question about "how is it fair that I pay more for someone else's healthcare" could be applied to almost all taxation.

I'm childless and went to a private university. Why do I have to pay taxes for other people's children to go to school?

My house has never caught on fire. I'm responsible and don't leave the stove on. Why do my taxes pay for the fire department?

You can repeat ad nauseum.

If you're looking for a personal benefit to covering other's healthcare cost, how about this--you get to live in a society where someone is less likely to put a gun to your head and ask for your wallet. Or one without homeless people everywhere, stepping over needles on the sidewalk. Again, medical debt is the number one reason for bankruptcy in america and it's partially why we have a homeless epidemic and crime higher than any other developed country.

I was just in Prague. A much poorer country than America. Didn't see a single guy sleeping on the sidewalk. Didn't hear a single police siren the entire week I was there. Coincidence? Maybe.


As long as we're quoting the bible, here's my favorite:

For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

That honestly sounds like something Eminem would write today that's legit #BARZ

It's pointless to argue with somebody that doesn't understand a concept as simply as risk pooling when it comes to insurance.

Dude has a chronic disease that requires lifelong mangement, but somehow can't wrap his head around the fact that young and healthy folk are footing the bill.

He argues for personal responsibility and not wanting to pay for other people while being on the receiving end of precisely what he is arguing against.

Don't waste your time with having a logical argument with him.

Some people are gracious not calling him a troll, I don't see how when he's constantly showing up with his drive by style posting.

[Fairview4Life]

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

You aren't paying 32, 35+% of your income in taxes.

https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets

You are taxed 32% on the income you make between $182,101 and $231,250 and 35% on income between $231,251 and $578,125, and 37% on income above that amount. You aren't taxed 32%, 35% or 37% on all of your income. If you're married or filing jointly, those numbers are doubled. That's how progressive tax systems work. The more you make the higher % of your income above certain thresholds you can afford to contribute to the society that has made you so successful. But your first $11,000 are still taxed at 10%, just like the poor people you hate. There are also a lot of ways to reduce your tax burden.

[Zonkerbl]

This is dumb. You're not paying for other people- young you is paying for old you.

Why bother paying social security, if the money I pay in goes to current retirees?

[Zonkerbl]

Also, people not wanting to cross subsidize less healthy people's healthcare is the market failure that makes nationalized health care necessary

[daoneandonly]

This guy doesnt know anything about me, yet feels the need to always be disrespectful and throw out lies. Im on a very specific healthcare provider, so for those who share that one, which is a very small number here in the DMV, they're the only ones who may have potentially paid more (than they would have otherwise) when I had an issue caused by the malpractice of a doctor who no lie, described himself as a "bleeding liberal." So if you know of anyone who fits the bill, send them my way; I'm more than willing to pay what I owe; I don't cry about student debt while watching Netflix/amazon prime/max on my personal device, sitting on the beaches of Turks & Caicos sipping a mojito.

Sure, this is the same as people in the 30+% tax brackets paying for anything and everything for people in the lower brackets. If you want universal healthcare, then flatten the tax bracket system. Everyone pays the same basic percentage (or at least smaller gaps) of their income in taxes, but we can't have that for some reason.

But this was a pointless exercise coming back here. I'll own my stupidity and immaturity getting sucked back in after trying to warn Bon. I should know with the likes of a querdicolo and Zonk and their constant insults, there's no reason for anyone with differing opinions who believe in working for everything you get in life.

Take care doc, ACM, Fair; here's to a 2025 being a joyous one for you.

[Zonkerbl]

A parent's #1 duty is to do what's best for their kids and put their childrens' needs above their own. So, of course, that means insuring your kids so they will be taken care of. Your side also claims her body is her choice, the government should stay out of things between a doctor and patient, yet they should somehow pay for it. How does that make sense?

You didn't answer my question because you don't have a good response that doesn't make you look like a heartless conservative scumbag. I am not asking what parents should do.

If the parents are irresponsible i.e. not properly insuring the children, should the children have access to a doctor or not? It's that simple.

Most Americans are insured. And no hospital is going to turn a kid in need away. So I don't need to answer such a ridiculous question, it's your imaginary reality to get free Healthcare at others' expense. Kids will get the care and their parents should be fitted the bill accordingly if they choose not to be insured

But please ignore my question like I did yours

lol "other decent people won't tolerate my cruelty so it's fine" that's the answer you're going with? wow

[Zonkerbl]

This guy doesnt know anything about me, yet feels the need to always be disrespectful and throw out lies. Im on a very specific healthcare provider, so for those who share that one, which is a very small number here in the DMV, they're the only ones who may have potentially paid more (than they would have otherwise) when I had an issue caused by the malpractice of a doctor who no lie, described himself as a "bleeding liberal." So if you know of anyone who fits the bill, send them my way; I'm more than willing to pay what I owe; I don't cry about student debt while watching Netflix/amazon prime/max on my personal device, sitting on the beaches of Turks & Caicos sipping a mojito.

Sure, this is the same as people in the 30+% tax brackets paying for anything and everything for people in the lower brackets. If you want universal healthcare, then flatten the tax bracket system. Everyone pays the same basic percentage (or at least smaller gaps) of their income in taxes, but we can't have that for some reason.

But this was a pointless exercise coming back here. I'll own my stupidity and immaturity getting sucked back in after trying to warn Bon. I should know with the likes of a querdicolo and Zonk and their constant insults, there's no reason for anyone with differing opinions who believe in working for everything you get in life.

Take care doc, ACM, Fair; here's to a 2025 being a joyous one for you.

what does "the likes of querediculo and Zonk" mean? Sounds like an insult to me.

[daoneandonly]

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

You aren't paying 32, 35+% of your income in taxes.

https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets

You are taxed 32% on the income you make between $182,101 and $231,250 and 35% on income between $231,251 and $578,125, and 37% on income above that amount. You aren't taxed 32%, 35% or 37% on all of your income. If you're married or filing jointly, those numbers are doubled. That's how progressive tax systems work. The more you make the higher % of your income above certain thresholds you can afford to contribute to the society that has made you so successful. But your first $11,000 are still taxed at 10%, just like the poor people you hate. There are also a lot of ways to reduce your tax burden.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of this. The lower brackets don't pay any of this, while these folks pay 32/35% of whatever they fall in that range. To me, that's absurd, especially if you throw in eliminating employer healthcare options and going to a universal system. These are the brackets paying for all of that.

And I don't hate them, wanting to know one's story and circumstances before being willing to help should not be viewed as hate.

[Zonkerbl]

Not once was race brought up in that post. Criminals come in all colors and should be treated the same. All the ones I described spanned multiple races and both genders

Oh sure. It's just a coincidence that the large majority of them are black. Not intentional at all. Wink wink! Amiright?

You can play the race card for everything and anything; it's what you do, and your post history showcases it, and that's fine your prerogative. I don't care about race (or age for that matter) when it comes to the criminal justice system or what circumstances may have led someone to turn to a life of crime. There is zero reason or excuse to rationalize criminal behavior, zilch. People should be punished accordingly.

I feel like when someone makes up a lie about me, and uses it to make a sweepingly malicious and false and racist claim about my arguments, that's an insult

So far you've mentioned me twice, each time to make wildly malicious generalized claims about what an evil libtard I am

You piss me off, da1, you're a jerk and your arguments are dumb

[pancakes3]

netflix without ads is $180/year. Mason is $14k a year. Georgetown is $68k a year. what are we even talking about?

[Fairview4Life]

Once again, how is it fair for people paying 32, 35+% of their income in taxes to get the same exact coverage than those paying far less? Its not, at all

You aren't paying 32, 35+% of your income in taxes.

https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets

You are taxed 32% on the income you make between $182,101 and $231,250 and 35% on income between $231,251 and $578,125, and 37% on income above that amount. You aren't taxed 32%, 35% or 37% on all of your income. If you're married or filing jointly, those numbers are doubled. That's how progressive tax systems work. The more you make the higher % of your income above certain thresholds you can afford to contribute to the society that has made you so successful. But your first $11,000 are still taxed at 10%, just like the poor people you hate. There are also a lot of ways to reduce your tax burden.

Yeah, I'm fully aware of this. The lower brackets don't pay any of this, while these folks pay 32/35% of whatever they fall in that range. To me, that's absurd, especially if you throw in eliminating employer healthcare options and going to a universal system. These are the brackets paying for all of that.

And I don't hate them, wanting to know one's story and circumstances before being willing to help should not be viewed as hate.

Oh sorry, it did not seem like you were aware of it at all, since you kept referring to paying that much of your income in taxes.

The idea is that the people making $500,000 are benefitting more from a society where people are not dying of cholera in the streets and have the ability to afford a baseline of goods and services than someone making $5,000. So they can contribute higher percentage of the income they are earning in order to keep that society functioning. And lo and behold that has worked remarkably well everywhere it has been tried. It is better for the person making $500,000 if the person making $5,000 doesn’t start getting desperate because they can’t feed their kids or pay for chemo. And it’s also better for them if poor people can afford to buy stuff, since that’s how the entire economy functions.

[doclinkin]

To me, that's absurd, especially if you throw in eliminating employer healthcare options and going to a universal system. These are the brackets paying for all of that.

And I don't hate them, wanting to know one's story and circumstances before being willing to help should not be viewed as hate.

An expanded Medicare system doesn’t eliminate private medicine or private insurance even. Nor employer based insurance. It protects those at the bottom. But those who can afford it will always have the options of seeking better care. The market will provide it.

A more fair tax code would simply scale upwards at the top of the scale. If they paid a fair share they could balance the budget alone. Because they can afford it better.

The fact that a billionaire pays the same rate as others in the top income bracket that earn .06% of that is absurd.

He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’

If corporate loopholes were closed and the truly wealthy were taxed fairly we could afford to make sure that people were not impoverished by medical debt.

Or work for decades of indentured servitude paying educational debt to universities that have massive endowments and tax exemptions.

The thing I can never wrap my head around is how moral and thoughtful people can support a political party that prides itself on heartlessness.

As for wanting to judge the needy before giving help. Seems the opposite of what you’re being asked by your spiritual teacher.

I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.

Not, For he said unto them:

”Hey buddy is it your own fault you’re hungry? Why are you naked, get a job to buy some clothes, gross, dude. You ever think maybe you’re sick because you don’t work hard enough? Get some insurance, man!”

To me it seems we have government because in general people are selfish. And we need a structure to ensure we are working for the betterment of all. That we should live up to the principles of our Constitution.

Your Indian community looks out for itself. Because they have compassion for and understanding of each other’s circumstances. But it’s easy for one group to have suspicion for another group and lack understanding or compassion and assume the worst.

I wish as Americans we were able to treat all other citizens with the same compassion and care. And if we can’t that my government would do so.

In any society there will be bad people who make bad choices. There will also be good people forced into terrible choices. Hopefully you have a justice system that can weed that out.

But with a system that prevents starvation, homelessness, preventable illness, with a society that provides education and the means for the majority of people to work to better their lives, there’s more room for people to risk making something new instead of grinding away at a job for a corporation just to make sure you have health insurance.

There will always be strivers and hard workers and creatives. The system right now makes it harder for folks to take a risk. And no net below them if they try and fail. Or catch a bad break. Our collective work right now enriches a few at the top, but a working man can’t expect to buy a home or retire.

The republicans want to raise the retirement age because they think you should work until you die. Not be able to relax after a lifetime of work and benefit from the effort of your youth.

I dunno man. Seems to me you’re supporting the wrong side.

[Zonkerbl]

To any other ignorant right wing blow hards lurking in the shadows of their mother's basement huffing glue and pulling their hair out over libtard parasites who want US taxpayers to pay for medicare for all and to stop throwing every black person you can get your hands on in jail, here are some facts, you feces flinging toddlers:

The libtard parasitic medicare for all that those evil liberals are asking for would save the country half a trillion dollars a year, enough to more than double our stupidly high $300 billion per year spending on police and law enforcement.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8572548/#:~:text=The%20bottom%20line%20of%20Medicare,than%20current%20national%20healthcare%20expenditure.

"we predict that a single-payer healthcare system would require $3.034 trillion annually (Figure 3, Appendix), $458 billion less than current national healthcare expenditure."

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/justice-expenditures-and-employment-united-states-2017

"Real (inflation-adjusted) justice system expenditures increased 62% from $188 billion in 1997 to $305 billion in 2017."

It took me THIRTY SECONDS to google this, you idiots. You blathering, intentionally ignorant sheep.

FURTHERMORE.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/

"Both the FBI and BJS data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation.

Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%)."

CRIME HAS FALLEN DRAMATICALLY OVER THE LAST 3 DECADES

Has the doubling of expenditures on law enforcement contributed to this trend? If you google it you get conflicting results, probably because everyone doing it are all idiots. The economists in the NPR study I cited above used instrumental variables, which is ok, but really you should also be using fixed effects if you're analyzing panel data (cross sectional and over time)

Here's the study cited in the NPR article:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28202/w28202.pdf

[edit ok NPR didn't know that fixed effects was important, they did in fact use them]

This study [edit: also] used fixed effects (and instrumental variables):
https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1845&context=hc_sas_etds

He finds that increased spending on cops has zero effect on murders, rapes, and assault. The NPR study relies exclusively on the value of a statistical life to determine that increased spending on cops is cost effective, because of lives saved from lower murders, but he doesn't use fixed effects to filter out geographical variation that is not correlated with police spending (i.e. variation due to variables not included in the regression [e.g. mob presence because the city took longer than others to legalize gambling would be associated with higher crime rates and higher law enforcement spending], or are unmeasurable) and to eliminate endogeneity effects (i.e. you are trying to measure whether law enforcement spending lowers crime, but of course the causality also goes the other way - higher crime rates cause increased law enforcement spending). When you do use fixed effects, there's no statistically detectable effect on murders and so spending more money on cops is money wasted. All increased cops spending does is reduce robbery - "doubling police spending would reduce robbery by 7.18%." That's it.

"I have calculated the dollar cost of reducing crimes if the year were 2010, based on the average city. This city has a population of 546,485 and spends 378 dollars per person on policing for a total of $206,571,330. That city suffers 59 murders, 238 incidences of rape, 2,547 assaults, 1,580 robberies, 6,646 burglaries, 16,243 occurrences of larceny, and 2,740 cases of motor vehicle theft that year. By doubling their police spending to $413,142,660, we can expect 113 fewer robberies, 374 fewer burglaries, 508 fewer occurrences of larceny, and 155 fewer cases of motor vehicle theft. The reduction in murders, rapes, and 23 assaults are not significant enough to be recorded here. I leave it up to the reader to determine if that is a worthwhile use of funds".

So the extra $120 billion we spent on law enforcement between 1997 and 2017 probably accomplished little in terms of reducing crime, yet did accomplish putting a whole bunch of black people in jail:

https://www.sentencingproject.org/research/

"There are 2 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails—a 500% increase over the last 40 years."

A disproportionate amount of the incarcerated population is black.

If putting black people in jail does not reduce crime, why do it? Is it because of our quiet hate for black people?

Let me put it another way - it doesn't matter what your intentions are. If you are in favor of putting *more* people in jail to fight crime, the *effect* is PRIMARILY to increase the number of black people in jail, without any significant effect on crime.

Putting people in jail is an incredibly harsh punishment, given that it makes getting a job or access to finance much, much more difficult, all else equal. If you have the same entrepreneurial talent and drive as someone else, but have a criminal record, you and your family have lower income generating capability FOREVER. The disproportionate targeting of black people for imprisonment probably explains the persistent gap between their income earning potential and wealth accumulation compared to everyone else. Black people consistently, over the last several decades, have lower house ownership rates than everyone else. With equal opportunity you should see this gap closing over time and it has not.

Our criminal justice system disproportionately puts black people in jail. Increasing spending on law enforcement increases the number of black people in jail, without having any significant effect on crime. NOW THAT YOU KNOW THIS, supporting increased spending on law enforcement IS RACIST.

[Zonkerbl]

FURTHERMORE FURTHERMORE

Black people spent all of the 20th century moving from the South to the cities in the North where all the jobs are. At the same time that all these new black residents were gathering in inner cities in the north, our use of gasoline and diesel increased. Until the late 1970s, all these fossil fuels emitted lead into the air right where all these black people were living, and we didn't have unleaded gasoline until the early eighties. So, just so you know, exposure to lead in children leads to IQ loss and, in about 2-3% of cases, SOCIOPATHIC BEHAVIOR. So it's *interesting,* don't you think, that crime started to rise as the children exposed to lead in the seventies became teens in the eighties, and it's also *very interesting* that a generation after we eliminated lead from gasoline, crime peaked in the early nineties and then started to decline thereafter. This is a statistically significant effect - studies have shown that about a third of the decline in crime since the nineties can be explained by reduced lead exposure.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10393136/

Other effects that influence crime are, of course, income growth, since crime is associated with poverty. Note that it's *absolute* poverty we're talking about, because *relative* poverty has INCREASED since Reagan and his idiotic "trickle down economics" nonsense. Real wages of the lowest income deciles have stayed pretty much the same since Reagan. DESPITE the wildly improved labor productivity that has occurred over that time. Basically, all the extra incomes generated BY LABOR since Reagan have gone to rich people (owners of capital - i.e. stockholders/Republicans)

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

So yeah, our increase in expenditures on law enforcement have had almost nothing to do with the decline in violent crime.

ALSO!

YOU KNOW WHAT WE COULD DO TO REDUCE CRIME EVEN MORE, EVEN THOUGH CRIME HAS FALLEN DRAMATICALLY SINCE THE EARLY 1990S? WE COULD HAVE A UBI TO TRANSFER THE MONEY BACK TO THE LABORERS THAT THE CAPITALISTS HAVE STOLEN FROM US SINCE REAGAN

Democrats are the parasites? I think you mean the Republicans. IDIOTS. What's so embarrassing is that we have been SO STUPID for the last 40 years that we've ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTED Republican parasitism.

All high income countries have these gaps. But ours is the highest.

https://economy2030.resolutionfoundation.org/reports/minding-the-productivity-and-income-gaps/

We're a country of rubes and patsies who are easily duped into voting against our own financial interests. That is the opinion I've reached, as a well established Ph.D. economist, based on the facts in front of me.

[Zonkerbl]

Heh ok I'm reading the NPR-cited paper more carefully and I think their results are actually pretty interesting (I couldn't find it at first). Both papers I cite above use fixed effects and the same instrumental variable approach. However, the NPR paper also separates out their explanatory variables by race, which may be why they find significant effects for black people, while if you don't control for race you don't find anything significant. So what the NPR paper finds is there's a tradeoff - you can reduce murders *of black people* by hiring more police, but you are also persecuting more black people for what they call "quality of life" offenses (as opposed to rape and murder, I guess).

So I have to back off my assertion that increased spending on police is a *complete* waste of money, but it definitely comes with increased incarceration of black people for "quality of life" offenses (more so in some cities than others, interestingly), which tends to maintain the income gap between black people and everyone else.

But this is what the defund the police people have been trying to say. Not all crimes are the same. Not all problems have to be solved by sending a person carrying a gun who has been trained in domination and control to point a gun in someone's face. If we took some funding away from those kinds of public servants, we could reallocate that money to specialists trained in dealing with mental health issues, for example. We could actually save some cops' lives by sending people trained in de-escalating domestic violence situations, where that is their primary training so they don't fall back on the old "dominate and control" instincts that tend to get cops killed. Lots of things we can do with the same amount of money that would be more effective than what we are doing now.