sabarn01

Congress has the legislative power all agencies derive their power from some act of congress.

This should be a reminder that almost all dire consequences from any government action are overblown. I also think the net neutrality was an important thing 15 years ago for how the internet worked then it has little practical value now.

There was a lot of violence in the school I went to growing up. We had kids bussed from jail. The idea of suspension is 1 get the kids and parents attention and 2 to get the kid out of the classroom. Minor discipline problems should be handled differently but at some point you have to remove disruptive kids from the classroom for the sake of everyone else.

If you have a kid that is fighting other kids/teachers what is the school supposed to do.

We are talking past each other. Kids that need help should get help. One form of that help is holding kids back so that they get a second chance to master material they need for the next year. If you progress kids that are not ready you burden the teacher the next year as they have to provide more differentiated instruction. We should reduce the stigma of holding kids back by doing more regularly. Its cheaper than the wide array of tier 1 and 2 interventions.

Kids that have violence/social issue should be removed from kids that are ready to be in school. I know teacher who have kids who have been disruptive and they can not discipline them. Suspensions/ Alternative / Expulsions should be used when appropriate for the benefit of everyone else.

I don't know if you have kids, but mine are in a very liberal school in a very rich area. Very unlike where I grew up, and they cannot run an elementary school. Both my kids are Add/Dyslexic. My wife observed a class and the teacher had no ability to create a calm learning environment. There were emotionally disturbed kids in the same class who screamed / ran out of the room. 2x this year my son was asked to go fetch a kid who ran from the room because the kid that ran likes my son. We had a 504 plan which could not be implemented because there is no bandwidth.

We need to look at how we teach kids fundamentally because what we have been doing for the last 30 years hasn't worked.

My wife's family fostered and the only thing that happens is the kids eventually get sent back to the families. Even families who have abused the kids multiple times. We don't have an answer to kids from bad families. The state can't overcome bad parents.

In both cases the point is benefit the system at the expense of the child with the issues. One kid should not be allowed to ruin a class. My kids school has emotionally disturbed kids in the classroom making it impossible to have regular lessons.

When I was kid we had people that brought guns to school and were kicked out it seemed reasonable to me. I also think alternate school is a reasonable answer for kids who are violent or have been otherwise expelled. I was suspended for fighting and it seemed like an appropriate punishment.

My kids school is terrible and they get about 22k per student per year in a rich area. The system is failing because it's designed to fail.

The oddest example was suspensions. It treated suspensions as if they were random bad events not behaviour driven. Its not the suspension that causes poor outcomes its the behaviour.

that was someone stepping in because the homeless person had been threatening. In general people won't help because the risk of helping is too high.

The outcome of this has been to make it harder to fail as a kid. We don't hold kids back anymore and we don't suspend kids anymore. At some point in time the rubber meets the road and you will be held accountable and have to be. We could improve the social safety net but we never want to match other countries that have more supervision of their at risk population.

When I worked temp jobs there wasn't a place I worked where if you showed up on time two days in a row and worked hard I wasn't offered a job. All of these places paid well over minimum wage you just had to be willing to do hard physical work. Society plays some role but I have zero trust that our institutions know how to help people.

Its about 190B which is about on par so I was wrong. From my experience with friends who are LEO they get about 1 week of training a year which isn't enough.

My wife's face was smashed in to steal her purse. The people who stole her purse were not hungry.

Its not a job and most people who experience crime do not have insurance. Policing and public safety are our most important social service. Crime destroys people lives and safety. People who commit crime especially violent crime should have their lives destroyed.

Reduction in the rate of murders seems like a good metric.

They increased funding by 433 million

£15,877 million in police funding for England and Wales has been agreed for the financial year ending March 2022 overall funding has increased nominally by £433m (2.8%) compared with the previous financial year

They need tons more training but no one wants to pay for that. We underfund police compared to other OECD nations. We also have a much more dangerous environment for them to operate in.

The individual actions are terrible and every effort should be leveraged to reduce thoes outliers but they will still occur. In 2020 we as a society to put a lot less emphasis on enforcing social order and that causes crime.

The UK did not experience a surge in murders despite also experiencing a pandemic.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/GBR/uni....

Lowering Crime was the lesson I took away from it.

We arrested more people for 30 years and crime went down. There is loads of data that more police in the right places deter crime. All my LEO friends know who that are arresting because they arrest the same people over and over. Crime is driven by a small number of bad actors.

People get killed in the process of enforcing laws. All laws are eventually enforce by violence and that violence kills people. The state house rep who wanted to tax cigarettes didn't mean to have Eric Gardner killed but given a large number of police encounters it was bound to happen.

The way police responded to 2020 was to pull back because in general its a numbers game. Given enough encounters bad outcomes will happen. Pulling back plus the insanity of 2020 caused a rise in crime. Police are starting to reengage and crime is starting to go down.

a 50% rise in murder rate represent thousands of people I don't think we should discount it. I also think the rise in theft that people talk about anecdotally effects how people feel about living in cities. The us accepts a very large amount of disorder and that effects the overall trust in the society.

Just an FYI. Crime is awful. If your poor and your stuff gets stolen that devastating having to pay more to secure you belongings is a real burden. Nothing makes an area poor like crime. The single most valuable things governments do is law and order the fact that we forgot that in 2020 should be distressing to everyone.

The issue is reporting. Where I live about 4 years ago they stopped prosecuting people who steal less than 500$. My friend who is a cop said they eventually stopped arresting them because its unethical to arrest someone for a crime they won't be prosecuted for. Then stores stopped calling the cops. This resulted in more crime but less reported crime for burglary.

The only statics you can really count on is Car thefts and murders. There was a surge in murders in starting in 2020 which has leveled off but it was still high.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/uni...

The same is true for car thefts

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191216/reported-motor-ve...

I think it reliable to say the US experienced a large surge in crime starting in 2020.

It's not abuse. Your imposing your standards on other people without their concent. People should be able to make whatever arrangements they find mutually beneficial. Uninvolved third parties shouldn't have a veto power over how people work.

Companies pay what people will accept and what they can offer for a job. It has nothing to do with welfare. In fact if there was no welfare do you think people would demand more or less to work? My guess is much less.

What is the other option. Welfare exists as is and is just part of the social services offered by the government. For a lot of poor people there isn't a job that will offer them a living wage because they don't have skills yet to demand that. Bad jobs are ways to show that you have the skills to be on time come in everyday ect. Bad jobs allow people to build skills at low risk to the employer so they can demand higher wages over time.

Not everyone can work a full time job and the government shouldn't get in peoples way of earning money however they see fit.

Current affairs is, in general trash.

Sure, but some people would choose it and we should allow them to.

The issue is one administration will say yes agency y should do x and the next administration will say no it shouldn't. Only congress though its own actions can determine the remit of an agency. The issue isn't the congress has to be specific its that up until now agencies didn't even have to follow the plain meaning of the law. We should not give so much deference in a democratic system to the unelected.

But it shift now every 4 years with the presidential election. Our system is based on congress writing legislation and the administration implementing that legislation. As it stands now agencies can disagree with their own previous rulings just because a new administration came in.

I view it as an effort to restore congress's power which it has frittered away. Congress is the most democratic institution we have and it gets refreshed every 2 years. The thing I want to happen is that there is a way to assure that the elected portion of government, the congress, gets to set our policy not unelected administrate officials.

You also need to view this from both sides. The more freedom of action the agencies have the more they are effectively tools of the president. When you like the president that may seem great, but you always need to look at government power though the lense of the worst person you can image having that power.