I understand “defund the police” isn’t the best language, but where was all the outrage when they were defunding education, defunding Headstart, defunding hunger & anti-poverty programs, defunding violence prevention programs, defunding peace projects & defunding social services?
-
There was outrage, against the "frivolous" spending goals of the "libs." How many physical hearts have to actually bleed before we focus on the problems upstream that are pooh-poohed?
It's not "frivolous" to feed & educate a child, provide housing for hard-working people who are overwhelmed by the effects of systemic economic injustice, or prevent violence against women & children. In fact, it's smart, sophisticated, savvy - & most importantly morally correct.
-
-
I absolutely agree with you, Marianne. I had hoped my quotation marks would have indicated that, as well as my comment about fixing problems upstream. There has been consistent defunding of necessary social programs and education that would preempt so many later problems.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We do all those things.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's wasteful if the policy contributes to the continuation of stagnation, crime and problems in some communities. Strengthening the police and funding the most functionable programs should be prioritized. Suspending one social program and defunding the police aren't the same.
-
Social programs would reduce crime. Would people need to steal if they could afford food and shelter? Would people act out if they had therapy and support? Crime isn't random, it happens for reasons that can be fixed. Crime is a symptom, police are just a bandage, not a cure.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.