Biden

“In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city,” the vice president said. “In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes–just to pick two categories–climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it.”

When confronted, he said:

“I didn’t use, no no no…Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me,” Biden lashed out at HUMAN EVENTS. Then Biden confirmed that he indeed did talk about rape in terms of the President’s spending measure. “Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise,” if the Democrats agenda isn’t passed, he added.

If true, then is this really just a "jobs bill?" Should the National Guard be sent in--since lives are at stake?

Carney

"I think everyone will agree with the equation that fewer police officers on the street has a direct effect on the crime rate. We saw this in the 1990's. I do know that any lawmaker up on Capitol Hill will contest that simple fact or any American who makes that assessment in their local communities. Would you want fewer or more law enforcement officers on the job? Do you think that having more officers on the job would have a positive impact on crime? That is the point that the President absolutely shares," Carney said.

Is Carney right to assert the main (or only reason as he offers no other) crime declined in the 90's was the number of cops on the street?

Bottomline: is local law enforcement a Federal responsibility or should localities be responsible for themselves? Should they prioritize their budgets to provide law enforcement or do the people in Florida have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia?

steve

Is Carney right to assert the main (or only reason as he offers no other)

Carney neither asserts that it is the main reason or the only reason.
He offers it as a reason.

The only question you may ask correctly Is he right that a lower police presence leds to more criminal activity.
And, yes, Biden is being a demagogue... There are better ways to bring attention to the fact that cuts in government spending may lead to job losses that will directly affect people, and soon.

Well if you believe Steven Levitt then the reason crime fell in the 90s was mostly down to Roe vs Wade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_ ... ime_effect

I'm guessing Steve won't have too much sympathy for that idea though ;)

Personally I'm not convinced that numbers of police on the streets has a direct causal relationship with either murder or rape incidence, although it may help with the subsequent detection rate.

Is that factoid saying that the people who have abortions have children who commit murder and rape? Does that sound a bit discriminatory?

Other "adverse" conditions listed in this article are divorce and foster care. Should we also legislate to reduce such adverse condition, Sass? If the article advocates legislation of abortion for the good of the society, we should also legislate other situation for the good of the society. Do children do better in two parent homes? Yes, statistically they do; so we should outlaw divorce. Do children do better in homes where church attendance is at least two times a week? Again, Statistically yes. Ergo, we should mandate church attendance.

My point is that you cannot pick one little statistic (that is contested at that!) and say it is good for society unless you choose to take all statistics that show betterment of society as an acceptable path. Otherwise it looks like "picking and choosing".

That was a slightly flippant post i made there actually Brad, I wasn't saying I either agree or disagree with Levitt's theory. I have read Freakonomics though and he isn't really advocating legislation as such, morely pointing out that a lot of the legislation that we do attempt in order to control crime rates may well be trumped by the unforeseen consequences of an apparently unrelated event (in this case the Supreme Court forcing the legalisation of abortion, which resulted in less unwanted children reaching maturity and so subsequently led to a reduced crime rate 20 years on).

I didn't see any sarcasm smilies. Hence the confusion and about intent.

I used the old-fashioned wink: ;)

No worries though.

rickyp wrote:steve

Is Carney right to assert the main (or only reason as he offers no other)

Carney neither asserts that it is the main reason or the only reason.
He offers it as a reason.

Presuming that is what he said, is it correct? Are there fewer rapes and murders because there are more cops on the streets? Do rapists engage in consequential thinking? Are most murders committed because the perpetrator thinks he/she doesn't have to worry about the police?

I submit rapes are crimes of power and murders are usually crimes motivated by profit, jealousy, and rarely with thoughts of the number of cops on the beat.

And, yes, Biden is being a demagogue... There are better ways to bring attention to the fact that cuts in government spending may lead to job losses that will directly affect people, and soon.

That is refreshingly honest. If the goal is to prevent States and municipalities from having to wrestle with economic calculation, it is a self-defeating goal: as the local governments become more dependent on Federal aid, it will hurt them all the more when it is yanked.

WaPo gives Uncle Joe a whopping four Pinocchios!

In any case, the vice president should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument. Even if one believes there is a link between crime and the number of police—which is debatable and subject to many caveats—there is no excuse to make the dramatic claim that more people will die or be raped without additional funds for police. When making such a breathtaking charge, you had better have your facts straight.

We can look forward to many more absurd claims by this White House. It's the only way they can get re-elected. The measure to fund cops, firemen, and teachers did not even get universal Democratic support in the Senate (failed 50-50).

Doctor Fate wrote:Is Carney right to assert the main (or only reason as he offers no other) crime declined in the 90's was the number of cops on the street?

Well, he doesn't assert that it's the 'main' let alone the only reason. But he is asserting as common assumption that it is a contributory factor.

Perhaps before deciding whether or not it's true, we could check some actual data. For example, is crime rate over time correlated to police officers per head of population? Do policies on how officers are deployed (more on active patrols, for example) have a correlation?

Bottomline: is local law enforcement a Federal responsibility or should localities be responsible for themselves? Should they prioritize their budgets to provide law enforcement or do the people in Florida have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia?

I suppose there's a 'Govermnent BAD if Federal, but GOOD of local' taint to the question, but there's a bit of a problem in setting up the question:

Firstly, I get the impression that the several levels of law enforcement in the USA cause confusion, delay and difficulties. You have Federal, State, County and City level organisations, some rivals to each other, jostling for jurisdiction. An objective view would ask what level is it most effective to run law enforcement at, not approach it from a political position of whether it should be devolved to the lowest level or centralised at the top.

Secondly, crime is not always confined to one place and criminals (like anyone else) is free to move around.

Your last question could be rephrased several ways to provide different directions:

1) do the people in a gated community in a crime-free part of Philadelphia have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia with higher crime rates?
2) do the people in the next county/city from Philadelphia have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia?
3) do the people in Erie, PA have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia?
4) do the people of Cherry Hill, NJ, or Wilmington, De have a vested interest in police on the streets of Philadelphia?

I'm not sure that the answer would 'prove' that Biden and Carney are engaging in 'Rank Demagoguery', telling the truth or (in the possibility that you are not setting up a false dichotomy), doing both those things, or neither thing.

All I will observe is that even with falling crime rates over the past 20 years, the USA does appear to have a higher rate than many Western countries. Certainly there are reasons for this, but perhaps we'd better not try and explore all of them.

Suffice to say, one of the prime reasons that we have 'government' is to protect the people it governs. Another is to set up and apply laws governing acceptable behaviours. Crime and policing are, therefore, pretty important aspects of what a government does, and so would usually be seen as vital to all but the most committed libertarian or minarchist.

steve

Presuming that is what he said, is it correct?

I don't know. I do know that "tough on crime" candidates always want to put more police on the streets in order to make them safer. And that whenever budgets start to get tight at municipalities some politicians and the fire and police unions all start to worry about lowering the police and fire dept. presence on the street as they claim it will encourage criminal activity or make fire response times longer... . (I know for certain it affects the union members jobs...)
As demogoguery goes, its pretty safe for someone on the left to point to the dangers of cuts that effect police levels. For their opponents to stand up and start saying the police presence means nothing generally is contradictory to positions they've taken previously.

BTW, I can point to localized incidents like college campuses where an increased police patrol presence has lowered incidence of sexual assaults. But I'd guess, that increasing the number of police in a city probably isn't going to generally decrease sexual assault cases... that is, across the city.

rickyp wrote:I don't know. I do know that "tough on crime" candidates always want to put more police on the streets in order to make them safer.

Not those who understand the difference between the Federal, State, and local governments.

And that whenever budgets start to get tight at municipalities some politicians and the fire and police unions all start to worry about lowering the police and fire dept. presence on the street as they claim it will encourage criminal activity or make fire response times longer... . (I know for certain it affects the union members jobs...)

And, they raise fees, lower services that are non-emergent (libraries, etc.) and they make it work. Temporary funding from an overextended Federal government is like giving vitamins to a cancer patient--there might be an initial surge of optimism and good feeling, but it will not last.

BTW, I can point to localized incidents like college campuses where an increased police patrol presence has lowered incidence of sexual assaults. But I'd guess, that increasing the number of police in a city probably isn't going to generally decrease sexual assault cases... that is, across the city.

Bingo.

Of course, now Biden has taken it to a whole new depth: using school kids as utter props. This is sick.

Whether this is demagoguery or not, it is fun!

The Washington Examiner reports that at a fundraiser in Las Vegas, the president said the following about his jobs bill:

But last week, we had a separate vote on a part of the jobs bill that would put 400,000 teachers, firefighters and police officers back on the job, paid for by asking people who make more than $1 million to pay one-half of 1 percent in additional taxes. For somebody making $1.1 million a year, that’s an extra $500. Five hundred bucks. And with that, we could have saved 400,000 jobs.

Most people making more than $1 million, if you talk to them, they’ll say, I’m willing to pay $500 extra to help the county. They’re patriots. They believe we’re all in this thing together. But all the Republicans in the Senate said no. (Emphasis added).

As every Corner reader who graduated from 4th grade determined immediately upon reading the above quote, one half of 1 percent of $1.1 million is $5,500, not $500. But, hey, even though he said it three times, cut the president some slack — he’s off only by about factor of ten.

But even if the president meant to say $5,500, his math continues to pose some challenges. According to the IRS, a total of 235,413 taxpayers earned more than $1 million last year. If each “was willing to pay $[5,]500 extra to help the country,” that would generate only $1.3 billion in revenue — approximately what the federal government spends every three hours. Wouldn’t it be just as patriotic for President Obama to turn off the federal spigot for three hours and dedicate the savings to funding those 400,000 jobs?

The president at least deserves credit for finally bringing down the cost of all those jobs his administration “saves or creates.” Saving 400,000 jobs at a cost of $1.3 billion comes to just $3,250 per job — far less than the $250,000 per each job allegedly created by the 2009 stimulus bill.

But wait, that means that each of the 400,000 jobs will only pay $ 1.60 an hour — far below the lawful minimum wage. And that’s without benefits. Aren’t those the kind of jobs Americans won’t do?

So, taxing the rich won't really do what the President says. That is just shocking!

This thread speaks to who should Obama's running mate be? Biden again? God I hope not.

Geo, who would you desire? Clinton?

geojanes wrote:This thread speaks to who should Obama's running mate be? Biden again? God I hope not.

How about Mrs. Obama? She seems to be capable of matching Joe (and her husband) in demagogic attacks. How about her performance at a fundraiser yesterday:

[ T]he fact is that in little over a year from now, we are going to make a decision between two very different visions for this country. Very different. And I’m here today because when it comes to just about every issue that we face — from our health, to our economic security, to the quality of our schools — the stakes for our families, and for our country, have never been higher. …

That is why, even though there are some trying to stop [Obama's "jobs" bill] from moving forward, my President — and my husband — (laughter) — he is not going give up. (Applause.) He is going to keep fighting — fighting for what are common-sense jobs proposals. Things like whether — tax cuts for working people, tax cuts for businesses that hire unemployed veterans, jobs for our teachers and construction workers, job training for unemployed or low-income folks, rebuilding our crumbling schools, refurbishing vacant or foreclosed homes and businesses.

All of that is what is in the American Jobs Act. That is what we’re fighting for. That is the choice in this election. (Applause.) …

And let’s talk just for a minute about health care. Last year, we made history by finally passing health care reform. (Applause.) Yes, we all did that. But now there are folks who are talking about repealing that reform.

AUDIENCE: Booo –

MRS. OBAMA: And today we have to ask ourselves will we let them succeed? Is that who we are?

AUDIENCE: No!

MRS. OBAMA: Will we let insurance companies deny us coverage because we have preexisting conditions like breast cancer or diabetes?

AUDIENCE: No! …

And let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices — (applause) — and for the first time in history, our daughters — and our sons — watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. (Applause.) But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here. (Applause.)

Let’s pause here for a moment. We need to re-elect Obama so that we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose? Really? So the Republicans want to appoint Supreme Court justices who will abolish free speech, ban religion, and regulate love? Really? And, of course, as Keith Koffler points out:

President Obama himself claims he opposes gay marriage, so her suggestion that Republican-selected justices would jeopardize the ability to “love whomever we choose” cannot possibly refer to gay marriage.

Mrs. Obama continued:

So make no mistake about it — I mean, whether it’s health care, or the economy, or education, or foreign policy, the choice we make in this election will determine nothing less than who we are as a country — but more importantly, who we want to be. Who are we? Will we be a country that tells folks who’ve done everything right but are struggling to get by, “tough luck, you’re on your own”? Is that who we are?

AUDIENCE: No!

MRS. OBAMA: Or will we honor the fundamental American belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and if one of us is hurting, then we’re all hurting? Who are we? (Applause.)

Here Mrs. Obama echoes her husband; she apparently shares his ignorance of the Book of Genesis.

Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed no matter where they’re from, or what they look like or how their money parents are — have. Who are we?

Got that? Republicans want to limit opportunity to “the few at the top,” based on “what [people] look like” and “how much money their parents have.” This is truly repellent stuff. Think for a moment: when is the last time you have heard any Republican–I’m not talking about Laura Bush here, but any Republican politician–make similar accusations against Democrats?

Traditionally, vice-presidential candidates have been the attack dogs in presidential campaigns. No doubt Joe Biden will do his share in that department when the time comes. But, by deploying the First Lady in this fashion, the Obama administration has once again broken new ground in partisanship and divisiveness.

I'm beginning to think amending the Constitution so a person can only serve one-term as President is a great idea. This man is not even going to try and defend his record. It's going to be attack, lie, smear, repeat.

Change someone might believe in.