Half the people in this country pay zero tax or have a negative tax via refundable tax credits that is welfare in another name. "
This is a common view of those who pay too much taxes, but taxes are only one metric of the cost of living and having been both rich and poor, I found poverty to be far more expensive.
Half the people in this country pay zero tax or have a negative tax via refundable tax credits that is welfare in another name. "
This is a common view of those who pay too much taxes, but taxes are only one metric of the cost of living and having been both rich and poor, I found poverty to be far more expensive.
There's an entire industry in America that profits off the lack of choice the poor have available. From healthcare system that is more expensive when you pay in cash because you can't afford insurance to payday loans at extortionary rates when a family member ends up on jail for being poor and they need to somehow come up with the 10% to bail them out. People who can't afford the monthly rent increases on their lot in their depreciating in value trailer. Lots that are increasingly owned by hedge funds because they know there is no fixed mortgage so they charge based on the fact that these people don't have the money to move their home.
We have any entire extraction system in America designed to pulverize the desperate for profit so Jamie Dimon can buy another yacht.
That does not take away from your tax burden which is no doubt too high, but that money is not going to someone in a trailer in winter getting hammered with increased propane costs in Texas because the local government decided to deregulate so you now face $7000 a week energy Bills in an ice storm when your yearly income is $20,000. Your tax money is not going to these people. It's going to ensure Goldman Sachs does not fail in the next financial crisis. It's financing the current and next overseas war the elite dream up to reward themselves for finding a new place on the map.
There is very little connection between the exorbitant taxes you pay and the crushing poverty the poor experience.
I often hear the rich complain that the poor envy them, but that has not been my experience. I find that most poor people admire the wealthy who have earned it. The poor hate the wealthy who directly profit of their misery. That's who they hate.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, but the whole thing about "being in jail for being poor". I've been poor and i've never been to jail. Going to jail is behavior based. "Rich" or poor, I have successfully avoided LE attention by not doing things that get you that attention. And lest you say this is race or ethnically based, i've known lots of people with a whole spectrum of colors and ancestries who are as poor as I once was who also successfully avoid LE attention and are able to live life without that fear, at least.
That said, they still get raked over the coals financially by stuff like payday loans and title loans.
I recently read an analysis of the US prison population, and when offenders imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses were taken out of the equation, the demographics stayed almost exactly the same-the white/black/Latino violent offender prison demographic stayed within 1% of the demographic %s for all groups when non violent prisoners were also accounted for.
Yeah, solving that drug problem is ...I have no idea how to get people to stop taking drugs, and no idea how to keep people healthy when they are intent on killing themselves. There was a program in Vancouver BC a long while back where they were giving them heroin in a controlled setting, and they had to follow certain rules - show up on time, wash up, etc. The compliance was less than 100%, as you can imagine.
Making hardened criminals out of druggies is no real answer, of course. Suburban and rural young women, girls to me, whoring themselves out for opiates on the side of the road or via CL is breathtakingly sad.
I think race is a distraction here. I prefer the term marginalized since that covers a much wider group. That and when people interpret marginalized only in racial terms it let's me know where they are at.
If you think poverty is not criminalized in the US I suggest more research. Read the story of Eric Garner, or the motivation for the Ferguson unrest (the police targeting the poor to collect revenue through heavy enforcement of minor violations they knew they would be unable to defend themselves from).
Some of the links I will include below specifically separate out black people from other marginalized groups. Not the way I would have done it, but still valid data:
"These seven charts explain how Ferguson—and many other US cities—wring revenue from black people and the poor"
"One in every two arrests made by the Portland Police Bureau last year was of a homeless person, an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive has found."
Of course, this is because the homeless are uniquely criminal and violent right? That's not what the numbers show. From the article:
"Most often, police arrested homeless people on property, drug or low-level crimes. The vast majority of the arrests, 86 percent, were for non-violent crimes, the analysis found. And more than 1,200 arrests were solely for offenses that are typically procedural -- missing court or violating probation or parole."
I have included perhaps 10 major cities in this data, but you find this same pattern in most urban US cities. If you would like I can provide that data as well.
Over 95% of the arrests in this country involve non-violent misdemeanor crimes not happening in Bel Aire.
I think that's great you were able to avoid the constant dragnet our police have put in place to profit off the most marginalized part of society, but hard data shows that your personal experience was not the norm.
Does behavior play a role? Many times, yes. Is it the only or even primary role in who gets arrested and why? The data does not support that.
Link 1: Total BS that the law runs this way in the jurisdictions in question. Isn't St. Louis County MO under Democrat control? It's an ugly city, for sure, having spent some time there over the past couple of years, but you think they could locally fix that kind of crap. That said, the courts operating that way (as in Ferguson) are not that much different than my experiences in Jersey. They did everything they could to stop me from beating a charge, and even for a dismissal I had to pay a lot of fees. It would have been faster and cheaper to just pay the fine, and I think that was the point.
Link 2/3: Civil asset forfeiture is a scam. It should be illegal. I don't think the common law would acknowledge this. I have heard the excuses why we need it and it's a perverse incentive that requires no proof. Someone could show up at your house tomorrow and with no evidence seize your car. It's horseshit. That said, seizing your assets, by itself, doesn't make you a criminal.
Link 4: Homeless people get arrested more often because they are more visible. They don't show up in court because a lot of them are substance abusers or have psych problems. So they'd have a lot of arrests for that kind of thing. Also, easy to find, they are already on the street mostly. Cops are lazy.
Link 5: I'm not black and i'm afraid of cop stops. Same way after 9/11 I was driving up to a gate at the base I worked at and someone had a .50 cal pointed at my hood every morning, I wasn't loving it. I know the soldier was disciplined, I also know that mistakes happen and everyone is not fungible. Same with cops. Nothing is going to change that, though. So my hands are always visible and I only take actions when directed because I want to live.
If you're low income, your chances of having a brush with the cops are very much higher. I believe the statistic is 2.5x higher. That's probably a lot more fruitful a discussion than talking about race. If your local cops are white supremacists, maybe you need to vote or something. Local action.
Good, we seem to agree on much of this. To your points:
1. I admit I care even less about what party is running a city than I care about the racial dynamic of the marginalized and criminalized, but sure, this example in St. Louis is no different than Houston or the 100's of other cities across America that have laws designed simply to collect fines. Yes, the point is that it's easier to simply pay the fine, but often the system is designed to create multiple trip wires intentionally designed for them to fail so more fees are assessed they cannot afford to pay. If they don't pay, they go to jail, or American debtors prison. The US claimed to be against debtor prison when we fought a revolution, but apparently we were only kidding. I don't see how this is not criminalizing the poor. For those keeping track (I'm not) they show a poor white family on the cover of this story. Perhaps that will catch the interest of those who would normally dismiss a story like this out of hand if it had some other group they feel deserve it.
2/3: Civil Asset forfeiture is not only a scam, it's a scam that primarily targets poor communities who deal in cash and are least able to afford the loss:
"The potential for abuse is certainly very high. As the Justice [Thomas] highlights, this has the tendency to target the poor specifically who traditionally use cash to do purchases. Cash, of course, is easier to seize than credit cards."
"That said, seizing your assets, by itself, doesn't make you a criminal."
That's a distinction without a difference. First, we are all committing some crime all times under our endless byzantine legal code.
It's unbelievably easy for a cop to accuse someone of committing a crime and steal all they money they would need to hire an attorney to get it back. That and having your money taken means you can't pay for things that are a crime not to pay for, (tags for your car, etc) or your rent that makes you homeless and therefore more exposed to being arrested. Asset Forfeiture especially of the poor creates the opportunity for more crime just as working under the table does (which is also a crime).
Now is there a law on the books that specifically states you will get a ticket for being poor? I guess the answer is no. Just as sodomy laws in a previous generation were used to target the gay community, many of the laws that criminalize poverty do not expressly state that is their purpose. I suspect at least part of the reason for this is so those not affected by these laws can rationalize it as "well we did not outlaw being gay, only sodomy. Besides, I have committed sodomy as a heterosexual and I have never been arrested which proves my point!" That times 2 for poverty related crimes. That's the wonderful thing about a police state. As long as you are not targeted, you can enjoy oysters and champaign without being overly concerned what that jail across town is up to.
Link 4: "Homeless people get arrested more often because they are more visible."
I don't agree with all his conclusions, but there's an excellent book: "Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face"
He makes the same argument that being exposed increases your risk of arrest. It also happens to be the case that certain poor communities are more likely to be out in public. Do you know what we call a country where simply being in public increases your chances of being arrested? A police state that targets marginalized communities. He talks about how most bike riders in Florida are poor and that is exactly who the police target for bike helmet law enforcement. When possible, many try to escalate the confrontation into resisting arrest so they can charge the kid with a felony. I life in a nice neighborhood where kids don't wear helmets all the time and we have nothing like what he describes, which apparently is common in Seattle and many other cities as well:
But sure, sodomy laws didn't actual mention being for gay people so they had nothing to worry about.
"They don't show up in court because a lot of them are substance abusers or have psych problems."
Yes and they get fined and incarcerated for that. Does that make any sense at all? That and you leave out that many courts don't play fair with the notification of court appearances. Often they purposely send notice late, publish it in a newspaper without notice or behave in a way designed to ensure people miss court dates so they can tack on more fines.
Link 5: Everyone should be afraid of cops. The thing to focus on in this article and the reason I included it (and prefaced my entire post with a disclaimer that it's unhelpful to separate out marginalized from black crime as some of these links do) is because the statistics in the linked url on police violence highlights how often police stop people as a pretext for something else, the old stop and frisk being the most obvious example of that. As the url in the article notes, 95% of police arrests are for non-violent misdemeanors that don't specifically mention being poor/marginalized, but are enforced just that way.
But sure, sodomy laws didn't actual mention being for gay people so they had nothing to worry about.
"If you're low income, your chances of having a brush with the cops are very much higher. I believe the statistic is 2.5x higher."
Yes, that was the original point I was making and we agree.
That poverty is criminalized in generally is certainly not denied by those who run the criminal system such as former AG Kamala Harris.
Harris arguing against prison reform because it would jeopardize the free labor pool her state depends on:
"How Kamala Harris Fought to Keep Nonviolent Prisoners Locked Up"
Of course she does not specifically state she is targeting the marginalized here even though they make up a majority of California's penal system.
As California attorney general, she spent years subverting a 2011 Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to reduce its prison population. The overseeing judicial panel nearly found the state in contempt of court. She also had children who missed school arrested. Purely by coincidence, she placed this impoverished mother who was working two job in jail for not getting her kid to school than laughed about it later:
I imagine I disagree with you some issues, but this post of yours is quite excellent. Civil forfeiture is so bad, turning police into pirates. I am quite critical of critical race theory, but I agree that there are too many trip wires that deleteriously impact poor people, who are disproportionately Black. That said, current DAs of LA and SF are not the answer.
I struggle with the racial component because of the way it has been weaponized through critical race theory. Is it a component of policing? Sure. Is it the only over even primary explanation for policing? I don't think it is.
I think there are areas where race is used as an excuse, areas where it is weaponized for the rich and radical, areas where it is conflated with other factors for effect and areas where people simply profit off selling that narrative.
In general I try to leave it out of my discussions as much as possible. Even if we acknowledge it's a factor, there are other factors too and if we simply try to filter every solution through race theory we will achieve nothing.
So many things that affect all poor people might have been put in place to target minorities, black people in particular.
Occupational Licensing was often a way to force minorities to operate illegally. (also to protect established operators)
The "War on Drugs" has a lot of discretionary aspects in enforcement, so that too.
Civil Asset Forfeiture changes the cop motto from "Protect and Serve" to "Whattaya Got In There?".
Police reform, including limiting "qualified immunity", has a lot of aspects, but is actually doable. There are specific changes that can be made. Defunding is 0% helpful.
Fairly high on the list of "Repulsive Things I've Heard Politicians Say" was a local legislator demonizing payday loan outfits. He whined about the usurious rates charged (calculating a yearly amount on a two-week loan), and the horrible fees...while overlooking that those places only existed, and were patronized, because the banks who contributed to his campaign and inspired his attack REFUSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH POOR PEOPLE.
Damn, I'm getting mad just recalling it. I did call his office and, like the idiot I am, ruined some poor flunkies day. *sigh* Little tiny feeble blows against the road the Empire rolls on...
I'm quite sure the banks won't do business with poor people because it is not profitable. Lots of bad debt to be written off. Of course, if government was going to be used to help these people out, how about some banking facility that only works with people below the poverty line or somesuch? Just a thought.
>> I often hear the rich complain that the poor envy them, but that has not been my experience. I find that most poor people admire the wealthy who have earned it.
I would add to this that there is general feeling that a lot of the rich people today didn't earn it. For example bankers who are only wealthy today due to bank bailouts. That kind of thing.
Half the people in this country pay zero tax or have a negative tax via refundable tax credits that is welfare in another name. "
This is a common view of those who pay too much taxes, but taxes are only one metric of the cost of living and having been both rich and poor, I found poverty to be far more expensive.
There's an entire industry in America that profits off the lack of choice the poor have available. From healthcare system that is more expensive when you pay in cash because you can't afford insurance to payday loans at extortionary rates when a family member ends up on jail for being poor and they need to somehow come up with the 10% to bail them out. People who can't afford the monthly rent increases on their lot in their depreciating in value trailer. Lots that are increasingly owned by hedge funds because they know there is no fixed mortgage so they charge based on the fact that these people don't have the money to move their home.
We have any entire extraction system in America designed to pulverize the desperate for profit so Jamie Dimon can buy another yacht.
That does not take away from your tax burden which is no doubt too high, but that money is not going to someone in a trailer in winter getting hammered with increased propane costs in Texas because the local government decided to deregulate so you now face $7000 a week energy Bills in an ice storm when your yearly income is $20,000. Your tax money is not going to these people. It's going to ensure Goldman Sachs does not fail in the next financial crisis. It's financing the current and next overseas war the elite dream up to reward themselves for finding a new place on the map.
There is very little connection between the exorbitant taxes you pay and the crushing poverty the poor experience.
I often hear the rich complain that the poor envy them, but that has not been my experience. I find that most poor people admire the wealthy who have earned it. The poor hate the wealthy who directly profit of their misery. That's who they hate.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, but the whole thing about "being in jail for being poor". I've been poor and i've never been to jail. Going to jail is behavior based. "Rich" or poor, I have successfully avoided LE attention by not doing things that get you that attention. And lest you say this is race or ethnically based, i've known lots of people with a whole spectrum of colors and ancestries who are as poor as I once was who also successfully avoid LE attention and are able to live life without that fear, at least.
That said, they still get raked over the coals financially by stuff like payday loans and title loans.
I recently read an analysis of the US prison population, and when offenders imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses were taken out of the equation, the demographics stayed almost exactly the same-the white/black/Latino violent offender prison demographic stayed within 1% of the demographic %s for all groups when non violent prisoners were also accounted for.
Yeah, solving that drug problem is ...I have no idea how to get people to stop taking drugs, and no idea how to keep people healthy when they are intent on killing themselves. There was a program in Vancouver BC a long while back where they were giving them heroin in a controlled setting, and they had to follow certain rules - show up on time, wash up, etc. The compliance was less than 100%, as you can imagine.
Making hardened criminals out of druggies is no real answer, of course. Suburban and rural young women, girls to me, whoring themselves out for opiates on the side of the road or via CL is breathtakingly sad.
I think race is a distraction here. I prefer the term marginalized since that covers a much wider group. That and when people interpret marginalized only in racial terms it let's me know where they are at.
If you think poverty is not criminalized in the US I suggest more research. Read the story of Eric Garner, or the motivation for the Ferguson unrest (the police targeting the poor to collect revenue through heavy enforcement of minor violations they knew they would be unable to defend themselves from).
Some of the links I will include below specifically separate out black people from other marginalized groups. Not the way I would have done it, but still valid data:
"These seven charts explain how Ferguson—and many other US cities—wring revenue from black people and the poor"
https://qz.com/257042/these-seven-charts-explain-how-ferguson-and-many-other-us-cities-wring-revenue-from-black-people-and-the-poor/
Civil Asset Forfeiture is aimed at the poor who are far more likely to use cash and can't afford to defend their assets when the police steal them:
"Poor Neighborhoods Hit Hardest by Asset Forfeiture in Chicago, Data Shows"
https://reason.com/2017/06/13/poor-neighborhoods-hit-hardest-by-asset/
https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/chicago-police-department-caught-hiding-millions-secret-asset-forfeiture-fund/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-chicago-civil-asset-forfeiture-20170614-story.html
Portland, OR
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2018/06/portland_homeless_accounted_fo.html
"One in every two arrests made by the Portland Police Bureau last year was of a homeless person, an analysis by The Oregonian/OregonLive has found."
Of course, this is because the homeless are uniquely criminal and violent right? That's not what the numbers show. From the article:
"Most often, police arrested homeless people on property, drug or low-level crimes. The vast majority of the arrests, 86 percent, were for non-violent crimes, the analysis found. And more than 1,200 arrests were solely for offenses that are typically procedural -- missing court or violating probation or parole."
I have included perhaps 10 major cities in this data, but you find this same pattern in most urban US cities. If you would like I can provide that data as well.
Over 95% of the arrests in this country involve non-violent misdemeanor crimes not happening in Bel Aire.
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/we-need-to-bust-some-myths-about?r=1zr8b&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
I think that's great you were able to avoid the constant dragnet our police have put in place to profit off the most marginalized part of society, but hard data shows that your personal experience was not the norm.
Does behavior play a role? Many times, yes. Is it the only or even primary role in who gets arrested and why? The data does not support that.
Link 1: Total BS that the law runs this way in the jurisdictions in question. Isn't St. Louis County MO under Democrat control? It's an ugly city, for sure, having spent some time there over the past couple of years, but you think they could locally fix that kind of crap. That said, the courts operating that way (as in Ferguson) are not that much different than my experiences in Jersey. They did everything they could to stop me from beating a charge, and even for a dismissal I had to pay a lot of fees. It would have been faster and cheaper to just pay the fine, and I think that was the point.
Link 2/3: Civil asset forfeiture is a scam. It should be illegal. I don't think the common law would acknowledge this. I have heard the excuses why we need it and it's a perverse incentive that requires no proof. Someone could show up at your house tomorrow and with no evidence seize your car. It's horseshit. That said, seizing your assets, by itself, doesn't make you a criminal.
Link 4: Homeless people get arrested more often because they are more visible. They don't show up in court because a lot of them are substance abusers or have psych problems. So they'd have a lot of arrests for that kind of thing. Also, easy to find, they are already on the street mostly. Cops are lazy.
Link 5: I'm not black and i'm afraid of cop stops. Same way after 9/11 I was driving up to a gate at the base I worked at and someone had a .50 cal pointed at my hood every morning, I wasn't loving it. I know the soldier was disciplined, I also know that mistakes happen and everyone is not fungible. Same with cops. Nothing is going to change that, though. So my hands are always visible and I only take actions when directed because I want to live.
If you're low income, your chances of having a brush with the cops are very much higher. I believe the statistic is 2.5x higher. That's probably a lot more fruitful a discussion than talking about race. If your local cops are white supremacists, maybe you need to vote or something. Local action.
Good, we seem to agree on much of this. To your points:
1. I admit I care even less about what party is running a city than I care about the racial dynamic of the marginalized and criminalized, but sure, this example in St. Louis is no different than Houston or the 100's of other cities across America that have laws designed simply to collect fines. Yes, the point is that it's easier to simply pay the fine, but often the system is designed to create multiple trip wires intentionally designed for them to fail so more fees are assessed they cannot afford to pay. If they don't pay, they go to jail, or American debtors prison. The US claimed to be against debtor prison when we fought a revolution, but apparently we were only kidding. I don't see how this is not criminalizing the poor. For those keeping track (I'm not) they show a poor white family on the cover of this story. Perhaps that will catch the interest of those who would normally dismiss a story like this out of hand if it had some other group they feel deserve it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/magazine/cities-fine-poor-jail.html
2/3: Civil Asset forfeiture is not only a scam, it's a scam that primarily targets poor communities who deal in cash and are least able to afford the loss:
https://www.freedomworks.org/content/justice-clarence-thomas-takes-civil-asset-forfeiture
"The potential for abuse is certainly very high. As the Justice [Thomas] highlights, this has the tendency to target the poor specifically who traditionally use cash to do purchases. Cash, of course, is easier to seize than credit cards."
"That said, seizing your assets, by itself, doesn't make you a criminal."
That's a distinction without a difference. First, we are all committing some crime all times under our endless byzantine legal code.
https://www.mic.com/articles/51551/most-americans-commit-three-felonies-a-day-and-here-s-what-happens-if-they-get-caught
It's unbelievably easy for a cop to accuse someone of committing a crime and steal all they money they would need to hire an attorney to get it back. That and having your money taken means you can't pay for things that are a crime not to pay for, (tags for your car, etc) or your rent that makes you homeless and therefore more exposed to being arrested. Asset Forfeiture especially of the poor creates the opportunity for more crime just as working under the table does (which is also a crime).
Now is there a law on the books that specifically states you will get a ticket for being poor? I guess the answer is no. Just as sodomy laws in a previous generation were used to target the gay community, many of the laws that criminalize poverty do not expressly state that is their purpose. I suspect at least part of the reason for this is so those not affected by these laws can rationalize it as "well we did not outlaw being gay, only sodomy. Besides, I have committed sodomy as a heterosexual and I have never been arrested which proves my point!" That times 2 for poverty related crimes. That's the wonderful thing about a police state. As long as you are not targeted, you can enjoy oysters and champaign without being overly concerned what that jail across town is up to.
Link 4: "Homeless people get arrested more often because they are more visible."
I don't agree with all his conclusions, but there's an excellent book: "Arrest-Proof Yourself: An Ex-Cop Reveals How Easy It Is for Anyone to Get Arrested, How Even a Single Arrest Could Ruin Your Life, and What to Do If the Police Get in Your Face"
https://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377
He makes the same argument that being exposed increases your risk of arrest. It also happens to be the case that certain poor communities are more likely to be out in public. Do you know what we call a country where simply being in public increases your chances of being arrested? A police state that targets marginalized communities. He talks about how most bike riders in Florida are poor and that is exactly who the police target for bike helmet law enforcement. When possible, many try to escalate the confrontation into resisting arrest so they can charge the kid with a felony. I life in a nice neighborhood where kids don't wear helmets all the time and we have nothing like what he describes, which apparently is common in Seattle and many other cities as well:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/racial-disparities-prompt-calls-to-repeal-king-countys-bicycle-helmet-law/
But sure, sodomy laws didn't actual mention being for gay people so they had nothing to worry about.
"They don't show up in court because a lot of them are substance abusers or have psych problems."
Yes and they get fined and incarcerated for that. Does that make any sense at all? That and you leave out that many courts don't play fair with the notification of court appearances. Often they purposely send notice late, publish it in a newspaper without notice or behave in a way designed to ensure people miss court dates so they can tack on more fines.
Link 5: Everyone should be afraid of cops. The thing to focus on in this article and the reason I included it (and prefaced my entire post with a disclaimer that it's unhelpful to separate out marginalized from black crime as some of these links do) is because the statistics in the linked url on police violence highlights how often police stop people as a pretext for something else, the old stop and frisk being the most obvious example of that. As the url in the article notes, 95% of police arrests are for non-violent misdemeanors that don't specifically mention being poor/marginalized, but are enforced just that way.
But sure, sodomy laws didn't actual mention being for gay people so they had nothing to worry about.
"If you're low income, your chances of having a brush with the cops are very much higher. I believe the statistic is 2.5x higher."
Yes, that was the original point I was making and we agree.
That poverty is criminalized in generally is certainly not denied by those who run the criminal system such as former AG Kamala Harris.
Harris arguing against prison reform because it would jeopardize the free labor pool her state depends on:
"How Kamala Harris Fought to Keep Nonviolent Prisoners Locked Up"
https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-keep-nonviolent-prisoners-locked-up/
Of course she does not specifically state she is targeting the marginalized here even though they make up a majority of California's penal system.
As California attorney general, she spent years subverting a 2011 Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to reduce its prison population. The overseeing judicial panel nearly found the state in contempt of court. She also had children who missed school arrested. Purely by coincidence, she placed this impoverished mother who was working two job in jail for not getting her kid to school than laughed about it later:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/kamala-harris-laughed-jailing-parents-truancy
"Kamala Harris laughed about jailing parents over truancy. But it's not funny"
I am not picking on VP Harris since this is how all DA's work. This is what our criminal system is based on and how it runs.
But sure, sodomy laws didn't actual mention being for gay people so they had nothing to worry about.
I imagine I disagree with you some issues, but this post of yours is quite excellent. Civil forfeiture is so bad, turning police into pirates. I am quite critical of critical race theory, but I agree that there are too many trip wires that deleteriously impact poor people, who are disproportionately Black. That said, current DAs of LA and SF are not the answer.
I struggle with the racial component because of the way it has been weaponized through critical race theory. Is it a component of policing? Sure. Is it the only over even primary explanation for policing? I don't think it is.
I think there are areas where race is used as an excuse, areas where it is weaponized for the rich and radical, areas where it is conflated with other factors for effect and areas where people simply profit off selling that narrative.
In general I try to leave it out of my discussions as much as possible. Even if we acknowledge it's a factor, there are other factors too and if we simply try to filter every solution through race theory we will achieve nothing.
Well said. Strong agreement.
Wise approach.
So many things that affect all poor people might have been put in place to target minorities, black people in particular.
Occupational Licensing was often a way to force minorities to operate illegally. (also to protect established operators)
The "War on Drugs" has a lot of discretionary aspects in enforcement, so that too.
Civil Asset Forfeiture changes the cop motto from "Protect and Serve" to "Whattaya Got In There?".
Police reform, including limiting "qualified immunity", has a lot of aspects, but is actually doable. There are specific changes that can be made. Defunding is 0% helpful.
Fairly high on the list of "Repulsive Things I've Heard Politicians Say" was a local legislator demonizing payday loan outfits. He whined about the usurious rates charged (calculating a yearly amount on a two-week loan), and the horrible fees...while overlooking that those places only existed, and were patronized, because the banks who contributed to his campaign and inspired his attack REFUSED TO DO BUSINESS WITH POOR PEOPLE.
Damn, I'm getting mad just recalling it. I did call his office and, like the idiot I am, ruined some poor flunkies day. *sigh* Little tiny feeble blows against the road the Empire rolls on...
With that logic, bring on the mafioso! They do business with poor people...so they must be good...
A pound of flesh indeed...
I'm quite sure the banks won't do business with poor people because it is not profitable. Lots of bad debt to be written off. Of course, if government was going to be used to help these people out, how about some banking facility that only works with people below the poverty line or somesuch? Just a thought.
>> I often hear the rich complain that the poor envy them, but that has not been my experience. I find that most poor people admire the wealthy who have earned it.
I would add to this that there is general feeling that a lot of the rich people today didn't earn it. For example bankers who are only wealthy today due to bank bailouts. That kind of thing.