President Donald Trump said Monday he was ending “immediately” the Secret Service protection details assigned to Joe Biden’s adult children, which the former president had extended for six months shortly before leaving office in January.
Are we not against means testing? When I say I’m anti means testing I mean it. Who sets that threshold? What if the politician has $X with no family but another has $X with three kids? Is it per capita? If they can afford security for 2/3 kids do they just pick their favorite/least favorite? Do we still train the security detail? Do they have the same access to safety measures as government security personnel? Is that a world you want to live in where private security firms can close down buildings for the safety of an ex politician? Those people are not beholden to Americans, since they’re privately paid. What oversight are these private companies subjected to and who pays for that as oversight costs change? If we’re going to talk about how small a percentage of our budget feeding kids is, that should apply to keeping politicians safe if deemed necessary. Plus, imho I don’t think politicians should have to regularly and publicly disclose their net worth for the rest of their lives because they were elected to office at some point.
Here’s the thing, I DO think they should have to disclose their networths for the rest of their lives. There is a HUGE corruption problem in the USA. If politicians are allowed to do insider trading at the level they are now, then they should have to forfeit that level of privacy and they should have to foot the bill for a lot more things that taxpayers are now footing the bill for.
Of course you didn’t answer any of the main points, but if you’re pro means testing we probably disagree to the point where your answers to those questions will be unacceptable to me as well. I thought about removing that line because I knew it would be the only part to prompt a response, and of course it is. Taxpayers footing the bill is one of the only things allowing it to be remotely competitive for poorer people. If politicians had to pay for their own X then they’d just make it so that the line was somewhere prohibitive for poorer people. If we as a society deem something needed as part of the day to day of a public job, then we should supply that thing to the people doing that job. Simple as that. The reason means testing is not in favor is because it doesn’t work. The system is gamed so it applies to everyone or no one depending on what’s better for the wealthy. Additionally of course, it’s stupid because you’re basically saying “you should get this” but for X reason we won’t give it to you. Whatever X reason, it’s almost always bad for society to deny people something that they would otherwise be entitled to. Unless found guilty of a crime, we should all have access to the same benefits our relevant peers do.
I didn’t respond to your other points because society DOESN’T provide what’s needed to do the job for pretty much every other industry at the worker level. And to imply that not providing security detail for government employees gate keeps it so they cannot afford it, your party system is already entirely set up to gatekeep the poor from entering the running so I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about man.
I think anyone should have the right to opine on anything, but if you’re not even from the US I don’t know how you expect to understand what is and isn’t normal, especially for government jobs.
Society as a whole is not what we’re comparing it to. The whole point of them needing security detail should demonstrate how it’s not like other jobs for other industries. But even so, your initial comment seems to indicate you think it should be provided, but means tested. Now it seems you’re suggesting that the concept in general shouldn’t be done because “society DOESN’T provide”? So either you think it shouldn’t be provided to anyone, objectively a bad decision due to the large volume of credible death threats, or you think it should be provided to some, in which case the majority of my original comment still stands, mainly revolving around how to guarantee parity between public and private and if private security should be given the same leeway that public security is (hint: it shouldn’t).
Yea, the parties make it difficult, but the ones who make it through (AOC, Cori Bush, lots of young progressives) should not have the added stress of fearing they can’t afford security detail if needed. Or that their security detail has been defunded/stripped of its capabilities because rich congresspeople have to pay for theirs so they just made the government provided ones objectively useless. Again, it’s such a small part of our taxes that it shouldn’t even be a question. Kids should get lunches since they are legally required to be at school. Federal employees should get protection if their employment puts them at heightened risk. It’s really not that complicated. We have basically the same system the UK does.
Are we not against means testing? When I say I’m anti means testing I mean it. Who sets that threshold? What if the politician has $X with no family but another has $X with three kids? Is it per capita? If they can afford security for 2/3 kids do they just pick their favorite/least favorite? Do we still train the security detail? Do they have the same access to safety measures as government security personnel? Is that a world you want to live in where private security firms can close down buildings for the safety of an ex politician? Those people are not beholden to Americans, since they’re privately paid. What oversight are these private companies subjected to and who pays for that as oversight costs change? If we’re going to talk about how small a percentage of our budget feeding kids is, that should apply to keeping politicians safe if deemed necessary. Plus, imho I don’t think politicians should have to regularly and publicly disclose their net worth for the rest of their lives because they were elected to office at some point.
Here’s the thing, I DO think they should have to disclose their networths for the rest of their lives. There is a HUGE corruption problem in the USA. If politicians are allowed to do insider trading at the level they are now, then they should have to forfeit that level of privacy and they should have to foot the bill for a lot more things that taxpayers are now footing the bill for.
Of course you didn’t answer any of the main points, but if you’re pro means testing we probably disagree to the point where your answers to those questions will be unacceptable to me as well. I thought about removing that line because I knew it would be the only part to prompt a response, and of course it is. Taxpayers footing the bill is one of the only things allowing it to be remotely competitive for poorer people. If politicians had to pay for their own X then they’d just make it so that the line was somewhere prohibitive for poorer people. If we as a society deem something needed as part of the day to day of a public job, then we should supply that thing to the people doing that job. Simple as that. The reason means testing is not in favor is because it doesn’t work. The system is gamed so it applies to everyone or no one depending on what’s better for the wealthy. Additionally of course, it’s stupid because you’re basically saying “you should get this” but for X reason we won’t give it to you. Whatever X reason, it’s almost always bad for society to deny people something that they would otherwise be entitled to. Unless found guilty of a crime, we should all have access to the same benefits our relevant peers do.
I didn’t respond to your other points because society DOESN’T provide what’s needed to do the job for pretty much every other industry at the worker level. And to imply that not providing security detail for government employees gate keeps it so they cannot afford it, your party system is already entirely set up to gatekeep the poor from entering the running so I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about man.
I think anyone should have the right to opine on anything, but if you’re not even from the US I don’t know how you expect to understand what is and isn’t normal, especially for government jobs.
Society as a whole is not what we’re comparing it to. The whole point of them needing security detail should demonstrate how it’s not like other jobs for other industries. But even so, your initial comment seems to indicate you think it should be provided, but means tested. Now it seems you’re suggesting that the concept in general shouldn’t be done because “society DOESN’T provide”? So either you think it shouldn’t be provided to anyone, objectively a bad decision due to the large volume of credible death threats, or you think it should be provided to some, in which case the majority of my original comment still stands, mainly revolving around how to guarantee parity between public and private and if private security should be given the same leeway that public security is (hint: it shouldn’t).
Yea, the parties make it difficult, but the ones who make it through (AOC, Cori Bush, lots of young progressives) should not have the added stress of fearing they can’t afford security detail if needed. Or that their security detail has been defunded/stripped of its capabilities because rich congresspeople have to pay for theirs so they just made the government provided ones objectively useless. Again, it’s such a small part of our taxes that it shouldn’t even be a question. Kids should get lunches since they are legally required to be at school. Federal employees should get protection if their employment puts them at heightened risk. It’s really not that complicated. We have basically the same system the UK does.
Ok I can see your point.