rickyp wrote:I know this may be piling on but ....

The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) is a United States federal law enforcement agency under the supervision of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Air Marshal Service is meant to promote confidence in civil aviation by effectively deploying federal air marshals (FAMs) to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting the United States.

Because of the nature of their occupation, federal air marshals (FAMs) travel often. They rank among those Federal law enforcement officers that hold the highest standard for handgun accuracy.[2] A FAM's job is to blend in with other passengers on board aircraft and rely heavily on their training, including investigative techniques, criminal terrorist behavior recognition, firearms proficiency, aircraft specific tactics, and close quarters self-defense measures to protect the flying public.[2]

Oh, it's piling on all right. You're piling more manure on his.

There is no "national police force" and there never will be. There are restrictions on all the agencies cited. They don't respond to 911 calls. They don't do a lot of things. The FBI exists for investigating federal crimes and crimes which occur over State boundaries, etc.

That you non-Americans actually think you know more than President Obama, who, although the most liberal President in our history, has not sought to establish a national police force, is telling.

Why hasn't he proposed such a thing?

Because he would only carry the Socialist vote in Congress. Americans want a national police force like they want kidney stones.

Meanwhile, on our "recovering economy" that you seem to think will sweep President Obama to reelection:

More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week and consumer confidence declined by the most in a year, signaling that a cooling labor market may restrain household spending.

Jobless claims fell to 388,000 from a revised 389,000 the prior week that was the highest since early January, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index declined to minus 35.8 from minus 31.4 the previous week.

“There has been some slowdown in the labor market,” said Yelena Shulyatyeva, a U.S. economist at BNP Paribas in New York, who correctly projected the level of jobless claims. “That makes consumers feel less confident, and makes them more cautious about their spending. We could see some weakness in April payrolls.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-2 ... -week.html

The reading was the latest example of fizzling momentum in the labor market recovery. New claims fell sharply during early winter but the improvement has largely stalled in recent weeks.

Employers added 120,000 new jobs to their payrolls in March, the least since October, after averaging 246,000 jobs per month over the prior three months.

"We seem to be chasing our tail with the labor market now with seemingly reported declines in weekly numbers coming from persistently higher levels week-after-week," said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economist strategist at Miller Tabak in New York. "Today’s reading also gives the uncomfortable drift upwards in initial claims the feel of a trend rather than aberration."

Many economists believe a mild winter boosted payrolls growth earlier in the year and view recent stagnation as payback for those gains.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/47186701

I would not advise organizing the victory parties just yet.

Oh for the love of pete, Steve. I did not say you had a 'national police force' I said that there was a national role in policing. Policing includes law enforcement. There are many (many more than I thought to be frank) Federal agencies which have a law enforcement role, and some (those mentioned above) have it as a primary purpose. And as you say, the FBI investigates crimes. So in what way is that not part of police work?

After all, each of the other State and local police organisations will also have limited powers, things they can't do and areas that they have to give way to others over.

The fact that the US Marshals pre-date most State police forces by at least 75 years just goes to show.

And I don't propose a 'national police force' either, for you information. I was supporting a national component to police funding and maintaining police funding during a recession even if it means greater national funding than before, which is a completely different thing to a 'national police force'.

Now, take your straw man back home and burn it in your back yard.

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, on our "recovering economy" that you seem to think will sweep President Obama to reelection

So more jobs and fewer new claims, but a slowdown in the rate. Not a disaster, not a great trend. Of course, all you can see is doom and gloom because there's a Dem in the White House, but as I said before, there are months to go yet, and this could be a new trend or just a blip.

danivon wrote:The fact that the US Marshals pre-date most State police forces by at least 75 years just goes to show.

And I don't propose a 'national police force' either, for you information. I was supporting a national component to police funding and maintaining police funding during a recession even if it means greater national funding than before, which is a completely different thing to a 'national police force'.

Now, take your straw man back home and burn it in your back yard.

So, then, you're whole point is that there is nothing wrong with national funding of police? (leaving aside that's not what you were critiquing me for saying)

In that case, you're still wrong. That is not a proper role for the Federal government. It might as well set parking rates and property taxes. This is a role for States. Period.

The United States should not borrow money to pay for what a State is not willing to pay for. We've got enough national debt without worrying about the funding of police in Sheboygan.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, on our "recovering economy" that you seem to think will sweep President Obama to reelection

So more jobs and fewer new claims, but a slowdown in the rate. Not a disaster, not a great trend. Of course, all you can see is doom and gloom because there's a Dem in the White House, but as I said before, there are months to go yet, and this could be a new trend or just a blip.

The trend has been, at best, uneven. Thus, the picture of the economy helping the President is built on "hope" and not reality.

I don't see doom and gloom, Mr. Straw. I've been consistent. I say it's stuck. It is. The overwhelming number of Americans see minimal, if any, improvement. As a political matter, that's not good for your man.

Doctor Fate wrote:So more jobs and fewer new claims, but a slowdown in the rate. Not a disaster, not a great trend. Of course, all you can see is doom and gloom because there's a Dem in the White House, but as I said before, there are months to go yet, and this could be a new trend or just a blip.

And, really . . . "more jobs?" "Fewer new claims?"

You're citing potential rounding errors as signs of improvement?

Doctor Fate wrote:So, then, you're whole point is that there is nothing wrong with national funding of police? (leaving aside that's not what you were critiquing me for saying)

Umm, I do wish you'd learn to read. Last time you claimed I was saying something I was not, you ended up leaving us in a strop over a turn of phrase...

My first reply to you on this matter was as follows:

Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

See that word I helpfully highlighted for you? It's not 'force', OK? I was talking about national funding.

I wouldn't mind but you quoted the whole thing yourself when you responded telling me that you don't 'do' national police. Just admit you made a mistake (for once), that there are national law enforcement agencies, and that I was not proposing or endorsing a full national police force, and grow up a bit.

Doctor Fate wrote:You're citing potential rounding errors as signs of improvement?

I'm just reading the figures you posted. Please stop being such a jerk.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You're citing potential rounding errors as signs of improvement?

I'm just reading the figures you posted. Please stop being such a jerk.

Physician, heal thyself.

Let's look at the "figures (I) posted" and see if they bear out your optimism.

Jobless claims fell to 388,000 from a revised 389,000 the prior week that was the highest since early January

So, the previous week's figures were "revised" (upward, btw) and now it's down 1,000 and that's improvement? What if, just as with last week, the numbers are revised upward? Then we're back to a "potential rounding error." In either case, 1000 jobs is statistically impossible to see in the US economy.

Furthermore, last week's numbers were the highest since January. This week is about the same. The week before that was higher than expected. I'm not pronouncing "doom and gloom." I am, however, looking at the numbers as they actually are and not with rose-colored glasses.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index declined to minus 35.8 from minus 31.4 the previous week.

People are less and less optimistic. That does not bode well.

Fewer jobs were added in March:

Employers added 120,000 new jobs to their payrolls in March, the least since October, after averaging 246,000 jobs per month over the prior three months.

We need about 400K a month to keep up with the population. In other words, this does not bode well.

The CNBC analyst notes:

"Today’s reading also gives the uncomfortable drift upwards in initial claims the feel of a trend rather than aberration."

One of us may be being a jerk. You just refuse to believe the facts. You're upset that they aren't in your favor. That's your issue and it bleeds into your writing.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, then, you're whole point is that there is nothing wrong with national funding of police? (leaving aside that's not what you were critiquing me for saying)

Umm, I do wish you'd learn to read. Last time you claimed I was saying something I was not, you ended up leaving us in a strop over a turn of phrase...

My first reply to you on this matter was as follows:

Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

See that word I helpfully highlighted for you? It's not 'force', OK? I was talking about national funding.

Right. So, where did I get the idea that you believe we should have a national police force?

However, the sheer number of different law enforcement agencies across the USA, with competing jurisdictions and priorities is boggling. Crime is a national problem, and the 'tradition' of parochial policing only serves to help criminals.

Oh, wait. It was from you. I highlighted the part you seem to not remember.

Non-parochial policing = a national police force able to cross jurisdictional lines.

I wouldn't mind but you quoted the whole thing yourself when you responded telling me that you don't 'do' national police. Just admit you made a mistake (for once), that there are national law enforcement agencies, and that I was not proposing or endorsing a full national police force, and grow up a bit.

Read your own material more carefully and grow up yourself.

Right. So, where did I get the idea that you believe we should have a national police force?

Politeness impels me not to venture my most immediate guess...

Non-parochial policing = a national police force able to cross jurisdictional lines.

Not necessarily. It could mean consolidation of forces withing counties or across a State, which would not be a bad idea. Or State forces able to cross jurisdictional lines. Or closer coordination between forces at all levels. Or a reduction in the sheer number of Federal law enforcement agencies and 'polices' (which themselves are parochial).

Read your own material more carefully and grow up yourself.

Problem is, Doc, I do read what I write. You decide to misread what I write, or decide that an ambiguous statement can only haev one interpretation and tell me what I really think. As I said, last time I called you on it, you got all hetty and did a megaflounce.

Time to drop it, no?

I think the case for state bailouts is much stronger in 2009 then it is in 2011 - 2013. Hence, this is probably not a good election strategy for Obama this time around.

Anyone facing a cut will tell you all the wonderful things that they do and why they need the money for that. So of course cuts will result in crime and teacher layoffs. However, when the cuts are forced it is not unusual to find items that are relatively benign. Not always, but often in my experience.

I'm not sure it's an 'election strategy' so much.

And living in a country where we are making cuts, I'm seeing education and policing budgets slashed, police being laid off (and then asked if they want to come back to help for free!) and teaching assistants gone. So while you can hope that it's just bluster designed to get free money, some of us can see that it isn't always like that.

Interesting headline in the Washington Post:

The U.S. economic recovery slowed in the first three months of the year as government spending declined. While consumer spending was strong, other aspects of the economy appeared weak. The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gdp-report-rate-of-us-economic-growth-slows-to-22percent/2012/04/27/gIQAwZaElT_story.html?hpid=z1

Rather interesting that the strategy of cutting spending in government is thought to be largely responsible for slowing the economic recovery.
Further proof that choosing when to cut government spending is important...