(07-17-2023, 08:35 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(07-17-2023, 08:27 PM)p_rushing Wrote: You don't understand how a budget cut works for the government. Cutting funding doesn't mean that you actually lost funding from the previous year, it means what you wrote. Anytime you don't get the same % increase the following year, it is a budget cut. The budget increase each year is a given and they expect it. So cutting the standard increase $1 is a cut to the government.


Also just because the total $ amount didn't change or increased doesn't mean the police actually get the money. It could be going to hire peace keepers or whatever else stupid program. There could be less cops even with the larger budget.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

LOL
 
I clearly said cuts were made. 
I later stated the increase was 19% in funding annually. 
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the increase would have been more if they didn't make the cuts. 

The relevant point I was making is that the attempt to paint the "defunding" in the extreme fashion the OP article portrayed was disingenuous to the truth of what actually happened.

Funding increasing can still be called a cut by the government. Even a 19% increase could be a cut. So yes it is stupid to say that is a cut but governments from state to federal do that all the time.

The media then picks it up and uses shock titles and 1st paragraphs to influence your feelings. They may or may not finally mention that cut was to an imaginary budget and the actual budget increased it but they were expecting a larger increase.

Both sides do this but federally there hasn't been a budget in a while so those headlines haven't been used much.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---