EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You want to kill Perkins Loans and Work Study.
Good luck fixing the economy with that work force.
So even though the evidence is the programs are worthless, you're saying we should keep them because you like the idea of them? You picked out one of the lowest rated programs to defend.
Which one?
Because in either case, I couldn't have afforded college without it.
EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You want to kill Perkins Loans and Work Study.
Good luck fixing the economy with that work force.
So even though the evidence is the programs are worthless, you're saying we should keep them because you like the idea of them? You picked out one of the lowest rated programs to defend.
The reason Perkins Loans are listed as ineffective is that they duplicate another program; the recommended solution to that ineffectiveness is to divert that funding into the larger programs (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans), not to eliminate them.
Thus that's not really a good place to reclaim funds.
Oh, same for work study. The suggestion is not to eliminate the program, but rather to increase its effectiveness by tweaking the program.
Did you even read any of the links to specific programs on that page, or just pulling it out of your ass and hand-waving towards it?
EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You want to kill Perkins Loans and Work Study.
Good luck fixing the economy with that work force.
So even though the evidence is the programs are worthless, you're saying we should keep them because you like the idea of them? You picked out one of the lowest rated programs to defend.
The reason Perkins Loans are listed as ineffective is that they duplicate another program; the recommended solution to that ineffectiveness is to divert that funding into the larger programs (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans), not to eliminate them.
Thus that's not really a good place to reclaim funds.
Oh, same for work study. The suggestion is not to eliminate the program, but rather to increase its effectiveness by tweaking the program.
Did you even read any of the links to specific programs on that page, or just pulling it out of your ass and hand-waving towards it?
When it doubt cancelling education programs is always everyone's first go-to choice for some reason.
Since there are no program-specific performance measures and data, there is insufficient information to determine the effectiveness of this program. The Department of Education is developing performance goals; the program will be reassessed when this process has been completed.
Perkins:
The Perkins Loan program is redundant and duplicative, given the broad availability of need-based, subsidized, relatively low-interest loans through the two larger student loan programs (Federal Family Education Loans and Ford Direct Student Loans). These other programs provide nearly $80 billion in new annual loan volume, while Perkins Loans provide only $1 billion.
So one doesn't have datapoints to actually rank it with, and the other should just be rolled into a larger effort.
EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You want to kill Perkins Loans and Work Study.
Good luck fixing the economy with that work force.
So even though the evidence is the programs are worthless, you're saying we should keep them because you like the idea of them? You picked out one of the lowest rated programs to defend.
The reason Perkins Loans are listed as ineffective is that they duplicate another program; the recommended solution to that ineffectiveness is to divert that funding into the larger programs (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans), not to eliminate them.
Thus that's not really a good place to reclaim funds.
Oh, same for work study. The suggestion is not to eliminate the program, but rather to increase its effectiveness by tweaking the program.
Did you even read any of the links to specific programs on that page, or just pulling it out of your ass and hand-waving towards it?
Diverting the funds to a working program is the same as eliminating it. I was not talking about reclaiming funds. I was talking about being willing to pay higher taxes if my government was using their current funds even remotely well.
Did you read the Work Study one? They have made no changes since 04, that's more than ample time to have fixed the program.
Norway can afford all that because it's the world 5th largest oil exporter, to the tune of 25% of the country's GDP. Statoil, the state oil company, is also the 36th largest company in the world.
Most of the rest of the world simply cannot finance a state like Norway can.
Most of the world indeed, but most of the Western world can afford those same things, particularly the US which is by far the wealthiest.
I find it interesting that I mention wanting to actually fix/eliminate the worst of the government programs and am simple attacked by people who have clearly not even read or understood what I was bringing up. I will also point out that there is a lot of defense spending in there that it not being properly utilized.
I didn't bring up the specific issues you guys chose the argument and somehow have pegged me as a right winger republican.
I find it interesting that I mention wanting to actually fix/eliminate the worst of the government programs and am simple attacked by people who have clearly not even read or understood what I was bringing up. I will also point out that there is a lot of defense spending in there that it not being properly utilized.
I didn't bring up the specific iusses you guys chose the argument and somehow have pegged me as a right winger republican.
Bravo Gentlemen, Bravo
Diverting the funds to a working program is the same as eliminating it. I was not talking about reclaiming funds. I was talking about being willing to pay higher taxes if my government was using their current funds even remotely well.
Did you read the Work Study one? They have made no changes since 04, that's more than ample time to have fixed the program.
If you're going to argue that we can't afford to reform the prison system, then how do you account for the fact that we already spend so much money on prisoners? $24,000 a year is a big chunk of cash, and a lot of that is either draconian security measures, or given out to for-profit prison contractors.
Because implementation isn't free and in the mean time you still need to keep the system going. And most of those implementation costs would come from the states that have no money.
I'm saying we don't have the money to implement a system like Norway's. There's no reason we can't implement some easier reforms in the mean time. Fact is, its just not a good time to be working on this either economically or politically.
The US can tax itself out of its current deficit problems.
Political deadlock prevents this, the cost really isn't even in the top 3 things that prevent prison reform
I'd prefer cutting all the completely shit programs before I pay more in taxes.
This is presumably where the following statement came from (just a couple posts later)...
EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You know we can actually go back and look at posts you made, right? Like, they don't go away? And that, in context, you were clearly talking about cutting programs to reclaim money.
I find it interesting that I mention wanting to actually fix/eliminate the worst of the government programs and am simple attacked by people who have clearly not even read or understood what I was bringing up. I will also point out that there is a lot of defense spending in there that it not being properly utilized.
I didn't bring up the specific iusses you guys chose the argument and somehow have pegged me as a right winger republican.
Bravo Gentlemen, Bravo
Diverting the funds to a working program is the same as eliminating it. I was not talking about reclaiming funds. I was talking about being willing to pay higher taxes if my government was using their current funds even remotely well.
Did you read the Work Study one? They have made no changes since 04, that's more than ample time to have fixed the program.
If you're going to argue that we can't afford to reform the prison system, then how do you account for the fact that we already spend so much money on prisoners? $24,000 a year is a big chunk of cash, and a lot of that is either draconian security measures, or given out to for-profit prison contractors.
Because implementation isn't free and in the mean time you still need to keep the system going. And most of those implementation costs would come from the states that have no money.
I'm saying we don't have the money to implement a system like Norway's. There's no reason we can't implement some easier reforms in the mean time. Fact is, its just not a good time to be working on this either economically or politically.
The US can tax itself out of its current deficit problems.
Political deadlock prevents this, the cost really isn't even in the top 3 things that prevent prison reform
I'd prefer cutting all the completely shit programs before I pay more in taxes.
This is presumably where the following statement came from (just a couple posts later)...
EDIT: I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
You know we can actually go back and look at posts you made, right? Like, they don't go away? And that, in context, you were clearly talking about cutting programs to reclaim money.
I wouldn't peg you as a hardcore gopper, but rather yet another someone who isn't aware of this vast disparity
Do you want to cut the military, social security or healthcare?
I mostly want to make deep cuts in military spending. We could easily maintain national security with a much smaller military. The very fact that we're separated from most anyone else who would want to attack us by vast fucking oceans means we don't need nearly the military we have now.That doesn't mean that we shouldn't clean up all of the programs across the board.
The people in this thread have amply shown why it's so hard to cut programs, even when they are clearly not working and have have years to fix their problems.
FYI, cutting a program doesn't mean that money goes into the military budget, it simply means it will get spent elsewhere. Such as a similar program that is actually working.
No, you just aren't as good at bullshitting as you think you are. That, or you are just saying things that make little sense. Either way.
Well, it's also possible that you're just interjecting random shit. We are talking about whether we can afford prison reform. The only way your link is relevant is if it's in the context of reclaiming funds from other programs (rather than raising taxes) to pay for prison reform.
Even when somebody pointed out that your list included Perkins/Work Study, you kept on (and did not mention that in those cases no funds would be reclaimed). Suggesting that you either think those programs should be eliminated (and the funds reclaimed), or that you hadn't (at that point) bothered to read the follow-on link (thus you didn't know that the suggestions there were revenue-neutral).
I mostly want to make deep cuts in military spending. We could easily maintain national security with a much smaller military. The very fact that we're separated from most anyone else who would want to attack us by vast fucking oceans means we don't need nearly the military we have now.That doesn't mean that we shouldn't clean up all of the programs across the board.
We need the military for more than just defending our borders. We have important economic and strategic interests around the globe. People can chant "no blood for oil" all they want, but the simple fact remains that our economy current runs on resources and products that are found/produced elsewhere and cross oceans. And, additionally, we need stable markets around the world in which to sell the goods we produce.
This is not a justification of our current level of military spending, mind you. I agree it needs to come down. But the fact that we have large oceans for two of our major borders doesn't necessarily mean as much as you're suggesting.
No, you just aren't as good at bullshitting as you think you are. That, or you are just saying things that make little sense. Either way.
Well, it's also possible that you're just interjecting random shit. We are talking about whether we can afford prison reform. The only way your link is relevant is if it's in the context of reclaiming funds from other programs (rather than raising taxes) to pay for prison reform.
Even when somebody pointed out that your list included Perkins/Work Study, you kept on (and did not mention that in those cases no funds would be reclaimed). Suggesting that you either think those programs should be eliminated (and the funds reclaimed), or that you hadn't (at that point) bothered to read the follow-on link (thus you didn't know that the suggestions there were revenue-neutral).
So you don't understand this sentence then:
I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
No, you just aren't as good at bullshitting as you think you are. That, or you are just saying things that make little sense. Either way.
Well, it's also possible that you're just interjecting random shit. We are talking about whether we can afford prison reform. The only way your link is relevant is if it's in the context of reclaiming funds from other programs (rather than raising taxes) to pay for prison reform.
Even when somebody pointed out that your list included Perkins/Work Study, you kept on (and did not mention that in those cases no funds would be reclaimed). Suggesting that you either think those programs should be eliminated (and the funds reclaimed), or that you hadn't (at that point) bothered to read the follow-on link (thus you didn't know that the suggestions there were revenue-neutral).
So you don't understand this sentence then:
I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
I find that fascinating.
Oh, I understand the sentence. And absent context, it's pretty sensible.
But, alas, context.
I'd prefer cutting all the completely shit programs before I pay more in taxes.
Followed by...
We can start by ending every single one of these:
...with, obviously the link.
And, I'll note that that link states that maybe 20% of the budget is listed as "not performing." Only, "not performing" can mean "results not demonstrated." Which means that some of those programs may actually be performing, and just haven't documented that fact (or developed standards to measure it by). Which means that you've identified maybe a fifth of the budget that is...possibly...maybe...underperforming. To some degree.
But, as demonstrated, at least some of those programs obviously are "performing," which is to say delivering value for the dollars spent...namely, Perkins Loans and Work Study.
How many of the others are similar?
Because, you see, the fact that maybe 20% of the budget could be reduced by some unnamed margin (which may only be like 10%) is not enough to convince me that spending a bit extra in taxes to prevent federally sponsored rape is not a worthwhile proposal. The fact that the list of programs you need to see cut in order to justify spending a few extra bucks a month to stop federally sponsored rape includes Perkins Loans and Work Study is not a reasonable position.
Cutting the military is a huge step, but WASTE! is a small part of most government programs
Medicare, for example, is vastly more efficient than all private sector equivilents
I recall hearing quotes like like 5% of medicare is used for overhead and administration, versus something like 25-30% for most large health insurance companies
I always find it funny the number of people who want to cut foreign aid and think its a huge portion of our budget. I do wonder if the US was to cut down its military would some of our allies be forced to finally increase their own knowing we wouldn't be around to pick up the slack?
But FRAUD! People don't defraud private medical insurance.
I know, m i rite?
I get the whole "eliminate waste before raising taxes" idea in the abstract. Like, if you're proposing that we build a new courthouse, or a new park, or shiny new computers for a school that has perfectly functional ones, or a ton of other more routine spending, I'm that guy as well.
But if we're talking about eliminating state sanctioned rape, and your first reaction is "man cut waste don't raise mah taxes..."
Well, I'd generally assume that kind of silliness only pours from the depths of the most hard-right GOP'ers (or lolbertarians), but I guess nothing really surprises me anymore.
I'd gladly pay ten, maybe twenty bucks more a month to know that I'm not funding rape camps. Even if it means I'm wasting a few bucks on Work Study or silly stealth fighters we don't need, too.
All this talk of "secret" and clearance makes me wonder if one of my friends should have been jailed by now, because he tells me alot about his time in warzones.
All this talk of "secret" and clearance makes me wonder if one of my friends should have been jailed by now, because he tells me alot about his time in warzones.
It's almost certainly all unclassified. Very little is actually classified, really. He's probably violating OPSEC (operational security), but that's another matter. And not so much a "throw you in Leavenworth" matter, in general.
There are people in existence opposed to fucking Federal Work Study?
That's my job pal (well, a portion of my pay, but without work study it's unlikely the school would have the money for as many tutors) I brought a half dozen people up to passing from failing their computer courses in just this semester tutoring them. So I cost the federal government a few grand, I also earned every penny of that. I'm trying to determine in what possible way that money is misspent, it gives public schools the funds to hire people at a significantly lower cost than they would have otherwise had to while at the same time giving college students valuable work experience and allows those of us who get it to dine on something more extravagant than ramen noodles (actually the hours afforded me from work study, assuming my job still existed without it and you just subtracted those hours, raise my income above what is necessary for food stamps, and if you take work study you must also reduce your loan/benefit amount, so it really doesn't cost the government that much)
All this talk of "secret" and clearance makes me wonder if one of my friends should have been jailed by now, because he tells me alot about his time in warzones.
It's almost certainly all unclassified. Very little is actually classified, really. He's probably violating OPSEC (operational security), but that's another matter. And not so much a "throw you in Leavenworth" matter, in general.
Well, that sounds like US stuff.
He, myself and our friend are Auuuuuuuuuustraaaaaaaalian. I am the academic one, who is becoming a doctor, he is the grunt and *he* (the one not yet introduced) is a drop out airforce officer.
So when ever we meet up they compete, and grunt wants to try and show that he is actually the only real soldier cause he has been deployed multiple times. And hell, I fully think he is, but airforce jock really tries to establish dominance.
So, they eventually start talking about "secret" (or I guess OPSEC) things, as that way they can try and be better than at least me. And feel better, I don't mind since they feel better. But i file it all away. And research. And I am the only one who knows how to use the internet properly.
What? I was responding to whoever said that's it's "paradise."
Well, yeah, they have a nice welfare state.. because they're a small state population-wise, financed by massive oil revenues. Most of the rest of the world can't boast that.
And there's nothing on Page 3 about that, so I don't understand your point, or did you include my quote by accident?
Hey dude, look up the Norwegian Petroliums fund(or Norwegian state pension fund as its called these days). You will find that we don't actually spend our Oil revenue, most of it is invested for future use. Meaning that our welfare state is not "financed by massive oil revenues." as you put it.
It also doesn't explain how Sweden, Denmark and Finland can have equaly good welfare and prison systems without massive oil revenue.
You guys are small wealthy nations though. Not saying we shouldn't emulate when practical, but its important to realize different countries are different.
It's like the story about MIlton Friedman talking to a Scandinavian economist:
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
That Friedman line is gold. Never heard it before. Do you have a reference for that?
On the topic itself: I think non-violent offenders belong in a tether - restricted movement - rehab program, not in prisons.
I actually got it from a PJ O'Rourke book.
I'm okay with small-time, non-violent offenders being punished in more creative ways. But I'm also not opposed to things like caning and public humiliation for small-time crime.
The system of incarcerating people long-term is a pretty recent innovation. Historically, punishment for crimes tended to be either the death penalty or things like exile to a prison colony or public shaming/corporal punishment for lesser crimes.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The Government receives significant revenues from petroleum activities. In 2009, approximately 27 per cent of total state revenues came from this sector. Figure 3.1 shows that income from this sector has been consistently high in recent years, with 2006 yielding extraordinarily high income to the State. In the 2010 national budget the value of the remaining petroleum resources on the Norwegian continental shelf is estimated at NOK 4 744 billion.
The Government receives a large share of the value created through:
* Taxation of oil and gas activities
* Direct ownership in fields and infrastructure (through the State’s Direct Financial Interest, SDFI)
* Charges/fees
* Dividends from ownership in Statoil
Norway has implemented a specific fiscal system designed to secure state revenues from petroleum activities. The main rationale for the system is the extraordinary returns associated with production of petroleum resources. The specific fiscal system is explained by the objective that all petroleum resources shall benefit the socitety as a whole, and that oil and gas companies are allowed to exploit a valuable and scarce resource.
My point isn't that Norway is special and that the system can't be replicated or imitated, rather it's that the conditions that allow the Norwegian system to work are not found in most of the rest of the world and alternate approaches may be needed!
I mean, the world has spent the last several decades learning that what works for one country doesn't necessarily work for another! This isn't breaking news! There are entire branches of economics dedicated to studying the differences!
There needs to be a lot of reform in the U.S. before the prison system can be made manageable and humane.
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Isn't that attitudes though rather than something unchangable - in scandinavia affluent people are fine with light prision systems and spending on the poor because the poor are just like them, whilst in America they're not because the poor are (or have been painted to be) all scary black/minority men and black/minority welfare queens. Even if not conciously of racist origins for any one individual, they've been conditioned to think of the poor as "the other", part of why every flipping american thinks they're middle class.
Shouldn't we be trying to change those attitudes rather than accepting it as part of the landscape? And stop actively designing our systems to punish the Others.
The system of incarcerating people long-term is a pretty recent innovation. Historically, punishment for crimes tended to be either the death penalty or things like exile to a prison colony or public shaming/corporal punishment for lesser crimes.
And yet back we had urban murder and crime rates that would shock us moderns, so it might not be the best idea to go back there rather than trying something new.
There is a lot of conversation in here that is barely related to the prison system.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Isn't that attitudes though rather than something unchangable - in scandinavia affluent people are fine with light prision systems and spending on the poor because the poor are just like them, whilst in America they're not because the poor are (or have been painted to be) all scary black/minority men and black/minority welfare queens. Even if not conciously of racist origins for any one individual, they've been conditioned to think of the poor as "the other", part of why every flipping american thinks they're middle class.
Shouldn't we be trying to change those attitudes rather than accepting it as part of the landscape? And stop actively designing our systems to punish the Others.
You're correct that part of our attitude towards incarceration is due to the fact that the American prison population is much, much more non-White than the population as a whole. It's easier to ignore problems in our prison system when the people in there don't really remind you of anyone you know. That's probably tougher to do when you have a population like Norway's.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The black or hispanic kid going to jail for murder or armed robbery deserves to be there for his actions. Maybe if we did a better job of dealing with poverty and the various social pathologies that lead to crime, we wouldn't have to incarcerate as many people. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a population of people who need to be segregated from society as punishment for their crimes.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Isn't that attitudes though rather than something unchangable - in scandinavia affluent people are fine with light prision systems and spending on the poor because the poor are just like them, whilst in America they're not because the poor are (or have been painted to be) all scary black/minority men and black/minority welfare queens. Even if not conciously of racist origins for any one individual, they've been conditioned to think of the poor as "the other", part of why every flipping american thinks they're middle class.
Shouldn't we be trying to change those attitudes rather than accepting it as part of the landscape? And stop actively designing our systems to punish the Others.
You're correct that part of our attitude towards incarceration is due to the fact that the American prison population is much, much more non-White than the population as a whole. It's easier to ignore problems in our prison system when the people in there don't really remind you of anyone you know. That's probably tougher to do when you have a population like Norway's.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The black or hispanic kid going to jail for murder or armed robbery deserves to be there for his actions. Maybe if we did a better job of dealing with poverty and the various social pathologies that lead to crime, we wouldn't have to incarcerate as many people. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a population of people who need to be segregated from society as punishment for their crimes.
Err, yes it does. This idea that we need to "segregate people from society" as an exclusive response to criminality seems to be founded on the idea that people will treat prison like some sort of bizzaro-Walden and come out with a new appreciation for civilized society. The reality is that when people who are already poorly socially adjusted are isolated from that same society for long periods of time, they don't magically become better adjusted. They get worse and continue to respond to the same fucked up incentive system that got them into prison in the first place.
When we're talking about someone who turns to crime because they are poor, uneducated or a member of a marginalized group (or all three), the last thing we should be doing is segregating them from society and hoping they magically figure it out when their sentence is up.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I mean, we just had a thread about the 19 year old Somali kid in Portland who got caught in the FBI's anti-terrorism sting. If he is convicted (as seems likely), he faces a 25 to life sentence in prison.
Feelings about the conduct of the FBI investigation aside, what do we get out of giving someone that young a prison sentence that long? Even if the current prison environment does give the guy a favorable attitude adjustment (statistically unlikely), he'll come out a middle aged man without relevant job or life skills and who would be nigh-unemployable even if he had them. I don't understand why this is such a desirable outcome.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
A Scandinavian economist once proudly said to free-market advocate Milton Friedman, "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." And Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either."
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Isn't that attitudes though rather than something unchangable - in scandinavia affluent people are fine with light prision systems and spending on the poor because the poor are just like them, whilst in America they're not because the poor are (or have been painted to be) all scary black/minority men and black/minority welfare queens. Even if not conciously of racist origins for any one individual, they've been conditioned to think of the poor as "the other", part of why every flipping american thinks they're middle class.
Shouldn't we be trying to change those attitudes rather than accepting it as part of the landscape? And stop actively designing our systems to punish the Others.
You're correct that part of our attitude towards incarceration is due to the fact that the American prison population is much, much more non-White than the population as a whole. It's easier to ignore problems in our prison system when the people in there don't really remind you of anyone you know. That's probably tougher to do when you have a population like Norway's.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The black or hispanic kid going to jail for murder or armed robbery deserves to be there for his actions. Maybe if we did a better job of dealing with poverty and the various social pathologies that lead to crime, we wouldn't have to incarcerate as many people. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a population of people who need to be segregated from society as punishment for their crimes.
Err, yes it does. This idea that we need to "segregate people from society" as an exclusive response to criminality seems to be founded on the idea that people will treat prison like some sort of bizzaro-Walden and come out with a new appreciation for civilized society. The reality is that when people who are already poorly socially adjusted are isolated from that same society for long periods of time, they don't magically become better adjusted. They get worse and continue to respond to the same fucked up incentive system that got them into prison in the first place.
When we're talking about someone who turns to crime because they are poor, uneducated or a member of a marginalized group (or all three), the last thing we should be doing is segregating them from society and hoping they magically figure it out when their sentence is up.
As a society, we stopped giving a shit about trying to rehabilitate criminals some time ago. We've never been all that good at it, frankly. So we've decided to cut our losses and focus on a system that keeps criminals (especially dangerous criminals) away from the rest of society. Whatever you might think of our prison system, you can't deny the fact that someone sitting behind bars can't commit any crimes (other than against other inmates or guards).
And when it comes to the types of crimes that lead to jail time, the vast majority of people fall into two categories: someone who commits zero such crimes, and someone who commits many such crimes. The people in jail tend to fall heavily into the latter category, so the time they spend in jail means less victims of their crimes.
The drug war's a different discussion, of course. I'm really talking about crimes that have an actual victim.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Posts
Because in either case, I couldn't have afforded college without it.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
"I've got a problem here"
The reason Perkins Loans are listed as ineffective is that they duplicate another program; the recommended solution to that ineffectiveness is to divert that funding into the larger programs (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans), not to eliminate them.
Thus that's not really a good place to reclaim funds.
Oh, same for work study. The suggestion is not to eliminate the program, but rather to increase its effectiveness by tweaking the program.
Did you even read any of the links to specific programs on that page, or just pulling it out of your ass and hand-waving towards it?
When it doubt cancelling education programs is always everyone's first go-to choice for some reason.
Perkins:
So one doesn't have datapoints to actually rank it with, and the other should just be rolled into a larger effort.
Either way, you need new targets, pal.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
If they're mouth-breathing fucktards, sure.
Diverting the funds to a working program is the same as eliminating it. I was not talking about reclaiming funds. I was talking about being willing to pay higher taxes if my government was using their current funds even remotely well.
Did you read the Work Study one? They have made no changes since 04, that's more than ample time to have fixed the program.
Republican Party, McDermott
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Most of the world indeed, but most of the Western world can afford those same things, particularly the US which is by far the wealthiest.
Also the government of Michigan in total.
I didn't bring up the specific issues you guys chose the argument and somehow have pegged me as a right winger republican.
Bravo Gentlemen, Bravo
Nice try, dude.
Remember this?
This is presumably where the following statement came from (just a couple posts later)...
You know we can actually go back and look at posts you made, right? Like, they don't go away? And that, in context, you were clearly talking about cutting programs to reclaim money.
Still, 'A' for effort.
Do you want to cut the military, social security or healthcare?
You have a serious lack of reading comprehension.
I mostly want to make deep cuts in military spending. We could easily maintain national security with a much smaller military. The very fact that we're separated from most anyone else who would want to attack us by vast fucking oceans means we don't need nearly the military we have now.That doesn't mean that we shouldn't clean up all of the programs across the board.
The people in this thread have amply shown why it's so hard to cut programs, even when they are clearly not working and have have years to fix their problems.
FYI, cutting a program doesn't mean that money goes into the military budget, it simply means it will get spent elsewhere. Such as a similar program that is actually working.
No, you just aren't as good at bullshitting as you think you are. That, or you are just saying things that make little sense. Either way.
Well, it's also possible that you're just interjecting random shit. We are talking about whether we can afford prison reform. The only way your link is relevant is if it's in the context of reclaiming funds from other programs (rather than raising taxes) to pay for prison reform.
Even when somebody pointed out that your list included Perkins/Work Study, you kept on (and did not mention that in those cases no funds would be reclaimed). Suggesting that you either think those programs should be eliminated (and the funds reclaimed), or that you hadn't (at that point) bothered to read the follow-on link (thus you didn't know that the suggestions there were revenue-neutral).
We need the military for more than just defending our borders. We have important economic and strategic interests around the globe. People can chant "no blood for oil" all they want, but the simple fact remains that our economy current runs on resources and products that are found/produced elsewhere and cross oceans. And, additionally, we need stable markets around the world in which to sell the goods we produce.
This is not a justification of our current level of military spending, mind you. I agree it needs to come down. But the fact that we have large oceans for two of our major borders doesn't necessarily mean as much as you're suggesting.
So you don't understand this sentence then:
I'd happily pay higher taxes if I could trust my current government to spend it well...I cannot.
I find that fascinating.
Oh, I understand the sentence. And absent context, it's pretty sensible.
But, alas, context.
Followed by...
...with, obviously the link.
And, I'll note that that link states that maybe 20% of the budget is listed as "not performing." Only, "not performing" can mean "results not demonstrated." Which means that some of those programs may actually be performing, and just haven't documented that fact (or developed standards to measure it by). Which means that you've identified maybe a fifth of the budget that is...possibly...maybe...underperforming. To some degree.
But, as demonstrated, at least some of those programs obviously are "performing," which is to say delivering value for the dollars spent...namely, Perkins Loans and Work Study.
How many of the others are similar?
Because, you see, the fact that maybe 20% of the budget could be reduced by some unnamed margin (which may only be like 10%) is not enough to convince me that spending a bit extra in taxes to prevent federally sponsored rape is not a worthwhile proposal. The fact that the list of programs you need to see cut in order to justify spending a few extra bucks a month to stop federally sponsored rape includes Perkins Loans and Work Study is not a reasonable position.
Medicare, for example, is vastly more efficient than all private sector equivilents
I recall hearing quotes like like 5% of medicare is used for overhead and administration, versus something like 25-30% for most large health insurance companies
I know, m i rite?
I get the whole "eliminate waste before raising taxes" idea in the abstract. Like, if you're proposing that we build a new courthouse, or a new park, or shiny new computers for a school that has perfectly functional ones, or a ton of other more routine spending, I'm that guy as well.
But if we're talking about eliminating state sanctioned rape, and your first reaction is "man cut waste don't raise mah taxes..."
Well, I'd generally assume that kind of silliness only pours from the depths of the most hard-right GOP'ers (or lolbertarians), but I guess nothing really surprises me anymore.
I'd gladly pay ten, maybe twenty bucks more a month to know that I'm not funding rape camps. Even if it means I'm wasting a few bucks on Work Study or silly stealth fighters we don't need, too.
All this talk of "secret" and clearance makes me wonder if one of my friends should have been jailed by now, because he tells me alot about his time in warzones.
It's almost certainly all unclassified. Very little is actually classified, really. He's probably violating OPSEC (operational security), but that's another matter. And not so much a "throw you in Leavenworth" matter, in general.
There are people in existence opposed to fucking Federal Work Study?
That's my job pal (well, a portion of my pay, but without work study it's unlikely the school would have the money for as many tutors) I brought a half dozen people up to passing from failing their computer courses in just this semester tutoring them. So I cost the federal government a few grand, I also earned every penny of that. I'm trying to determine in what possible way that money is misspent, it gives public schools the funds to hire people at a significantly lower cost than they would have otherwise had to while at the same time giving college students valuable work experience and allows those of us who get it to dine on something more extravagant than ramen noodles (actually the hours afforded me from work study, assuming my job still existed without it and you just subtracted those hours, raise my income above what is necessary for food stamps, and if you take work study you must also reduce your loan/benefit amount, so it really doesn't cost the government that much)
Well, that sounds like US stuff.
He, myself and our friend are Auuuuuuuuuustraaaaaaaalian. I am the academic one, who is becoming a doctor, he is the grunt and *he* (the one not yet introduced) is a drop out airforce officer.
So when ever we meet up they compete, and grunt wants to try and show that he is actually the only real soldier cause he has been deployed multiple times. And hell, I fully think he is, but airforce jock really tries to establish dominance.
So, they eventually start talking about "secret" (or I guess OPSEC) things, as that way they can try and be better than at least me. And feel better, I don't mind since they feel better. But i file it all away. And research. And I am the only one who knows how to use the internet properly.
So I am a Narc... or a pseudo narc. Right?
It's like the story about MIlton Friedman talking to a Scandinavian economist:
Yes, give me a country with a smallish relatively homogenous population (with no underclass made up of the descendants of former slaves) who all agree that a high tax welfare state is a good thing, and I'm confident that it will have a low crime rate and less need to incarcerate people.
But the US is not that country.
Rigorous Scholarship
On the topic itself: I think non-violent offenders belong in a tether - restricted movement - rehab program, not in prisons.
I'm okay with small-time, non-violent offenders being punished in more creative ways. But I'm also not opposed to things like caning and public humiliation for small-time crime.
The system of incarcerating people long-term is a pretty recent innovation. Historically, punishment for crimes tended to be either the death penalty or things like exile to a prison colony or public shaming/corporal punishment for lesser crimes.
Rigorous Scholarship
My point isn't that Norway is special and that the system can't be replicated or imitated, rather it's that the conditions that allow the Norwegian system to work are not found in most of the rest of the world and alternate approaches may be needed!
I mean, the world has spent the last several decades learning that what works for one country doesn't necessarily work for another! This isn't breaking news! There are entire branches of economics dedicated to studying the differences!
There needs to be a lot of reform in the U.S. before the prison system can be made manageable and humane.
edit- cited quote from the gov't of Norway
Isn't that attitudes though rather than something unchangable - in scandinavia affluent people are fine with light prision systems and spending on the poor because the poor are just like them, whilst in America they're not because the poor are (or have been painted to be) all scary black/minority men and black/minority welfare queens. Even if not conciously of racist origins for any one individual, they've been conditioned to think of the poor as "the other", part of why every flipping american thinks they're middle class.
Shouldn't we be trying to change those attitudes rather than accepting it as part of the landscape? And stop actively designing our systems to punish the Others.
And yet back we had urban murder and crime rates that would shock us moderns, so it might not be the best idea to go back there rather than trying something new.
But I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The black or hispanic kid going to jail for murder or armed robbery deserves to be there for his actions. Maybe if we did a better job of dealing with poverty and the various social pathologies that lead to crime, we wouldn't have to incarcerate as many people. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a population of people who need to be segregated from society as punishment for their crimes.
Rigorous Scholarship
Err, yes it does. This idea that we need to "segregate people from society" as an exclusive response to criminality seems to be founded on the idea that people will treat prison like some sort of bizzaro-Walden and come out with a new appreciation for civilized society. The reality is that when people who are already poorly socially adjusted are isolated from that same society for long periods of time, they don't magically become better adjusted. They get worse and continue to respond to the same fucked up incentive system that got them into prison in the first place.
When we're talking about someone who turns to crime because they are poor, uneducated or a member of a marginalized group (or all three), the last thing we should be doing is segregating them from society and hoping they magically figure it out when their sentence is up.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Feelings about the conduct of the FBI investigation aside, what do we get out of giving someone that young a prison sentence that long? Even if the current prison environment does give the guy a favorable attitude adjustment (statistically unlikely), he'll come out a middle aged man without relevant job or life skills and who would be nigh-unemployable even if he had them. I don't understand why this is such a desirable outcome.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And when it comes to the types of crimes that lead to jail time, the vast majority of people fall into two categories: someone who commits zero such crimes, and someone who commits many such crimes. The people in jail tend to fall heavily into the latter category, so the time they spend in jail means less victims of their crimes.
The drug war's a different discussion, of course. I'm really talking about crimes that have an actual victim.
Rigorous Scholarship