Johnson's War on Poverty

[The_Dude 1,142]

Wrong.

The boat was purchased with money from a federal grant for homeland security purposes to be used on waters already patrolled by USCG. Care to try again?

How the ** am I supposed to know the funding source of every law enforcement procurement in every state? You are absurd Slim. None the less, can you prove that that money was included in the annual figures produced? You can keep trying to prove to yourself that criminals aren't worse than welfare recipients, but you're still wrong.

But, they're not. So, you're wrong again. Want to keep going?

They are prosectued, albeit not as much as they should, but you have that issue with every crime. Getting tired of being wrong yet?

Thought maybe third time would be a charm.... but you're wrong on this one too.

They DO deny assistance programs for making too much last year.

Even unemployment? I will concede that I don't know much about it as I have never even applied for it. Good to know, thanks for the info.

[slim 1,514]

How the ** am I supposed to know the funding source of every law enforcement procurement in every state? You are absurd Slim. None the less, can you prove that that money was included in the annual figures produced? You can keep trying to prove to yourself that criminals aren't worse than welfare recipients, but you're still wrong.

Exactly my point. Your dollars for crime fighting aren't exactly going for crime, are they?

They are prosectued, albeit not as much as they should, but you have that issue with every crime. Getting tired of being wrong yet?

So your crime dollars aren't being used as well as welfare dollars? Who's wrong again?

Even unemployment? I will concede that I don't know much about it as I have never even applied for it. Good to know, thanks for the info.

I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is you can't get free money for food in my county if you made too much last year and have no kids.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Exactly my point. Your dollars for crime fighting aren't exactly going for crime, are they?

How is an expenditure on equipment for law enforcement not going towards fighting crime?

So your crime dollars aren't being used as well as welfare dollars? Who's wrong again?

Still you.

I couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is you can't get free money for food in my county if you made too much last year and have no kids.

I'll take your word for it. I have no first hand knowledge of the procedure, nor an inclination to read up on it at the moment.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Why are you hating on the Prison Corporations? They're people, too.

Southern Pacific is a Prison Corporation?

well, i'd blame it more on things that we consider 'criminal' that should not be (drugs for an example). That and the ridiculous nature of the appeals process.

Yes, let's just shoot'em all and let GOD sort'em out.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How is an expenditure on equipment for law enforcement not going towards fighting crime?

To be fair, there are expenditures in law enforcement that are not going to fight crime and some that actually pay for themselves - some many times over. Those nifty little speed checking devices come to mind. They ain't cheap and every patrol car has one. These are certainly law enforcement expenditures but I'd say that you can't quite argue that these are to fight crimes and they also have revenue attached to them. It's why they're so popular.

[The_Dude 1,142]

To be fair, there are expenditures in law enforcement that are not going to fight crime and some that actually pay for themselves - some many times over. Those nifty little speed checking devices come to mind. They ain't cheap and every patrol car has one. These are certainly law enforcement expenditures but I'd say that you can't quite argue that these are to fight crimes and they also have revenue attached to them. It's why they're so popular.

Not every car has them actually. You have to be certified to use it, so only those officers assigned to traffic enforcement receive it. Everyone else relies on their trusty speedometer

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Not every car has them actually. You have to be certified to use it, so only those officers assigned to traffic enforcement receive it. Everyone else relies on their trusty speedometer

They are certified, calibrated speedometers and proper procedure, in most jurisdictions, is to have them re-certified every 6 mos. by the dealer and checked every day before the vehicle goes out on the street. These are for traffic units, primarily.

[The_Dude 1,142]

They are certified, calibrated speedometers and proper procedure, in most jurisdictions, is to have them re-certified every 6 mos. by the dealer and checked every day before the vehicle goes out on the street. These are for traffic units, primarily.

I was under the impression that he was referring to lidar/radar.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I was under the impression that he was referring to lidar/radar.

He was, but they still use certified speedometers to catch speeders in many places.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I was under the impression that he was referring to lidar/radar.

I was. And these are law enforcement expenditures - significant amounts even if not every patrol car has them - not exactly geared towards fighting crime. And there many other law enforcement expenditures that fall into the same category. Don't get me wrong, crime is a significant drag on the country. But you have to consider that many infractions are categorized as crimes while they shouldn't even be infractions because there is a strong and growing corporate lobby out there making it so. I seriously doubt that real crime - as opposed to total crime which encompasses real and manufactured crime - is as much of a burden on the nation as welfare.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I was. And these are law enforcement expenditures - significant amounts even if not every patrol car has them - not exactly geared towards fighting crime. And there many other law enforcement expenditures that fall into the same category. Don't get me wrong, crime is a significant drag on the country. But you have to consider that many infractions are categorized as crimes while they shouldn't even be infractions because there is a strong and growing corporate lobby out there making it so. I seriously doubt that real crime - as opposed to total crime which encompasses real and manufactured crime - is as much of a burden on the nation as welfare.

Infractions are not counted as crimes for statistical purposes, they are denoted as infractions, at least not where I work. I don't get your reference to a growing corporate lobby making things so though, could you please elaborate?

[scandal 951]

Kids are an expense just like anything else.

Do you know why I don't have kids? It's because I don't want to pay for them. I don't see why it's my job to pay for someone else's kids when they fall on hard times. If you have kids you can't afford, that's your problem. To me, it's no different than having a car or house payment you can't afford once you lose your job. We don't pay for those things... why should we pay for kids?

I wasn't. But, once again, how is that anyone else's responsibility to care for me if I'm ill? There are plenty of ways to insure against illness/injury and if I'm not responsible enough to partake in them... how is that anyone else's responsibility?

Situational poverty has existed forever. How did folks ever get by before welfare?

I'm all for helping folks out when they fall on hard times. However, I can't support the government being the ones who do so. Charities, churches, etc. That's who helps poor people. Not the government.

I can't say I read or followed this whole thread. But this bit here jumped out at me.

Slim, I think you've summed up the conservative viewpoint very well here. Your neighbor's children are not your concern. Your neighbor's illness is not your concern. Society is not in the business of caring for those who fall by the wayside, are ill, or are struggling to care for the next generation of our society.

Liberals feel differently. We do feel it's a societal good (i.e. good for all of us) to care for our fellow human being.

These are extreme poles, obviously. Most conservatives have a heart, most liberals don't want to see their compassion and caring taken advantage of by those who are able bodied. Most of us aren't really one or the other, we're really "compassionate conservatives" or "fiscally responsible liberals". I.e., we're moderate, centrist Americans who want efficient government programs that work. And we're tired of the politicians who posture but don't really make things any better.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I can't say I read or followed this whole thread. But this bit here jumped out at me.

Slim, I think you've summed up the conservative viewpoint very well here. Your neighbor's children are not your concern. Your neighbor's illness is not your concern. Society is not in the business of caring for those who fall by the wayside, are ill, or are struggling to care for the next generation of our society.

Liberals feel differently. We do feel it's a societal good (i.e. good for all of us) to care for our fellow human being.

These are extreme poles, obviously. Most conservatives have a heart, most liberals don't want to see their compassion and caring taken advantage of by those who are able bodied. Most of us aren't really one or the other, we're really "compassionate conservatives" or "fiscally responsible liberals". I.e., we're moderate, centrist Americans who want efficient government programs that work. And we're tired of the politicians who posture but don't really make things any better.

Altruistic behaviour is an inherent component of our collective humanity. America is indeed a centrist nation, not a welfare state, but there still is much room for improvement programs such as public health. Diseases and maladies know neither status nor station. Nobody wants a society of bums who don't work not due to some ailment but due to some sense on entitlement or sloth. Parasites of all sorts are a plague on society. For the record, politicians don't posture, they pay women to do that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Infractions are not counted as crimes for statistical purposes, they are denoted as infractions, at least not where I work. I don't get your reference to a growing corporate lobby making things so though, could you please elaborate?

Prison Corporations. You haven't noticed an ever rising population of inmates? That's how prison corporations grow. It's how they make money. It's how they meet market expectations for growth and returns. And that's why ever more people need to get locked up - more often and longer. It's all about the money, man.

[slim 1,514]

How is an expenditure on equipment for law enforcement not going towards fighting crime?

According to your statistics, criminals cost society money. Well, if there's money going towards crime fighting before crime happens, how is that the criminal's fault?

Your inflated figures take into account a lot of money that doesn't necessarily come from criminal activity. It comes from government waste. To say crime "costs" us X isn't accurate since crimes haven't actually taken place.

I'd say that you can't quite argue that these are to fight crimes and they also have revenue attached to them.

Uh oh...

I was. And these are law enforcement expenditures - significant amounts even if not every patrol car has them - not exactly geared towards fighting crime. And there many other law enforcement expenditures that fall into the same category. Don't get me wrong, crime is a significant drag on the country. But you have to consider that many infractions are categorized as crimes while they shouldn't even be infractions because there is a strong and growing corporate lobby out there making it so. I seriously doubt that real crime - as opposed to total crime which encompasses real and manufactured crime - is as much of a burden on the nation as welfare.

Uh oh again...

I can't say I read or followed this whole thread. But this bit here jumped out at me.

Slim, I think you've summed up the conservative viewpoint very well here. Your neighbor's children are not your concern. Your neighbor's illness is not your concern. Society is not in the business of caring for those who fall by the wayside, are ill, or are struggling to care for the next generation of our society.

Liberals feel differently. We do feel it's a societal good (i.e. good for all of us) to care for our fellow human being.

These are extreme poles, obviously. Most conservatives have a heart, most liberals don't want to see their compassion and caring taken advantage of by those who are able bodied. Most of us aren't really one or the other, we're really "compassionate conservatives" or "fiscally responsible liberals". I.e., we're moderate, centrist Americans who want efficient government programs that work. And we're tired of the politicians who posture but don't really make things any better.

The major difference between the two sides isn't that folks should get help or not, it's how to go about helping them.

One side believes it's the government's job to tax "rich" people in order to help poor people. That it's an obligation we should all have to bear.

The other side thinks it should be optional.

I truly believe if government were to just disappear today, folks would still get the help they need. How did they get it before government? When government manages anything it becomes bigger, more expensive and less efficient than it would be if managed by private entities.