[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You should not be rewarded for going to prison period. This is a slap to the face of all the people working their asses off to pay their way through college while staying out of trouble. It’s not hard to follow the rules and not commit felonies that land you in prison. I understand people make mistakes (and many learn from their mistake and don’t repeat them) but you shouldn’t be rewarded for making one. The only way this would be remotely ok in my opinion was if there was a guaranteed way the money would be paid back to the taxpayers directly from the inmates who used the program. [/quote]
I don’t think we have people going to prison on purpose so they can get an education.
It is probably infinitely better for society for someone who has served prison time to have opportunities for success once they get out than for them to have no opportunities and potentially be right back on track to go back to prison.
It’s not like we are “saving” tax money or anything. Prison is extremely expensive and wouldn’t you rather people who got out had good opportunities than not? I think fiscally opposing job training or education for prisoners is actually counter-productive.
If we are complaining a 4.35 trillion dollar war machine or an education for someone who screwed up? One is cheaper and in my opinion more moral than the other. Your mileage may vary.
In an ideal world you wouldn’t go to prison in the first place, but we must deal with how humans actually are and not with how things would work in rainbow utopia land.
We also have some quite frankly really shitty laws and sentencing.
I’m not for it don’t get me wrong, but I’m probably more for that than a ton of other government things.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You should not be rewarded for going to prison period. This is a slap to the face of all the people working their asses off to pay their way through college while staying out of trouble. It’s not hard to follow the rules and not commit felonies that land you in prison. I understand people make mistakes (and many learn from their mistake and don’t repeat them) but you shouldn’t be rewarded for making one. The only way this would be remotely ok in my opinion was if there was a guaranteed way the money would be paid back to the taxpayers directly from the inmates who used the program. [/quote]
If we are complaining a 4.35 trillion dollar war machine [/quote]
I’m curious how much education, jobs (both directly and indirectly) that this number provides.
It’s a huge number, no doubt but if it was removed how many tens of thousands of people would be without work or an education?
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You should not be rewarded for going to prison period. This is a slap to the face of all the people working their asses off to pay their way through college while staying out of trouble. It’s not hard to follow the rules and not commit felonies that land you in prison. I understand people make mistakes (and many learn from their mistake and don’t repeat them) but you shouldn’t be rewarded for making one. The only way this would be remotely ok in my opinion was if there was a guaranteed way the money would be paid back to the taxpayers directly from the inmates who used the program. [/quote]
If we are complaining a 4.35 trillion dollar war machine [/quote]
I’m curious how much education, jobs (both directly and indirectly) that this number provides.
It’s a huge number, no doubt but if it was removed how many tens of thousands of people would be without work or an education?
[/quote]
10s of 1,000s is too low… We’re talking about well over a million people on active duty alone. Then there are the civilians that work directly for DOD, contractors, vendors that supply both, etc… I think 2-3 million is a pretty conservative estimate.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
You should not be rewarded for going to prison period. This is a slap to the face of all the people working their asses off to pay their way through college while staying out of trouble. It’s not hard to follow the rules and not commit felonies that land you in prison. I understand people make mistakes (and many learn from their mistake and don’t repeat them) but you shouldn’t be rewarded for making one. The only way this would be remotely ok in my opinion was if there was a guaranteed way the money would be paid back to the taxpayers directly from the inmates who used the program. [/quote]
If we are complaining a 4.35 trillion dollar war machine [/quote]
I’m curious how much education, jobs (both directly and indirectly) that this number provides.
It’s a huge number, no doubt but if it was removed how many tens of thousands of people would be without work or an education?
[/quote]
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project.
I think if all you care about is jobs then the amount provided by this 4.35 trillion dollar investment is probably insanely low.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project. [/quote]
Great post. One is either for or against socialism.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project. [/quote]
Great post. One is either for or against socialism.
[/quote]
Capitalism/socialism/robbery is more accurate. You believe it’s about the government trying to get more powerful for its own self-interests when the reality is someone is profiting from it: the corporate interests who the politicians answer to. Just look at Monsanto to see who is running things. Who profits from military (over) spending? Obama?
So I often complain about idiotic Kansas Republicans (since they are vastly in the majority in the legislature historically), but it is also important to point out the idiocy in Kansas Democrats.
Hopefully we can pass this law that allows ten strikes of the hand (ten is the part that interests me…9 is too little, 11 is too much) immediately. If I spank my future daughter 11 times does she sue me? What if I swing and barely connect? Does that count as one or do I get a mulligan?
I look forward to our legislator debating and solving yet another important problem. We have already worked on voter fraud (which wasn’t a problem) and now it is time to make sure we can agree on the number of allowed hand strikes for a child.
Also seriously lol at the government still being allowed to spank kids in Kansas schools. I did not realize that. I work around a lot of our schools and I’m almost positive none of them actually use that power though.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Capitalism/socialism/robbery is more accurate. You believe it’s about the government trying to get more powerful for its own self-interests when the reality is someone is profiting from it: the corporate interests who the politicians answer to. Just look at Monsanto to see who is running things. Who profits from military (over) spending? Obama? [/quote]
It’s not at all capitalism. Socialism/robbery is accurate. I would never deny the rest of your post. You seem to believe I’m a corporatist, or one who blames Obama for problems. I doubt I have ever blamed Obama for anything. Obama probably goes backstage and gets whipped by his handlers if he performs poorly during an appearance.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project. [/quote]
Great post. One is either for or against socialism.
[/quote]
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Capitalism/socialism/robbery is more accurate. You believe it’s about the government trying to get more powerful for its own self-interests when the reality is someone is profiting from it: the corporate interests who the politicians answer to. Just look at Monsanto to see who is running things. Who profits from military (over) spending? Obama? [/quote]
It’s not at all capitalism. Socialism/robbery is accurate. I would never deny the rest of your post. You seem to believe I’m a corporatist, or one who blames Obama for problems. I doubt I have ever blamed Obama for anything. Obama probably goes backstage and gets whipped by his handlers if he performs poorly during an appearance.[/quote]
If it’s not capitalism then it’s not socialism. It’s just greed.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project. [/quote]
Great post. One is either for or against socialism.
[/quote]
Lol, there’s no gray area at all huh?[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to say gray areas cannot exist. I’m not the same as Nick in the way he views the world. I just can’t understand why so many conservatives argue FOR the government in terms of jobs when it is the military, but attempt to oppose everything else the government does.
At the minimum it is highly contradictory to support the government having military jobs, but oppose the government having non-military jobs. It was the same mindset that lead Mitt Romney to say that government can’t create jobs, but he would increase military spending to stimulate the economy.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
If it’s not capitalism then it’s not socialism. It’s just greed. [/quote]
Call it crony capitalism or lemon socialism.[/quote]
I call it cannibalism. Whether or not they take your money via taxes or via “voluntary” spending, it all ends up in the same people’s pockets.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I call it cannibalism. Whether or not they take your money via taxes or via “voluntary” spending, it all ends up in the same people’s pockets. [/quote]
You wrote “voluntary,” so I’m not sure exactly what you mean by it. Taxes and voluntary spending are totally different. Taxes are taken by force, and the taxed have no say in how their money is spent. Money that is voluntarily spent is spent on something that the spender believes will make him better off than the money he spends on it.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Education and jobs are also provided by public schools. And that number is also huge. What’s weird is some conservatives say the government doesn’t create jobs, but always talks about jobs in terms of the military which is government creating jobs.
How many jobs would have been lost without the auto bailout? Who knows? I don’t know why some people think picking and choosing is such an important job for the government in terms of jobs.
The government can and always has been able to create jobs. The issue is all those jobs are created through someone else’s labor. I don’t quite see how someone can be for a huge and active military because of jobs, but also against public education. It just doesn’t make sense to me and seems like a massive hypocrisy.
I guess if one is against military cuts because of the people who work how could someone ALSO be against cuts to public education, health care, or any other government sector? I just don’t get it. And that says nothing of my point which is the almost undeniable waste of resources in the project. [/quote]
Great post. One is either for or against socialism.
[/quote]
Lol, there’s no gray area at all huh?[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to say gray areas cannot exist.[/quote]
Not you, Nick.
Edit: And I disagree with Mitt here. I think the government can create jobs. Personally, I think the government just creates too many of them or they have little to no value.
Again, I may be wrong, but can you(or someone else) explain how or why I am? It seems to me that the problems of socialism are always present, no matter the field.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, there’s no gray area at all huh?[/quote]
There may be one that I’m missing. Why does socialism work for some things and not for others?[/quote]
Because certain things, defense for example, require centralized command to be successful. If no national defense exited we would be speaking Japanese or German almost certainly. Hell even the founding fathers understood a need for a continental army regardless of how under funded and under supplied it was it was still paramount to the birth of America. Even if each state individually had centralized defense the revolution would of likely failed. States like America can not exist without some socialization, period.
Again, I may be wrong, but can you(or someone else) explain how or why I am? It seems to me that the problems of socialism are always present, no matter the field.[/quote]
Yes problems with socialism will always exist.
Problems would also exist in a 100% free market society, namely that that society would not exist for long. Some collective would take it and it wouldn’t even likley need to use force.
