Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the debate Bernie had all kinds of ideas to pay for additional rehabilitative programs for incarcerated criminals to learn jobs skills so they don't go out and commit more crimes.
That's just his frame of mind.
Tax Tax Tax Spend Spend Spend.
If you look at statistics, many prisoners commit crimes after release and go back to prison again. It costs something like $28k per year to the taxpayers for each prisoner. Maybe we are better off if we spend $5000 on rehab/training so that prisoner doesn't return. Maybe in the end we saved $275k if he would have returned for a 10 year sentence.
Maybe with $5000 training a former prisoner now holds a job and pays taxes, thus saving taxpayers $275k if the same prisoner recommitted a crime and returned for a 10 year prison sentence. Of course some prisoners will return to prison even with training. But surely there are statistics out there that show which rehab has best chance of ensuring the prisoner won't return. And focus on that rehab so the taxpayers get the best bang for the buck.
It costs a lot of money to taxpayers to house and feed and provide medical care to prisoners. If they can return to society and stop committing crimes and hold down jobs, this is a win-win for everyone.
BTW, a college education, from the start, could prevent some prison sentences from day 1. This is because the young adult would be in school studying instead of hanging out in bad neighborhoods and doing drugs. In college they would be surrounded by peers that are studying and moving upward in life. Their peer pressure would be good grades instead of drug deals. They would have a decent education and use college career placement services to get full time jobs after college. This would result in fewer criminals - even fewer petty crimes (which often lead to worse crimes) because they would get their money from working real jobs instead of stealing and drugs.
Last edited by sware2cod; 02-14-2016 at 08:45 AM..
That was just Bernie pandering for the black vote. This idea that Bill Clinton is responsible for the problems in the black community today because of that crime bill are ridiculous. It can only be coming from people too young to remember what crime was like at the time, and too blind to see the sudden drop off of violent crime after the bill was passed. The prisons are not filled with non-violent drug users.
The murder rate has declined in all developed countries in the world without any change in sentencing.
Anti-worker trade deals like NAFTA in the 90s, and PNT with China decimated many working class communities. Minimum sentencing, privatized prisons and welfare reform in the 90s was other big blows for minority communities. Furthermore, banking deregulation from the 90s meant the African American community lost half of all their wealth in the subsequent financial crash.
The murder rate has declined in all developed countries in the world without any change in sentencing.
Anti-worker trade deals like NAFTA in the 90s, and PNT with China decimated many working class communities. Minimum sentencing, privatized prisons and welfare reform in the 90s was other big blows for minority communities. Furthermore, banking deregulation from the 90s meant the African American community lost half of all their wealth in the subsequent financial crash.
So if all those things contribute, then why did crime drop off after NAFTA and welfare reform? I agree that NAFTA was hurtful, but it doesn't explain why the murder rate dopped so precipitously after all those things.
I have a theory that it was a combination of aging baby boomers, stronger sentencing getting much of the gang violence off the streets, and computers and internet. That's about the time computers started getting cheaper and more and more people started having them in their homes. I could be totally wrong, but it's something that did come about at that time. Maybe even more and more concealed carry laws being put in place in different states contributed as well, but I have no data on that.
I went to see Michael Moore's Where to Invade Next last night. It's amazing what other countries have been able to do regarding education and prison reform, as well as solve many other social issues, that are somehow deemed "impossible" in the most powerful country in the world. The only thing we lack here is the will to do it. And that is what Sanders is tapping into.
Many governors and lawmakers aren't keen on expanding state-based programs, even with the promise of federal funding. Some may not want to be beholden to Washington D.C., while others may not agree with subsidizing students from higher-income families.
Also, all my siblings and I were born in the united states, but we all received our education overseas. Myself: Germany and Japan. My two brothers, England. I also don't plan on having kids any time soon. Why should I be paying for other people's higher education? How is that fair to me?
I like some of Bernie's ideas, but I don't like the idea that he should be a President. But in my area, community college doesn't cost much, perhaps less than $700 per semester, something Pell Grant would cover. For the UCs, if your parents make less than $80k, the tuition is already free so I don't know how it helped California students. I would be glad for it to go back to pre-2007 time when it cost $4000 per year, much more affordable to the middle class.
Many governors and lawmakers aren't keen on expanding state-based programs, even with the promise of federal funding. Some may not want to be beholden to Washington D.C., while others may not agree with subsidizing students from higher-income families.
Also, all my siblings and I were born in the united states, but we all received our education overseas. Myself: Germany and Japan. My two brothers, England. I also don't plan on having kids any time soon. Why should I be paying for other people's higher education? How is that fair to me?
Do you want the United States to be competitive with all the other countries in the world who place a high value on education and want to make sure their upcoming generations are ready for the challenges of the future? Or will you be content to let the U.S. fall behind and no longer lead in technology and innovation and research, etc.?
That is why supporting education is a value to you.
Do you want the United States to be competitive with all the other countries in the world who place a high value on education and want to make sure their upcoming generations are ready for the challenges of the future? Or will you be content to let the U.S. fall behind and no longer lead in technology and innovation and research, etc.?
That is why supporting education is a value to you.
well, if I cannot make sure my own kids (my own) can have higher education in the future, I choose NOT to have kids. It is THAT simple.
I won't pay for other people's poor choice in life. It is not my responsibility.
If you really want to go there (united states to be competitive), then you should make sure you make the proper sacrifices for your own children. I don't expect you to pay for me or my children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
