This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors.
With that being said,the portion dealing with payroll deductions actually would bring the unions into compliance with COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS v. BECK, 487 U.S. 735 (1988) in which the Supreme Court ruled even though people are able to opt out, unions could still require payroll deduction of the union "fees" that equals their share of what the union can prove is its costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
Workers that opt out of union membership should not be required to pay money to an organization that then uses the money to support political candidates that they may not support. The money should be used for what it is supposed to be used for, namely the costs listed above.
Should unions be able to use payroll deducted fees over the provable costs for political purposes?
Yes they probably should, but if that's the case then workers should also be able to have voluntary contributions made to other political organizations if they so choose through payroll deduction. (For instance any political party.) I'm not sure I like the compliance costs put on employers to do so, but if it's going to be allowed it should be all ways. Actually, for the smaller parties that might be a good way to start raising funds on a more consistent basis.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Actually if you read Prop 32 and the article, you'll understand it cripples unions way more than corporations.
It cripples them in exactly the same way. Just because corporations rarely use payroll deduction does not mean that they cannot. If unions want to fund political activities through voluntary contributions from members they are more than free to do so. They just have to convince their members to do it.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Actually if you read Prop 32 and the article, you'll understand it cripples unions way more than corporations.
It cripples them in exactly the same way. Just because corporations rarely use payroll deduction does not mean that they cannot. If unions want to fund political activities through voluntary contributions from members they are more than free to do so. They just have to convince their members to do it.
Prop 32 exempts many businesses, such as investment firms, hedge funds, developers, real estate companies, and insurance companies. Whenever you see a proposition backed by a bunch of corporations, you might want to take a step back and ask "why?"
A lot of businesses aren’t actually corporations: sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, hedge funds, real estate companies, etc., and therefore none of them would fall under the regulation as set forth by the proposition. Such businesses would still be able to contribute directly to candidates while labor unions would be banned.
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote: The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
That graph just proves my points: It spikes right during Bush's presidency. The Democrats started it (granted, it was Newt's strategy). The biggest difference is that Republicans have just been forthcoming with their motivations, so everyone thinks they're the only ones with such motives. The Democrats hid it a little better (and there was less contentious legislation being passed at that time -- Democrats have been pushing a LOT of economic reforms these two sessions which are the thing the two parties disagree about more than anything). I'm not praising the activity, but this is definitely NOT a new thing.
From Wikipedia:
In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[28] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option," although opponents and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option."
On May 23, 2005, a group of fourteen senators was dubbed the Gang of 14, consisting of seven Democrats and seven Republicans. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances," while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the nuclear option unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered that was not under "extraordinary circumstances." Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop the filibuster on Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr., who had all been filibustered in the Senate before. In return, the Republicans would stop the effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees. "Extraordinary circumstances" was not defined in advance. The term was open for interpretation by each senator, but the Republicans and Democrats would have had to agree on what it meant if any nominee were to be blocked.
And with regards to the appointments, I believe that has been one of the few points where they have come to an agreement to pass legislation to fix how confirmations are handled to prevent this type of situation in the future. Not saying I love it the before or the after, but they ARE taking steps forward on this part of obstructionism.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Actually if you read Prop 32 and the article, you'll understand it cripples unions way more than corporations.
It cripples them in exactly the same way. Just because corporations rarely use payroll deduction does not mean that they cannot. If unions want to fund political activities through voluntary contributions from members they are more than free to do so. They just have to convince their members to do it.
In addition to what Souma said in his reply to you, if one entity raises money one way (way #1) and a second entity raises money another way (way #2), if way #1 is outlawed it's pretty obvious the first entity will be more crippled than the second, regardless of the fact that both ways are possible.
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote: The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
That graph just proves my points: It spikes right during Bush's presidency. The Democrats started it (granted, it was Newt's strategy). The biggest difference is that Republicans have just been forthcoming with their motivations, so everyone thinks they're the only ones with such motives. The Democrats hid it a little better (and there was less contentious legislation being passed at that time -- Democrats have been pushing a LOT of economic reforms these two sessions which are the thing the two parties disagree about more than anything). I'm not praising the activity, but this is definitely NOT a new thing.
That graph does anything BUT prove your point. The post you originally replied to was about how Republicans had tried to block Obama at every turn, more than had ever been the case in the past with other presidents. You replied that Democrats had done the same thing under Bush. The graph clearly shows the Republicans did it WAY MORE under Obama than the Democrats under Bush.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Actually if you read Prop 32 and the article, you'll understand it cripples unions way more than corporations.
It cripples them in exactly the same way. Just because corporations rarely use payroll deduction does not mean that they cannot. If unions want to fund political activities through voluntary contributions from members they are more than free to do so. They just have to convince their members to do it.
In addition to what Souma said in his reply to you, if one entity raises money one way (way #1) and a second entity raises money another way (way #2), if way #1 is outlawed it's pretty obvious the first entity will be more crippled than the second, regardless of the fact that both ways are possible.
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote: The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
That graph just proves my points: It spikes right during Bush's presidency. The Democrats started it (granted, it was Newt's strategy). The biggest difference is that Republicans have just been forthcoming with their motivations, so everyone thinks they're the only ones with such motives. The Democrats hid it a little better (and there was less contentious legislation being passed at that time -- Democrats have been pushing a LOT of economic reforms these two sessions which are the thing the two parties disagree about more than anything). I'm not praising the activity, but this is definitely NOT a new thing.
That graph does anything BUT prove your point. The post you originally replied to was about how Republicans had tried to block Obama at every turn, more than had ever been the case in the past with other presidents. You replied that Democrats had done the same thing under Bush. The graph clearly shows the Republicans did it WAY MORE under Obama than the Democrats under Bush.
Your argument rests on an assumption of an equal amount of contentious legislation being introduced. I would argue there wasn't.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate controlled committees.
Actually if you read Prop 32 it also prevents corporations from donating to candidates.
Actually if you read Prop 32 and the article, you'll understand it cripples unions way more than corporations.
It cripples them in exactly the same way. Just because corporations rarely use payroll deduction does not mean that they cannot. If unions want to fund political activities through voluntary contributions from members they are more than free to do so. They just have to convince their members to do it.
In addition to what Souma said in his reply to you, if one entity raises money one way (way #1) and a second entity raises money another way (way #2), if way #1 is outlawed it's pretty obvious the first entity will be more crippled than the second, regardless of the fact that both ways are possible.
On October 03 2012 00:46 BluePanther wrote:
On October 02 2012 22:09 Souma wrote:
On October 02 2012 15:56 BluePanther wrote:
On October 02 2012 13:42 Sanctimonius wrote:
On October 02 2012 13:01 Kaitlin wrote:
On October 02 2012 12:47 BlueBird. wrote: The fact is Congress has an extremely low approval rating for what they are doing, so apparently that significant part of our country your talking bout is about 15% last time I heard.
No, the significant part of the country I am speaking of, is enough to put a majority into the House of Representatives. Just because Congress' approval rating is shit, doesn't mean people are unhappy with what the people they voted for are doing. From my perspective, the Republicans standing firm and preventing as much Liberfail policies from being implemented is good. It doesn't mean I approve of the entire House and Senate. Two people can both be dissatisfied with Congress, yet disagree completely on what Congress should be doing.
The Republican Congress has been the worst thing I've seen in politics in a long time. Seriously, if the policies Obama suggested were for the good of the country, hell even if the policies were identical to what a Republican president might suggest, they would vote it down, because it's more important that Obama fails than the country succeeds. And that, to me, is pathetic. Why would anyone support this childish behaviour, especially when it has quite literally threatened the US on a number of occasions - the one-up-manship of the debt ceiling, anyone?
This Congress has one aim and one aim only, to try and make sure Obama is a one-term president - hell, arguments are already being made that Obama didn't do enough this presidency. I'm sure those arguments would be louder except they know the public will blame the Republicans at least as much as Obama. They aren't opposing his policies, they aren't disagreeing with his aims, they are taking a personal offence to his temerity in being the President of the US. Pretty sad, really, and certainly not doing anything worthwhile to earn their ridiculous tax breaks, salaries or pensions. Small wonder this has a 15% approval rating, people are getting angry that Congress is being paid to literally do nothing, and make damn sure nothing happens.
Ummmmm.... the Democrats did the EXACT SAME THING to Bush.
Oh OPEN YOUR EYES for once. It's one thing to agree with the policies of Republicanism, it's another thing to defend the current Republican party whose obstructionism is at an unprecedented all time high by FAR.
Democrats did the exact same thing? Not even close. Republicans broke the all-time record for filibusters during the 111th Congress, of which the previous record held was by the 110th Congress which was also led by the Republican minority (filibusters doubled compared to the 109th!).
To top it all off, it's taken them an average of 139 days to confirm Circuit Court nominees compared to the 29 days it took the Bush Administration, and 99 days for District Court nominees compared to 21 days for Bush. We have TONS of vacancies in the federal courts and the Republicans are pissing off even the judiciary! They're even doing the same with executive nominations.
Once again it's one thing to believe in the ideals of Republicanism. It's also nice if you'd have the balls like a couple of other posters in this thread to actually praise Republican obstructionism. But don't even try to say Democrats did the same shit. It's not even close.
This is wonderful. After the Citizen United bullshit, Republicans are trying to pass a law that would prevent union for donating anything to candidates.
You know, because if one individual has a ridiculous weight on the election because he is rich, it's fine, but if an organization representing workers try to have any effect at all, something must be done.
Republicans have been trying to weaken unions throughout the entire country. Union strength is at an all-time low. Playing right into the hands of the Koch brothers.
That graph just proves my points: It spikes right during Bush's presidency. The Democrats started it (granted, it was Newt's strategy). The biggest difference is that Republicans have just been forthcoming with their motivations, so everyone thinks they're the only ones with such motives. The Democrats hid it a little better (and there was less contentious legislation being passed at that time -- Democrats have been pushing a LOT of economic reforms these two sessions which are the thing the two parties disagree about more than anything). I'm not praising the activity, but this is definitely NOT a new thing.
That graph does anything BUT prove your point. The post you originally replied to was about how Republicans had tried to block Obama at every turn, more than had ever been the case in the past with other presidents. You replied that Democrats had done the same thing under Bush. The graph clearly shows the Republicans did it WAY MORE under Obama than the Democrats under Bush.
Your argument rests on an assumption of an equal amount of contentious legislation being introduced. I would argue there wasn't.
Here's a question, as a Canadian I'm always really baffled how America through capitialism allows privitized prisons which well... let's look at the graph of Americans going to prison
Seems like prison is profitable business indeed.
and how they're treated in prison (this is not terrorists, this is regarding American citizens)
So here's a question, as a Canadian this would never be allowed but in America is this not a topic of debate? Do the politicians not care about their own populace rising? It's always confused the hell out of me how a country claiming such freedom and prosperity records over 2million people in jail... 1/150 approximately (to get a number to think about) in prison.
I guess what do you really care about? Invading other nations or fixing your own.
I haven't heard of prisons being talked about at all. The only time I've heard about it is because I've gotten into the ACLU, and they deal with that a lot.
Republicans aren't going to talk about it, because they want to look tough. They're also on the anarcho-capitalist front right now, so they can't speak out against privatization. They could go at it from a money standpoint I suppose. But they don't actually want to cut costs. It's also more of a state problem, not a federal problem (although it is a problem on the federal side too).
Democrats aren't going to talk about it because they're pussies. All politicians in general don't want to lose money from prison donations. I think you underestimate the amount of corruption that is in American politics right now.
You ask, "What do people really care about?", and the short answer is that most Americans do not even frame the inquiry in such a way. One figure that really helps to explain the sad state of incarceration in the US is the number of small-time drug offenders; it makes up a relatively huge percentage of the prison population. Furthermore, these small-time offenders are almost unequivocally minorities, and when you start to see who backs the harshest imprisonment measures, it all begins to make sense. Jailing minorities is a very effective means of keeping certain groups under control and out of voting demographics.
On October 03 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: I haven't heard of prisons being talked about at all. The only time I've heard about it is because I've gotten into the ACLU, and they deal with that a lot.
Republicans aren't going to talk about it, because they want to look tough. They're also on the anarcho-capitalist front right now, so they can't speak out against privatization. They could go at it from a money standpoint I suppose. But they don't actually want to cut costs. It's also more of a state problem, not a federal problem (although it is a problem on the federal side too).
Democrats aren't going to talk about it because they're pussies. All politicians in general don't want to lose money from prison donations. I think you underestimate the amount of corruption that is in American politics right now.
So what you're saying is that the government can no longer adequately represent the public on matters of importance? How curious... And no one says anything? We have Kmilz in the other thread talking about allowing the torture of prisoners to be kept secret for some ludicrous reason as he's in the Military and it'll look bad and then the people don't stand up?
I feel like if 30 years you have a 400% rise (500,000 to 2,000,000) in prisoners somethings wrong, did the population rise 400% because if not this should be a matter of discussion at least
On October 03 2012 02:58 farvacola wrote: You ask, "What do people really care about?", and the short answer is that most Americans do not even frame the inquiry in such a way. One figure that really helps to explain the sad state of incarceration in the US is the number of small-time drug offenders; it makes up a relatively huge percentage of the prison population. Furthermore, these small-time offenders are almost unequivocally minorities, and when you start to see who backs the harshest imprisonment measures, it all begins to make sense. Jailing minorities is a very effective means of keeping certain groups under control and out of voting demographics.
I guess I just can't understand how that's allowed... Maybe our systems are just so different that I can't comprehend it.. Like I think 131 per 100,000 adult population. for Canada is to much and and America bolsters something like 600 for every 100,000. Just seems crazy.
The US used to have a big crime problem. Watch movies from the 80's / early 90's - they're all about crime (Robocop is a good example). Part of the response to the crime was to lock more people up. The problem of too many people locked up should start sorting itself out as the country adjusts to the new reality of less crime.
Numbers are per 100,000 population.
The number of incarcerated Americans also varies hugely by state. State and local governments are also the ones responsible for police work. So its more of a state / local issue than a national one.
On October 03 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: I haven't heard of prisons being talked about at all. The only time I've heard about it is because I've gotten into the ACLU, and they deal with that a lot.
Republicans aren't going to talk about it, because they want to look tough. They're also on the anarcho-capitalist front right now, so they can't speak out against privatization. They could go at it from a money standpoint I suppose. But they don't actually want to cut costs. It's also more of a state problem, not a federal problem (although it is a problem on the federal side too).
Democrats aren't going to talk about it because they're pussies. All politicians in general don't want to lose money from prison donations. I think you underestimate the amount of corruption that is in American politics right now.
So what you're saying is that the government can no longer adequately represent the public on matters of importance? How curious... And no one says anything? We have Kmilz in the other thread talking about allowing the torture of prisoners to be kept secret for some ludicrous reason as he's in the Military and it'll look bad and then the people don't stand up?
I feel like if 30 years you have a 400% rise (500,000 to 2,000,000) in prisoners somethings wrong, did the population rise 400% because if not this should be a matter of discussion at least.
You act as if other militaries don't keep things secret. You think every military in the world turns in all of their committed atrocities to media outlets because it is "the right thing to do?" Hell no. You don't understand what it is like to be in a band of close brothers like the USMC and have good friends leave for combat and not come back or come back with missing limbs or mentally fucked up. Some people get messed up in the head when they are in combat and some go off the deep end. If soembody ends up getting overzealous and starts shooting civilians, you know what I think should happen? Exactly what I said in the other thread repeatedly: max punishment as per UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). That is it. Why publicize it? All publicizing it will do is show the world that a criminal in our military did some really stupid shit. All it is going to do is make our whole organization look bad and give the enemy we are fighting more reasons to attack us. You make it sound like the U.S. military is the ONLY military that this stuff happens in and were the ONLY ones who keep things secret. Thanks for calling me out on a different thread by the way. Cheers.
Oh, and as far as torturing prisoners, I never actually addressed that. I will say that I think torture is wrong, but to just put words in my mouth is just bullshit. Quote me saying anything about torturing prisoners if you think I did. I was talking about Bradley Manning releasing documents of war crimes.
I will agree with you that the rise in prisoners is a problem and a concern though. It has a great deal to do with the war on drugs and neither Mitt Romney or Barack Obama are going to do anything about that. If you look at http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock you can see that we have over 1,250,000 people arrested on drug offenses this year alone and we have spent over $30 billion on the war on drugs just this year.
Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 per cent are sentenced for drug law violations.
On October 03 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: I haven't heard of prisons being talked about at all. The only time I've heard about it is because I've gotten into the ACLU, and they deal with that a lot.
Republicans aren't going to talk about it, because they want to look tough. They're also on the anarcho-capitalist front right now, so they can't speak out against privatization. They could go at it from a money standpoint I suppose. But they don't actually want to cut costs. It's also more of a state problem, not a federal problem (although it is a problem on the federal side too).
That's not fair to anarcho-capitalists. The only thing that the prison-industrial complex has privatized is profits. The costs to support these parasitic prisons are still borne, through taxation, by the people.
On October 03 2012 03:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The US used to have a big crime problem. Watch movies from the 80's / early 90's - they're all about crime (Robocop is a good example). Part of the response to the crime was to lock more people up. The problem of too many people locked up should start sorting itself out as the country adjusts to the new reality of less crime.
Numbers are per 100,000 population.
The number of incarcerated Americans also varies hugely by state. State and local governments are also the ones responsible for police work. So its more of a state / local issue than a national one.
That's not nearly enough of a crime problem to explain our incarceration levels.
On October 03 2012 03:57 EffervescentAureola wrote: Pretty sure Obama is gonna smoke Romney in the debate tomorrow night.
Either Romney has been fooling everyone in the world for the past year or he's just as incompetent as we all expect and it will be probably one of the worst debate thrashings ever. Only time will tell :D
On October 03 2012 03:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The US used to have a big crime problem. Watch movies from the 80's / early 90's - they're all about crime (Robocop is a good example). Part of the response to the crime was to lock more people up. The problem of too many people locked up should start sorting itself out as the country adjusts to the new reality of less crime.
Numbers are per 100,000 population.
The number of incarcerated Americans also varies hugely by state. State and local governments are also the ones responsible for police work. So its more of a state / local issue than a national one.
That's not nearly enough of a crime problem to explain our incarceration levels.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9EY57.png)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/29/693pxusincarcerationtim.png/)
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/9/adultincarcerationstati.gif/)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Violent_Crime_Rates_in_the_United_States.svg)
