DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on March 16, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
-
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175215/tomgram%3A_michelle_alexander%2C_the_age_of_obama_as_a_racial_nightmare/#more (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175215/tomgram%3A_michelle_alexander%2C_the_age_of_obama_as_a_racial_nightmare/#more)
From The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, a very interesting study of how the GOP appeals to white racist voters by using the War on Drugs to repress the black community and allow selective enforcement procedures which come naturally to all police forces to create a scary image of criminal black men, crack hos and welfare queens to serve as a backdrop to Republican politicians who can promise their white suburban voters they will be "tough on crime," i.e., tough on blacks.
Great quote from H. R. Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff: "The whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.” [/b]GOP policy in a nutshell over more than three decades. Alexander shows EXACTLY how the GOP (and its competitors like Bill Clinton) have done exactly that. The article incidentally sets out the role of affirmative action in this farce - - providing a convenient escalator for the token blacks who are pushed to the front of every GOP or Fortune 500 group photo as proof (a) that the GOP is not racist and (b) that America has "transcended" its racist past. The summit of this ludicrous nonsense was the election of Obama portrayed as the capstone of the post-racial age of American politics.
This article ties together a lot of "inconvenient truths" - - that the incarceration rate for blacks is 6.5 times that of whites, that while black youths rack up many times more drug busts than white youth per capita, that hospital emergency room visits for drug abuse are three times more common for whites than for blacks, etc. This article connects all the dots and produces some startling facts - - for example that despite all the bullshit we hear about black "progress," their poverty rates today are more or less what they were when Martin Luther King was making his "I Have a Dream" speech, and the black child poverty rate has actually worsened over that time.
The title of the book - - The New Jim Crow - - is a reference to the genius of the Felon Laws to disenfranchise blacks and return them in many ways to the same civic disabilities as existed before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Alexander goes over in some detail how various Felon Laws resurrect legal discrimination against blacks in such key areas as housing and employment, in effect sending them back to the Mississippi of 1945 as far as those key areas are concerned.
Great article and I strongly recommend it.
-
Evidence of this "selected" enforcement would be..................?
Lemme guess, it's "obvious", right? Tough on crime couldn't possibly mean tough on crime. It "obviously" has to mean some far more nefarious ::) Boy, the levels that the desperate will attain to is quite, enlightening
-
In every state there is very solid evidence of governmental , institutional , pervasive prejudice against human beings of the male persuasion!
I speak of course of the wildly out of balance incarceration rates of men vs women. Nowhere are there less man than Women locked up, in most states the ratio is more than two to one.
This is either solid evidence that the government at all levels is stacked against men , elese one must accept the rediculous notion that men deserve to be locked up at high rates more than women.
-
Precisely
*snicker*
-
I remember a 20/20 episode which they talked about drug traffiking and the drug carrier of choice is college girls.
no matter how public this information is no one will ever think a college girl is carrying drugs.
with all these girls gone wild videos you can`t even say it`s not possible to convince a girl to do this.
-
<<This is either solid evidence that the government at all levels is stacked against men , elese one must accept the rediculous notion that men deserve to be locked up at high rates more than women.>>
It's good to see you taking such an interest in statistical studies of prejudice, plane. If you take the trouble to pursue your studies further, you will see that among males, there is an impressive difference in the stats between blacks and whites - - for example, the one quoted in the article that whereas the no. of prisoners incarcerated for drug use offences is highly skewed towards the black side, the rate. of those admitted to hospital ERs for drug-use-related complaints is three-to-one for whites. Indicating that while more whites than blacks USE drugs, more blacks than whites are busted for doing so.
Even more impressive, though not reproduced in the article are dozens of studies indicating across-the-board insitutional bias and prejudice against blacks, such as percentage of first-time offenders in each race who are let off with warnings or referred onward into the criminal justice system, percentage of first-time offenders in the system who are given alternatives to incarceration or alternatives to convictions that leave a criminal record, a whole raft of studies associated with the well-known "criminal offence" of DWB - - driving while black, etc.
But it's good to see you're at least on the right track - - statistics. Start with the male-female thing and them move on to the white-black thing. Might open your eyes. Don't worry, just kidding, let's say instead they might open your eyes if you wanted them to be open.
However, the article that I linked to was for those who have already reached the point where institutional bias and systemic prejudice are not novel concepts. It assumed that its readers had already gone through Stats 101. It was really dealing something entirely new and different, i.e., with the use of Felon Laws to roll back the advances made by blacks in the wake of the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws. This was the meaning of the title, The New Jim Crow. The GOP and their conservative Democratic fellow-racists are really on to something, have been for quite some time, and this book has sort of pulled it all together for us.
-
the sooner they throw away "the crutch"
given to them by the welfare pimps
the sooner they will reach their destiny
look...their poverty rate is the same after
all these "so called helping" liberal programs
but their graduation rates, crime/incarceration rates,
abortion rates, and illegitimate children rates have
sky-rocketed....as usual the liberal programs of
the nanny state have failed and actually made
things worse. the real racists are on the Left
that have produced these horrid results!
-
Being as the "welfare programs" you allude to were discontinued under the Clinton Administration, your screed is dated.
Aid for Dependent Children is about all that is left of this.
If you compare states where payments are small (Mississippi and Alabama) with those that pay more (NY and NJ) you will see that graduation rates are actually LOWER in the states that pay very little.
-
well..
I can`t say I got anything against crutches
since I did use quite afew of these programs and I gotta say I`m very doubtful I would be better person without them.
but the one complaint i do have about them is the unstructured way it`s set up.
getting money to pay the rent is not too hard.
but using the system to find a job, not that easy.
getting my skills up to speed is a task.
not very much is done to simply get people working.
but then I got no idea how you`ll get a 65year old chinese lady who only knows how to knit hats to be a paralegal.it`s not like she`s unwilling to learn.
these are the people that needs these programs the most and they`re very likely not using them.
-
XO I never mentioned the word "welfare"
I speak of your failed nanny state....the nanny state..cradle to grave..it is much more than welfare
under many different names/headings....that has produced MISERABLE RESULTS
with that said in 2008...total government spending on welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion
the left traded in the plantation for other ways to keep the black man down and dependent on the state
alls wees needs is a few moes billionz to makes it right dis time for them po negroes!
the Left and their programs are an insult to African Americans....
the Left has been successful at keeping the black man down and dependent....
it's like a drug dealer giving out goodies to his customers....it assures more customers
the Left uses it's racist policies to get more votes.
what a sad and sick way to stay in office...using and extending the black man's plight
-
When rich people do not like to pay taxes, they naturally always appreciate the point of view that everyone would be better off if they were to just not pay taxes and keep all their money. The idea that lowering taxes always raises revenues is utterly delightful to such people. It isn't always true, but that is unimportant.
The idea that God gave them all their money as reward for hard work and proper living is a pleasant one, and so giving it away just has to be for the worse.
-
When rich people do not like to pay taxes, they naturally always appreciate the point of view that everyone would be better off if they were to just not pay taxes and keep all their money. The idea that lowering taxes always raises revenues is utterly delightful to such people. It isn't always true, but that is unimportant.
And the fact that it has consistently shown an increase in revenues, when such tax cuts have been implimented is also "not so important", isn't it
The idea that God gave them all their money as reward for hard work and proper living is a pleasant one, and so giving it away just has to be for the worse.
Not sure where the "God gave them their money" crack came from, but what Xo appears to be saying is that of course, we need folks who just know better to "make them give it away", via taxes, right??
-
<<the sooner they throw away "the crutch"
given to them by the welfare pimps
the sooner they will reach their destiny>>
I'll bet that every black Republican that the GOP likes to use as window dressing to prove that they're not really racists is the beneficiary of one or more of those "crutches" that are made available by those "welfare pimps," a.k.a. underpaid, hard-working and conscientious civil servants working for the all levels of democratically elected governments in the U.S.A. Whether we are talking Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I'll bet there isn't one of them that made it entirely on their own. This myth of the self-made independent American hero is 99.99% bullshit.
<<look...their poverty rate is the same after
all these "so called helping" liberal programs
but their graduation rates, crime/incarceration rates,
abortion rates, and illegitimate children rates have
sky-rocketed....>>
Well, I'm not sure about the "sky-rocketing" and I'm not sure that the "illegitmate" birth rate hasn't gone down, but even assuming that what you said is correct in all respects - - Thank you. Thank you for so readily demonstrating the power of entrenched systemic and institutional racism in your country and thank you for demonstrating the total inadequacy - - cheapness, in truth - - of the pathetic half-measures that your racist white government has been willing take to rectify the problem, while at the same time being perfectly willing to blow $3 trillion on a war of unprovoked aggression against people who posed no threat to you at any time.
<<as usual the liberal programs of
the nanny state have failed ...>>
No shit, Sherlock. Question is, WHY did they fail and the answer is, they failed because they were half-assed, grossly underfunded and did not provide an across-the-board attack on ALL the contributory problems at the same time - - education AND housing AND neighbourhood policing AND health & welfare AND mental health AND Parks & Recreation. Any nation that can spend $3 trillion on a criminal war of choice while ignoring the actual and real problems at home of such magnitude is bound to fail in every important respect and in fact IS failing as we speak.
<<and actually made
things worse. >>
That's impossible. They prevented a deteriorating situation from futher deteriorating but they could not hold back the tide agaisnt the forces of racism and fascism.
<<the real racists are on the Left>>
Oh, sing it brother. And War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery, etc. We've all been there before. We've all seen the Bizarro World of the lunatic fringe of the far right, where up is down and down is up.
-
over the last 30 years the nation has turned towards bigger government
and now look at the results.....
spin it any way you want
but the botton line is the botton line
we are near bankrupt
we are not educating our kids
crime is worse than ever
and all you say "well we haven't spent enough"
big gvt has failed miserably!
-
<< . . . and all you say "well we haven't spent enough">>
Happens to be the truth. If the $3 trillion blown to hell in Iraq had been spent on a comprehensive, all-fronts attack on all the factors continuing to plague the victims of American racism you'd be half-way towards a solution.
You want results but you don't want to pay for results. So you have half-assed educational solutions, half-assed housing solutions, half-assed policing solutions, always underfunded, never effective. Well you know what? THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH. If you are not prepared to pay the price to redress the victims of your own American racism, the problem will never be resolved.
-
Happens to be the truth. If the $3 trillion blown to hell in Iraq had been spent on a comprehensive, all-fronts attack on all the factors continuing to plague the victims of American racism you'd be half-way towards a solution.
The $3T you quote is a 20 year estimated expense. Over the same 20 years, the US will spend a minimum of $25T (more likely over $30T) on social programs.
-
ouch
-
<<The $3T you quote is a 20 year estimated expense.
<<Over the same 20 years, the US will spend a minimum of $25T (more likely over $30T) on social programs.>>
Interesting. However, CU4 and I were discussing whether enough money was spent on these projects up until now (i.e., in the past.) Your projections of what is going to be spent on them in the future doesn't seem to be very relevant to the discussion.
Everyone familiar with Prof. Stiglitz' estimates knows that they include future expenses. However, unlike your 20-year estimate, they also include the substantial sums already spent on the war to date.
Your estimate of future "social programs" spending is totally unknown to me. The problems I have with it are:
1. it seems to be 100% future spending and therefore depends on a lot of unknown contingencies, as opposed to the $3 trillion war cost, which includes a substantial proportion of monies already spent;
2. the possibility of overlap, as for example of VA costs forming part of the Stiglitz estimates and the "social programs;"
3. the broad coverage of "social programs" such as SS, Medicare, etc. which reach out to all Americans, rather than focusing on the victims of American racism, which are the programs allegedly failing but not due to under-funding, at least according to CU4 - - in fact, there is no way of telling from your 20-year estimate just what portion of the funds referred to are in fact being focused on the victims of American racism, so it's kind of hard to tell just how much money will be "lavished" on them in the future.
4. Of course, CU4 and I were discussing his allegations of the "failure" of liberal social programs from the 1960s until now, so your ESTIMATE of what WILL be spent on them in the future is of negligible value in assessing what's been spent on them in the past. In fact, one might even make the argument that if huge sums are to be spent on the programs in the future, it is a kind of acknowledgment that not enough was spent on them in the past; and
5. the very vagueness of the term, "social programs" which could cover a lot of things or a very limited number of things, depending on who is writing up the estimate.
-
apparently, according to Tee, we haven't spent any money on social programs, which have been going on since.......dirt, while the Iraqi war costs, having started in 2002 are ongoing expenditures
Amazing the irrational somersaults applied
-
OK, then we'll use an estimate of the last 20 years. I didn't actually total them, I sampled 5 years and interpolated. And in answer to part of your question, I did NOT include VA benefits as part of "social programs". Social programs include Social Security, Medicaid/care, welfare, etc. Education and similar programs are not included, only those programs that form the "social safety net".
For the last 20 years, we've spent approximately $23T.
-
Michael you must admit SIRS has a great point....
You seem to imply...oh but for the expenditures on the Iraq War
But Michael like SIRS said the Iraq war is recent
And the gvt poverty/education programs have been a disaster for decades...
-
<<Michael you must admit SIRS has a great point....
<<You seem to imply...oh but for the expenditures on the Iraq War>>
The Iraq War is just ONE example of massive waste by an over-militarized, over-aggressive ruling class bent on world domination. "Homeland Security" is another. "Defence" in the form of 800 foreign bases in every corner of the globe and ever-more-expensive weapons systems and "Counter-Intelligence" and "Covert Ops" the costs of which are closely guarded state secrets.
I certainly did not mean to imply that the Iraq War was the only thing preventing justice being done to the victims of racism, the structure of the entire society seems to be geared to war, death and destruction. A lot of the "social safety net" or whatever Ami was trying to figure out is just taxpayers' money going back to taxpayers, in the form of SS, etc. How much of that is going to the "failed social programs" that you were complaining about is an unknown.
<<But Michael like SIRS said the Iraq war is recent>>
And before that there was no wastage of funds in OTHER wars of aggression? No Viet Nams? The military-industrial complex is not a one-shot venture, they are always there, always draining, always bleeding the country.
<<And the gvt poverty/education programs have been a disaster for decades...>>
I can't buy that - - surely to God they must have helped SOMEBODY. They sure as hell helped Clarence Thomas. And Michael Steele. And those guys can't be the only ones. The "disaster" is that they haven't helped more. But to help more, they NEED more - - more money, more resources, more effort.
-
A lot of the "social safety net" or whatever Ami was trying to figure out is just taxpayers' money going back to taxpayers, in the form of SS, etc.
Going by that standard, Canada doesn't spend any money on social programs, either. After all, it's just taxpayer's money going back to taxpayers, right?
-
This should be an interesting answer 8)
-
<<Going by that standard, Canada doesn't spend any money on social programs, either. After all, it's just taxpayer's money going back to taxpayers, right?>>
Some of it obviously is, and some isn't. However, your question has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.
You presented me with some whopping tab of $30 trill over 20 years as "proof" that the U.S.. has overdosed on social welfare programs which don't seem to have helped the victims of racism in any measurable degree. MY point was that hidden somewhere in that $30 trill was the REAL amount "poured down the drain" in programs which CU4 says are total failures, but we can't tell how much. In other words, your $25 to $30 trill figure is virtually meaningless in terms of the subject under discussion.
-
<<This is either solid evidence that the government at all levels is stacked against men , elese one must accept the rediculous notion that men deserve to be locked up at high rates more than women.>>
It's good to see you taking such an interest in statistical studies of prejudice, plane. If you take the trouble to pursue your studies further, ...........
You first.
If I have not proven that men are down trodden by the system , with this evidence , then you have also proven nothing with evidence of the exact same sort.
If White Guys are overdoseing more than black ones this is evidence ,but not proof ,that white guys are users more often , just as getting busted with enough drugs to warrant a long sentance more often for black guys than white ones is evidence, but not proof, that black guys are merchants of the stuff more often.
Are merchants and users the exact same population? Are users of one drug more likely to OD than users of another? Would it be hard to come up with six more important variables unaccounted for in this article?
No it would not.
The trick being used is to treat Apples as if they were oranges in the comparison one for one , I think it disingenuous and odvious.
Use any trick you wish to show evidence of one rediculous thing and I can use the same trick to "prove" ,just as well, another rediculous thing , it is pretty easy.
It is an old trick
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)
-
<<Going by that standard, Canada doesn't spend any money on social programs, either. After all, it's just taxpayer's money going back to taxpayers, right?>>
Some of it obviously is, and some isn't. However, your question has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing. You presented me with some whopping tab of $30 trill over 20 years as "proof" that the U.S.. has overdosed on social welfare programs which don't seem to have helped the victims of racism in any measurable degree. MY point was that hidden somewhere in that $30 trill was the REAL amount "poured down the drain" in programs which CU4 says are total failures, but we can't tell how much. In other words, your $25 to $30 trill figure is virtually meaningless in terms of the subject under discussion.
LOL....that was fun, wasn't it
-
In other words, your $25 to $30 trill figure is virtually meaningless in terms of the subject under discussion.
So is your $3T - which may or may not materialize...
-
<<Going by that standard, Canada doesn't spend any money on social programs, either. After all, it's just taxpayer's money going back to taxpayers, right?>>
Some of it obviously is, and some isn't.
What other source of income does the government of Canada have?
-
<<If White Guys are overdoseing more than black ones this is evidence ,but not proof ,that white guys are users more often , just as getting busted with enough drugs to warrant a long sentance more often for black guys than white ones is evidence, but not proof, that black guys are merchants of the stuff more often.>>
I don't think you paid enough attention to my post, plane. I wasn't comparing black to white ratios among dealers, I specifically made reference to black to white ratios in the criminal justice system among users, i.e. those who regardless of colour are NOT dealers. Because independent of the criminal justice system, there is another system - - health care - - which has also compiled stats indicating relative populations of users within each race.
And BTW - - your male-female comparison is not comparable to Alexander's white-black comparison for the simple reason that biology, as you must have observed, creates a far greater differences between males and females than it does between black males and white males. So that while biology can explain much of the difference in incarceration rates between male and female, it can't do the same for differences in incarceration rates between whites and blacks. Nice try, though. Good for a quick laugh, which I am sure was at least part of your intention.
-
<<Going by that standard, Canada doesn't spend any money on social programs, either. After all, it's just taxpayer's money going back to taxpayers, right?>>
Some of it obviously is, and some isn't.
What other source of income does the government of Canada have?
Last I checked, no government earns money from someone else. They function by way of taxation. Taxes, the people's money, goes to the government to allow it to do its job, which is.......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......taxing others to bring in money to allow it to do its job, which is......
I'm noting a pattern, here
-
<<So is your $3T - which may or may not materialize...>>
First of all, a substantial portion of it already HAS materialized, unlike your $25 to $30 trill, NONE of which has materialized.
Secondly, the major portion of the un-materialized part of the $3 trill is future health care costs for disabled vets. It is almost as certain as death and taxes that costs of medical care will continue to escalate, due to the cost of new drugs, new devices, new techniques and the increasing longevity of the population, vets included.
I can appreciate your attacking my $3 trill figure on the grounds that some of it being estimated future costs, may not materialize.
What I can't appreciate is your double-standard skepticism, since you ought to be expending more critical energy on your own $25 to $30 trill figure, since it is ALL estimated future costs, NONE of which has materialized.
-
First of all, a substantial portion of it already HAS materialized, unlike your $25 to $30 trill, NONE of which has materialized.
My $25-30T is in the budget appropriations, and for historical years has been documented as having been spent.
The "substantial portion" of your $3T that has been spent is well under $1T last time I checked.
-
What I can't appreciate is your double-standard skepticism, since you ought to be expending more critical energy on your own $25 to $30 trill figure, since it is ALL estimated future costs, NONE of which has materialized.
I assume you missed the fact that I also used historical figures from the last 20 years?
-
Secondly, the major portion of the un-materialized part of the $3 trill is future health care costs for disabled vets.
So, you are saying that no health care costs would have accrued for these vets had the war in Iraq not cropped up? Our troops are so perfectly healthy that it costs nothing in health care unless we go to war?
-
<<If White Guys are overdoseing more than black ones this is evidence ,but not proof ,that white guys are users more often , just as getting busted with enough drugs to warrant a long sentance more often for black guys than white ones is evidence, but not proof, that black guys are merchants of the stuff more often.>>
I don't think you paid enough attention to my post, plane. I wasn't comparing black to white ratios among dealers, I specifically made reference to black to white ratios in the criminal justice system among users, i.e. those who regardless of colour are NOT dealers. Because independent of the criminal justice system, there is another system - - health care - - which has also compiled stats indicating relative populations of users within each race.
And BTW - - your male-female comparison is not comparable to Alexander's white-black comparison for the simple reason that biology, as you must have observed, creates a far greater differences between males and females than it does between black males and white males. So that while biology can explain much of the difference in incarceration rates between male and female, it can't do the same for differences in incarceration rates between whites and blacks. Nice try, though. Good for a quick laugh, which I am sure was at least part of your intention.
I am laughing at your pretentions to logic.
If treatment rates between races prove that rates of use are diffrent , then incarceration rates also prove that rates of use are diffrent .
But since one "proves" that Whie people use more drugs and the other "proves" that black people use more drugs , you accept one indicator as a proof of use and the other as a proof of bias.
I do see a proof of bias , I see your refusal to use genuine Logic as a proof that you are biased.
To use statistical studys to support personal predujudices is pernicious and foolish. The proper use of statistical study is to reveil truth , something that isn't going to happen if the result is decided before the data gathering or before the data evaluation.
If you want to use incarceration rates diffrence between races as proof of something (anything) you will have to eliminate or account for every important variable that opens up some other possible conclusion.
Of course there is a huge biological difference between men and women , this is an example of exactly what you are doing wrong, I did the same thing wrong on purpose.
Have you really even tried to controll for the huge number of variables that might be important?
For another example , the poor get locked up for longer sentances and more often than do the wealthy , is this proof that the better educations of the wealthy makes them less criminal?
It isn't complete proof?
Do tell.
-
<<The "substantial portion" of your $3T that has been spent is well under $1T last time I checked.>>
Here's the March 2, 2008 Washington Post article by Stiglitz and Bilmes - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html; (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html;) which doesn't seem to provide a clear breakdown between past and future costs as of that date. I don't know where or when you last checked, but I'd say an approximately 30% cut was not insubstantial. I'm pretty certain that if anyone proposed cutting your salary by that much, you would certainly consider the cut to be a substantial one.
The article also makes it clear that the costs of the Iraq War alone will seriously impair the nation's ability to address other pressing needs in just about every imaginable field, from education to repair of the infrastructure - - which is basically apposite to the discussion with CU4 about the reasons for the "failure" (his term) of the social remediation programs targeting the victims of racism. As I said, the costs of the Iraq War, substantial though they may be, are far from the only costs of a militarized, crypto-fascist warfare state which slowly but surely are fatally draining the resources of the state.
-
5. the very vagueness of the term, "social programs" which could cover a lot of things or a very limited number of things, depending on who is writing up the estimate.
Lets use a definition that we can agree on then , got one?
By the definitions we hold common here , we have been spending more on social programs than on military projects for decades.
Also, we count the retirement cost of old Soldiers and Sailors as military expenditure, you aren't going to claim that war drives this cost up are you?
-
<<I assume you missed the fact that I also used historical figures from the last 20 years?>>
I'm still not completely sure what you used, since you didn't provide a source or a method in your first post mentioning the $25 to $30 trill figure, and then you let out some details of your methods in the posts that followed. Near as I can piece it all together you extrapolated past outlays forward for the next 20 years. Or something like that. Never bothering to compensate, as far as I can tell, for the drastic budgetary cuts that everyone else assumes are coming in the wake of the bailouts, the stimuli, the health-care reform, etc.
What I first said about your numbers still applies - - they are purely speculative, based entirely on past performances, which cannot and do not guarantee future performances, as you yourself well know.
-
I'm pretty certain that if anyone proposed cutting your salary by that much, you would certainly consider the cut to be a substantial one.
Salary? I wish. I'm a software contractor forced into the role like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building in Austin. My pay varies by 100% from month to month.
-
<<I assume you missed the fact that I also used historical figures from the last 20 years?>>
I'm still not completely sure what you used, since you didn't provide a source or a method in your first post mentioning the $25 to $30 trill figure, and then you let out some details of your methods in the posts that followed. Near as I can piece it all together you extrapolated past outlays forward for the next 20 years. Or something like that. Never bothering to compensate, as far as I can tell, for the drastic budgetary cuts that everyone else assumes are coming in the wake of the bailouts, the stimuli, the health-care reform, etc.
What I first said about your numbers still applies - - they are purely speculative, based entirely on past performances, which cannot and do not guarantee future performances, as you yourself well know.
So you actually know bupkiss or (n)+bupkiss about what we have been spending on social programs?
-
I'm pretty certain that if anyone proposed cutting your salary by that much, you would certainly consider the cut to be a substantial one.
Salary? I wish. I'm a software contractor forced into the role like the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building in Austin. My pay varies by 100% from month to month.
Wow.
That takes courage.
Can you keep that up a long time?
-
I'm still not completely sure what you used, since you didn't provide a source or a method in your first post mentioning the $25 to $30 trill figure, and then you let out some details of your methods in the posts that followed. Near as I can piece it all together you extrapolated past outlays forward for the next 20 years. Or something like that.
No, I first extrapolated the current budget forward 20 years (assuming expenditures will not increase, which is why I said it was a minimum amount).
Then, when you complained about it being future spending, I went back to previous years and picked 5 years out of the last 20 (spaced evenly through the period), totaled, and multiplied by 4.
The figures for past years IS ALREADY SPENT. And the figures came from the US Government. There are websites with the budget info on them.
-
What I first said about your numbers still applies - - they are purely speculative, based entirely on past performances, which cannot and do not guarantee future performances, as you yourself well know.
There is nothing "speculative" about adding up past expenditures. Although I would love to see you argue that point with an auditor.
"No, I shouldn't be taxed on that income that I deposited into the bank - it was purely speculative, it might or might not have actually come in."
-
<<I am laughing at your pretentions to logic.>>
What can I tell ya, plane? I try my best, but I guess logic aces like yourself will always have to laugh at my hopeless efforts to rise to your exalted level.
<<If treatment rates between races prove that rates of use are diffrent , then incarceration rates also prove that rates of use are diffrent .>>
Not really, since the hospital ER users are largely self-admitted or medically admitted, there is little to no opportunity for the hospital itself to influence who is going to walk in its doors. OTOH, admission into the criminal justice system is not all that voluntary. The perps don't walk themselves into the stations and their families don't rush to bring them in either. The people in the system are more often than not - - probably 99% to 1% - - dragged in by the system and thus their numbers in the system is a lot more reflective of who the system wants to drag into its maw than the number of ER patients is reflective of who the hospitals are dragging in.
Oh, shit, there I go again, my pretensions to logic probably provoking you into even more gales of hilarity. Sorry, I know you've got serious things to ponder and here I am just clowning around again. I'll knock off for now, plane, I'm sure there's a floor in this building that needs some sweeping.
<<I do see a proof of bias , I see your refusal to use genuine Logic as a proof that you are biased.>>
Yes, that must be it. Thank you for the insight.
-
Can you keep that up a long time?
Only about 35 years now... ;-)
-
What I first said about your numbers still applies - - they are purely speculative, based entirely on past performances, which cannot and do not guarantee future performances, as you yourself well know.
There is nothing "speculative" about adding up past expenditures. Although I would love to see you argue that point with an auditor.
"No, I shouldn't be taxed on that income that I deposited into the bank - it was purely speculative, it might or might not have actually come in."
Wait one , doesn't Mike's Objection appl;y to his own figures too?
-
Wait one , doesn't Mike's Objection appl;y to his own figures too?
I pointed that out earlier. He glossed over it.
-
<<There is nothing "speculative" about adding up past expenditures. Although I would love to see you argue that point with an auditor.>>
Why would I argue with an auditor over a proposition that I happen to agree with? There is nothing speculative about adding up past expenditures. What is speculative is when you add them up and say "This is what is going to be spent over the next 20 years."
<<"No, I shouldn't be taxed on that income that I deposited into the bank - it was purely speculative, it might or might not have actually come in.">>
Very funny, but it certainly doesn't apply to the situation of you and your extrapolations. It should be more like, "No, I shouldn't have to pay tax on the next 20 years of my income because nobody really knows what it's gonna be, you're just speculating on it."
Guess what? The auditor would probably agree with you.
-
<<If treatment rates between races prove that rates of use are diffrent , then incarceration rates also prove that rates of use are diffrent .>>
Not really, since the hospital ER users are largely self-admitted or medically admitted, there is little to no opportunity for the hospital itself to influence who is going to walk in its doors. OTOH, admission into the criminal justice system is not all that voluntary. The perps don't walk themselves into the stations and their families don't rush to bring them in either. The people in the system are more often than not - - probably 99% to 1% - - dragged in by the system and thus their numbers in the system is a lot more reflective of who the system wants to drag into its maw than the number of ER patients is reflective of who the hospitals are dragging in.
Or, who takes the drugs and who comitts the crimes are allmost all volenteers.
Your figures indicate who has better health care insurance and who can hire better lawyers as well as anything elese .
Or...
They could reflect an actual differential in the number of crimes comitted.
Why not?
Doesn't Occams razor apply?
I think it does not , because these stats are too cluttered to be considered data. No one thing is indicated at all.
If you insist on finding proof in this mash of stuff pretending to be data , then I insist that you accept also my findings that Males are suffering from bias since the evidence is of simular quality and type.
-
What is speculative is when you add them up and say "This is what is going to be spent over the next 20 years."
Good thing that I didn't say that, then. That would be stupid anyway. We'll always spend MORE in the future than in the past.
My estimate for the past 20 years of expenditures was fairly sound - I sampled 5 evenly spaced years, totaled, and multiplied by 4. I doubt I'm off by more than 5%.
For my future estimate, I took the current budget and assumed that it will not increase (thereby getting a minimum figure). To be more accurate, I could have factored in an increase roughly equal to a COL increase of about 3% to get closer.
-
<<So, you are saying that no health care costs would have accrued for these vets had the war in Iraq not cropped up? Our troops are so perfectly healthy that it costs nothing in health care unless we go to war?>>
No, what I am saying is that if you take 100,000 troops who have stayed home in the U.S.A. for a year and 100,000 troops who have been in Iraq for that same year, I am guessing that you will have a shitload more medical, rehab and long-term health-care costs for . . . well, YOU figure it out.
You take the forces who DON'T go to Iraq, and their health-care costs are the base-line. You calculate a base-line medical, rehab and health-care costs, and then you calculate the projected actuals, and the COST of the war in terms of medical, rehab and long-term health-care (and funeral and death benefits) is the DIFFERENCE between the base-line expenditures and the calculated actuals.
-
You take the forces who DON'T go to Iraq, and their health-care costs are the base-line. You calculate a base-line medical, rehab and health-care costs, and then you calculate the projected actuals, and the COST of the war in terms of medical, rehab and long-term health-care (and funeral and death benefits) is the DIFFERENCE between the base-line expenditures and the calculated actuals.
You have evidence that this is what was done? I'm pretty sure that one of the criticisms of the methodology used to arrive at the $3T was that they used the TOTAL health care costs of the military.
-
<<So, you are saying that no health care costs would have accrued for these vets had the war in Iraq not cropped up? Our troops are so perfectly healthy that it costs nothing in health care unless we go to war?>>
No, what I am saying is that if you take 100,000 troops who have stayed home in the U.S.A. for a year and 100,000 troops who have been in Iraq for that same year, I am guessing that you will have a shitload more medical, rehab and long-term health-care costs for . . . well, YOU figure it out.
You take the forces who DON'T go to Iraq, and their health-care costs are the base-line. You calculate a base-line medical, rehab and health-care costs, and then you calculate the projected actuals, and the COST of the war in terms of medical, rehab and long-term health-care (and funeral and death benefits) is the DIFFERENCE between the base-line expenditures and the calculated actuals.
Is that what was done?
Then how did such a high figure emerge?
Was he projecting WWI or VetNam rates of Injury?
After the Civil war , the number of injured was phenominal , we are not going to get into that order of magnitude of expense . I note that, though it was close that time, the nation did survive that expenditure.
-
<<Or, who takes the drugs and who comitts the crimes are allmost all volenteers.
<<Your figures indicate who has better health care insurance and who can hire better lawyers as well as anything elese .>>
Not at all, since the hospital ER's are obliged to treat all who show up, better health insurance has nothing much to do with it. And since the bulk of criminal defences especially for less serious offences like simple possession are handled by the Public Defender's offices, better lawyering has nothing to do with it either. Nice try, though.
<<Or...
<<They could reflect an actual differential in the number of crimes comitted.
<<Why not?>>
Why not? Because we weren't talking about all crimes all across the board, we had a differential between two systems, one of which goes out looking for bodies and the other of which has virtually no recruiting system whatsoever. The recruitment-neutral system clearly shows more white kids than blacks (proportionately) using illegal drugs, but the system that recruits its victims (law enforcement) shows a definite systemic bias in favour of recruiting young black males.
<<Doesn't Occams razor apply?>>
YES SIR!!!! God-damn right it applies. It applies because we can assume that if law enforcement is racist in apprehending blacks over whites for drug use (where there's an independent measuring system available in the hospital ERs) then it is also racist in apprehending blacks over whites in all other criminal offences. To assume otherwise would be to reason that for some unknown cause, police and courts are racially biased against black dopers, but not racially biased against black car thieves, black burglars, black robbers, etc. That is ludicrous. Occams Razor tells us that if they're biased against black dopers, they're just plain biased against all blacks. That they are, as everyone knows but no one wants to admit, racist.
<<I think it does not , because these stats are too cluttered to be considered data. No one thing is indicated at all.>>
I guess what it really boils down to is professional differences of opinion between statisticians. The statisticians who put together these studies have some degree of faith in their reliability, and other statisticians such as yourself do not. Oh well. What can you do when the experts themselves do not agree?
<<If you insist on finding proof in this mash of stuff pretending to be data , then I insist that you accept also my findings that Males are suffering from bias since the evidence is of simular quality and type.>>
Well, I guess it comes down to the fact that some of us think the difference between black males and white males is as big as, or bigger, than the differences between men and women. Personally, I don't see it that way, but then what the hell would I know? I was born and raised in Ontario, not Georgia, so I guess I'm pretty naive about these things.
-
I looks like I need to make it clear that when I spoke of calculating the loss as being a question of measuring the projected actual expenditures over an extrapolated base-line expenditure, I was merely describing a standard accounting technique for measuring financial or monetary loss, not attempting to explain what actual methodology was used by Stiglitz and Bilmes. I wouldn't presume.
As for plane's reference to Civil War medical costs, it's a well-known fact that due to advances in battlefield medicine, you have much larger numbers of combatants surviving their wounds, living longer and claiming more benefits. Instead of giving the guy a wooden leg or an iron hook, they are claiming rehab and prosthetics that can run into the millions and IMHO, this is only the start of it. Even in the Viet Nam war, U.S. airforce planners aimed to cripple rather than kill on the theory that every wounded tied up a minimum of three persons to care for him or her.