The New Jim Crow

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

ouch

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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

[Amianthus]

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.

[Christians4LessGvt]

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 Tee]

<<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.

[Amianthus]

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?

[sirs]

This should be an interesting answer       

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[Plane]

<<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

[sirs]

<<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

[Amianthus]

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...

[Amianthus]

<<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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.