Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/14/8966897/obama-mass-incarceration-tweets





_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL
Seems fairly reasonable.  Why spend money locking up non-violent offenders when those resources could be better allocated towards higher level education?  

Which will ultimately pay off more for society in the future:  mass incarceration or education?

As you think about that question, consider the fact that job openings are currently at a 15 year high.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
So ... what exactly are we supposed to do with people who insist upon distributing cartel cocaine & cooking/distributing methamphetamine for profit in this country?   Put them in a drug treatment program?    Laughing

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities 130v06O

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities BGF2

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities Akron_meth_lab_20121024222007_320_240

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities 5115f3487638b.preview-620

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities Crips-45440




Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 7/15/2015, 12:27 pm; edited 2 times in total

2seaoat


The President gets blamed for murders in SF, yet the Oligarchy needs a police state and to accomplish the same the drug war.  When the President suggests reducing jail and prison populations of non violent offenders the logic is overwhelming, and maybe folks do not have to be murdered by violent criminals let out of jail because of overcrowding where the profit of for profit prisons and a huge criminal justice system of government employees grasp for any reason to justify these six fold increases in jail and prison populations from when I was a senior in high school.  Disgraceful, and there is now growing bipartisan support and as we saw in the Mays stop the police state is here and our citizenry is brainwashed into compliance to authority whether that authority is valid or not.  It is time for the President to spike the ball one more time......get non violent offenders out of prison and jails.  Reduce the criminal justice system budgets by 25% over the next decade. The truths are self evident and the propaganda is crumbling as Americans see how they have  been fleeced.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Prisons for profit should be prohibited by law.

I wonder how many people know about Cheney's ties to for-profit prisons, or the fact that he was indicted in South Texas...

http://www.caller.com/news/willacy-county-das-final-actions-cheney-indicted

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
Floridatexan wrote:
Prisons for profit should be prohibited by law.
....


I agree but what Democrat politicians have proposed legislation or voted to do so?

"Paradigms of Republican vs. Democrat or Conservative vs. Progressive have been designed for obfuscation and entertainment. An endless number of philosophies and strains of religious and “holier than thou” moralism are really put on and taken off like fresh make-up in the effort to hide from view a deeper, uglier face. "

...

"The Clinton Administration took the groundwork laid by Nixon, Reagan and Bush and embraced and blossomed the expansion and promotion of federal support for police, enforcement and the War on Drugs with a passion that was hard to understand unless and until you realized that the American financial system was deeply dependent on attracting an estimated $500 billion-$1 trillion of annual money laundering. Globalizing corporations and deepening deficits and housing bubbles required attracting vast amounts of capital."

...

One of the first major initiatives by President Bill Clinton was the Omnibus Crime Bill, signed into law in September 1994. This legislation implemented mandatory sentencing, authorized $10.5 billion to fund prison construction that mandatory sentencing would help require, loosened the rules on allowing federal asset forfeiture teams to keep and spend the money their operations made from seizing assets, and provided federal monies for local police. The legislation also provided a variety of pork for a Clinton Administration vogue constituency — Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). The CDCs and CDFIs became instrumental during this period in putting a socially acceptable face on increasing central control of local finance and shutting off equity capital to small business.

....

The potential impact on the private prison industry was significant. With the bill only through the house, former Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti joined the board of Wackenhut Corrections, which went public in July 1994 with an initial public offering of 2.2 million shares. By the end of 1998, Wackenhut’s stock market value had increased almost ten times. When I visited their website at that time it offered a feature that flashed the number of beds they owned and managed. The number increased as I was watching it — the prison business was growing that fast.

.....

"However, the Clinton Administration did not wait for the Omnibus Crime Bill to build the federal enforcement infrastructure. Government-wide, agencies were encouraged to cash in on support in both Executive Branch and Congress for authorizations and programs — many justified under the umbrella of the War on Drugs — that allowed agency personnel to carry weapons, make arrests and generate revenues from money makers such as civil money penalties and asset forfeitures and seizures. Indeed, federal enforcement was moving towards a model that some would call “for profit” faster than one could say “Sheriff of Nottingham.”

...

"If you want to see a bi-partisan system at work, follow the money. In the middle of a Presidential election, a Democratic administration engineered significant equity value into a Republican firm’s back pocket. If you step back and take the longer view, however, what you realize is that many of the players involved appear to have connections to Iran Contra and money laundering networks. A surprising number of them went to Harvard and other universities whose endowments are significant players in the investment world. And as it turned out, while the U.S. prison population was soaring from 1 million to 2 million people and US government and consumer debt was skyrocketing, Harvard Endowment was also growing — from $4 billion to $19 billion during the Clinton Administration. Harvard and Harvard graduates seemed to be in the thick of many things profitable."


http://www.dunwalke.com/10_Clinton_Administration.htm


Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities Jamie_gorelick
Jamie Gorelick, Harvard trained Deputy Attorney General, 1994-97, credited with making private Federal prisons a reality.

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities Elaine_kamark
Elaine Kamarck lobbied for private prisons as a senior advisor to Vice President Gore and part of Gore’s “Reengineering Government”, 1993-1997, then went to Harvard.


EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
1995 Article on Prison Privatization wrote:

PRISONS FOR PROFIT: A special report;Jail Business Shows Its Weaknesses

CENTRAL FALLS, R.I., Nov. 17— Two years ago, the owners of the red cinder-block prison in this poor mill town threw a lavish party to celebrate the prison's opening and show off its computer monitoring system, its modern cells holding 300 beds and a newly hired cadre of guards.

But one important element was in short supply: Federal prisoners.

It was more than an embarrassing detail. The new prison, the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility, is run by a private company and financed by investors. The Federal Government had agreed to pay the prison $83 a day for each prisoner it housed. Without a full complement of inmates, it could not hope to survive.

So the prison's financial backers began a sweeping lobbying effort to divert inmates from other institutions. Rhode Island's political leaders pressed Vice President Al Gore while he was visiting the state as well as top officials at the Justice Department to send more prisoners. Facing angry bondholders and insolvency, the company, Cornell Corrections, also turned to a lawyer who was then brokering prisoners for privately run institutions in search of inmates.

The lawyer, Richard Crane, has done legal work for private corrections companies and Government penal agencies. He put the Wyatt managers in touch with North Carolina officials. Soon afterward, 232 prisoners were moved to Rhode Island from North Carolina, and Mr. Crane was paid an undisclosed sum by Cornell Corrections.

But the new batch of inmates included 18 murderers, a surprise for local leaders who say they were promised the prison would hold white-collar and less violent prisoners.

The story behind the Wyatt prison is a stark example of some of the pitfalls involved in putting prisons under the control of private companies. Those pitfalls include overly generous contracts and the hiring of companies that are difficult for the Government to supervise.

But since Wyatt opened, the Clinton Administration has quietly proposed to have such companies run most new low-security Federal prisons and detention centers. The proposal is meant to help fulfill President Clinton's campaign pledge to slash the growth of employees on the Federal payroll.

The Justice Department has already put control of a few of its jails in private hands. And in the next few weeks, the Administration is expected to complete a plan to open a privately run prison in Taft, Calif., that could become the standard contract used by the Federal Government around the nation.

But some experts say Mr. Clinton's plan is fundamentally flawed because the Bureau of Prisons, the unit of the Justice Department that oversees most Federal prisons, does not need fixing. They argue that it already does a good job.

"We have a well-functioning prison system, a minimum of scandals, no escapes, few riots," said Philip B. Heymann, who was the Deputy Attorney General as the White House began formulating the new policy and is now a professor at Harvard Law School. "I hear a shift to something that is defensible ideologically. But the justifications for it are satisfying what is sort of an arbitrary political target. Prisons are a very sensitive thing to run. This is the No. 1 place I wouldn't try and play games with for reasons of political accounting."

Administration officials acknowledge that the policy to privatize more prisons has some weaknesses. For example, they say that although the plan is based on Mr. Gore's sweeping review to reinvent government, it ignored critical conclusions from that review.

In addition, White House and Justice Department officials say they have no studies showing that the policy will save money, and in some instances, the department has found that its use of privately run prisons costs more. In fact, an examination of Federal contracts with privately run prisons and jails showed that many are overly generous, leaving significant financial risk with the Government.

Moreover, just as the Justice Department has been struggling to allay public concern about the Government's control of Federal agents in the aftermath of the deadly debacles at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, and Waco, Tex., the prison privatization policy cedes broad law-enforcement responsibilities to private contractors who assert they are not subject to Federal rules.

And interviews with Administration and prison officials raised questions about the ability of the Justice Department to oversee the expensive and complex new policy, although the department is preparing a new bureaucracy and set of procurement rules to exert more control over its contractors.

Mr. Heymann's successor at the Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, has overseen the new policy. She declined to be interviewed, referring questions to the Justice Department's chief spokesman, Carl Stern.

In response to written questions, Mr. Stern wrote that the privatization effort was a "pilot program" spearheaded by a White House effort "to make government more efficient by privatizing heretofore governmental functions." He acknowledged that "there are concerns that must be addressed before any programmatic commitment can be made to privatization."

2seaoat


Democrats are just as responsible for bloating the criminal justice system with adding more government employees in police, jailers, bailiffs, judges, SA, public defenders, probation officers.....etc....etc......they have been all in for expanding the same......It is bipartisan stupidity.  We are going bankrupt putting non violent offenders in jail.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Sorry, but you can't blame the whole thing on Clinton. It started much earlier:

Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities US_incarceration_timeline

Guest


Guest
2seaoat wrote:Democrats are just as responsible for bloating the criminal justice system with adding more government employees in police, jailers, bailiffs, judges, SA, public defenders, probation officers.....etc....etc......they have been all in for expanding the same......It is bipartisan stupidity.  We are going bankrupt putting non violent offenders in jail.

Unfortunately, it doesn't take a violent offender to totally ruin another person's life. You can lose your life savings and such through white collar crime. There's no way I want that sort of scum loose to continue their ways. Sometimes non-violent offenders are just as bad. Ask all the folks who lost their Enron retirement.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
Floridatexan wrote:
Sorry, but you can't blame the whole thing on Clinton.  It started much earlier:

My point being ... you can't blame it all on Dick Cheney either.   That went entirely over your partisan Think-Progress head though, I s'pose?

Guest


Guest
Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Wordslinger

Wordslinger
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example. Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Sorry, but you can't blame the whole thing on Clinton.  It started much earlier:

My point being ... you can't blame it all on Dick Cheney either.   That went entirely over your partisan Think-Progress head though, I s'pose?


President Obama used an example of a 19-year old serving 30 years for selling a little pot, when murderers serve only 25 years. Obama makes a lot more sense than you do.

Markle

Markle
Wordslinger wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Sorry, but you can't blame the whole thing on Clinton.  It started much earlier:

My point being ... you can't blame it all on Dick Cheney either.   That went entirely over your partisan Think-Progress head though, I s'pose?


President Obama used an example of a 19-year old serving 30 years for selling a little pot, when murderers serve only 25 years.  Obama makes a lot more sense than you do.  

Provide the whole story for this individual or, as with your usual posts, it means NOTHING.

Markle

Markle
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

No one appreciates or respects anything which is free. Just as students in your beloved Socialist/Communist countries.

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

No one appreciates or respects anything which is free.  Just as students in your beloved Socialist/Communist countries.


Just because a college education is paid for, that doesn't mean it is necessarily free. Completing a college degree requires work and dedication, even if it's paid for by the government. Your attempt at speaking off-script and coming up with your own original responses once again falls flat.

Don't you have any copy-and-paste fodder for this type of thread?


_________________
I approve this message.

Markle

Markle
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

No one appreciates or respects anything which is free.  Just as students in your beloved Socialist/Communist countries.

Just because a college education is paid for, that doesn't mean it is necessarily free.  Completing a college degree requires work and dedication, even if it's paid for by the government.   Your attempt at speaking off-script and coming up with your own original responses once again falls flat.

Don't you have any copy-and-paste fodder for this type of thread?

Childish response proving that you know what I said is true. Thank you!

boards of FL

boards of FL
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

No one appreciates or respects anything which is free.  Just as students in your beloved Socialist/Communist countries.

Just because a college education is paid for, that doesn't mean it is necessarily free.  Completing a college degree requires work and dedication, even if it's paid for by the government.   Your attempt at speaking off-script and coming up with your own original responses once again falls flat.

Don't you have any copy-and-paste fodder for this type of thread?

Childish response proving that you know what I said is true.  Thank you!


I just refuted what you said and you clearly have no response.  A free college degree would be one that comes from a diploma mill and is simply printed up and doled out.  On the other hand, if someone actually attends school and works their way through an associates, bachelors, or masters degree, they're going to appreciate that due to the time and work that they put in to earn that degree.  That will be true whether they paid for the degree or not.  

Do you care to respond to that, or are we done here? That was a rhetorical question. We're done here.


_________________
I approve this message.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
Markle wrote:

Provide the whole story for this individual or, as with your usual posts, it means NOTHING.

And even if it were so .... further contrast it with the cases of the vast majority of those Federal prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses.  

People don't generally go to Federal prison for "simple possession."  It would be the rare exception rather than the rule. To suggest a drug-treatment program in lieu of incarceration punishment for someone convicted of distributing multi-kilos of cocaine or cooking meth is just nonsense.

Now that said, I don't agree with 30 & 40 year & life sentences for drug distribution crimes where there was no violence. 10 to 15 years is more than appropriate for even the largest of non-violent offenders even in large scale distribution cases, IMO. (with subsequent deportation for those who are non-US Citizens)

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost
Wordslinger wrote:
Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?


And free health care, and free cars with free gas, and free houses with free utilities, and free cell-phones & cable TV service.  What they hay, free everything!   Why not?   We'll just print the money!

Oh, and free Bubble-Up & Rainbow Stew too!   Campaign theme song for Bernie Sanders maybe?

Guest


Guest
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

It's only free to those that maintain a high grade point average dumb shit.


*****EXPRESSIONLESS*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Why should the 80 billion be spent on univeristy tuition? Only one in six that attempts to attend a univeristy even graduates. Why don't we take the 80 billion and apply it toward paying off the 18 trillion + we owe as a nation ?

Why not just make going to college free, as it is done in Western Europe?

As for the five who start college and don't complete, Governor Scott Walker is a good example.  Some college is a helluva lot better than none!

No one appreciates or respects anything which is free.  Just as students in your beloved Socialist/Communist countries.

Just because a college education is paid for, that doesn't mean it is necessarily free.  Completing a college degree requires work and dedication, even if it's paid for by the government.   Your attempt at speaking off-script and coming up with your own original responses once again falls flat.

Don't you have any copy-and-paste fodder for this type of thread?

Childish response proving that you know what I said is true.  Thank you!


I just refuted what you said and you clearly have no response.  A free college degree would be one that comes from a diploma mill and is simply printed up and doled out.  On the other hand, if someone actually attends school and works their way through an associates, bachelors, or masters degree, they're going to appreciate that due to the time and work that they put in to earn that degree.  That will be true whether they paid for the degree or not.  

Do you care to respond to that, or are we done here?  That was a rhetorical question.  We're done here.

You never want to respond to anyone else's questions so there's no reason to respond to yours ass wipe.


*****EXPRESSIONLESS*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

othershoe1030

othershoe1030
What I see in this chart is that it is cheaper to invest in education than it is to spend money on prisons. The outcome is also much better for society as we end up with an educated population rather than a population of ex-offenders who are unable to vote, are not as well educated and have a prison sentence on their record that keeps them from good employment opportunities.

We lock up too many people, police state of the world. We don't need to do that. It needs to change.

As you can see there is not one state that spends more on students than inmates. Good Grief. Don't know why the right side of the chart didn't entirely print but you can see it at the link below, only New York's inmate expense is missing.



Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities 050713-education-vs-prison-costs

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/education-vs-prison-costs/

Guest


Guest
othershoe1030 wrote:What I see in this chart is that it is cheaper to invest in education than it is to spend money on prisons. The outcome is also much better for society as we end up with an educated population rather than a population of ex-offenders who are unable to vote, are not as well educated and have a prison sentence on their record that keeps them from good employment opportunities.

We lock up too many people, police state of the world. We don't need to do that. It needs to change.

As you can see there is not one state that spends more on students than inmates. Good Grief. Don't know why the right side of the chart didn't entirely print but you can see it at the link below, only New York's inmate expense is missing.



Obama: $80 billion spent on incarceration could eliminate tuition at public universities 050713-education-vs-prison-costs

http://money.cnn.com/infographic/economy/education-vs-prison-costs/

Yeah we're going to offer a free education to all the uneducated high school dropouts who didn't want an education in the first place. That'll work.


*****EXPRESSIONLESS*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum