marks2065

Members
  • Content

    2,903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by marks2065


  1. Quote

    Quote

    >it is more civilized when murderers are not here to threaten us.

    Agreed. Of course, you can accomplish that via the death penalty OR prison for life. And the prison-for-life is nice because it's cheaper.

    But if you want to spend the extra money, I am totally in favor of you paying it.



    Well, this moderate Christian RePUBICAN also does not believe in the death penalty, but not for financial reasons. A permanent solution demands a perfect process - and one does not yet exist. Conversely, I find the arguments on both sides have come from years of treating hard-core long-time repeat offending criminals to have been coddled so much that it turns my stomach.

    Recently, a friend of mine's wife was killed by a drunk, Guatemalan illegal alien as she rode her motorcycle to work. He ran a red light, completely took her out in an instant (as in dead) and witnesses said at trial that he looked at them, shrugged his shoulders as in, "Oh well." He received six years and that "was the best we could hope for." Cause you know, he didn't mean to kill her; kill her - he accidentally killed her.

    My buddy was preparing to speak at the parole hearing about the "only love of his life" when he received a call of, "Mr. X, we're sorry to be calling you like this, but we thought OKC was going to call you and they thought we were going to call you, but the man who hit your wife is in Oklahoma City awaiting deportation." My friend asks what he can do to make it stop. "Well, sir, I'm sorry to tell you this but once they get to Oklahoma City, they are usually on a plane that day." He was and he had served 16 months of his six year sentence.

    Due to so many liberties that criminals now have; cable TV, degree programs, free access to lawyers, counseling etc. has reached the level of ridiculous. So ridiculous that we must now fall to it being a financial question instead of a justice question? In addition to seeing first degree murderers having to serve < half their sentences; the victims being the only ones to receive the life sentence; lesser capital cases getting even less time over the years - the American public cries out for true justice.

    NOW, let's talk about this so-called "lower cost of life sentence to death penalty" bullshit. Here's what those 11 "Urban Studies" done by DPIC DON'T tell you... "In 1994, a new law (amended in 1996) authorized the federal government to provide financial assistance to the 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to construct or renovate prisons to incarcerate additional violent offenders. Those states and territories that adopt the 85 percent standard became eligible for an increased portion of federal funding. Since fiscal year 1996, the Justice Department has provided more than $1.3 billion through the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing (VOI/TIS) incentive grants program.

    The adoption of these state legislative changes has resulted in increases in time actually served behind bars and growing state prison populations nationwide (up 7 percent annually since 1990). The average time served by released violent offenders (persons convicted of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) rose from 43 months in 1993 to 49 months in 1997. Time served by released violent offenders rose in at least 38 states during that period. Their average percent of sentence served in prison rose from 47 percent to 54 percent."
    (1) 54 PERCENT?!?!?!?!

    So, what we have are studies asking the States for financial information regarding THEIR costs; not the TOTAL cost... Because we all know the government can take money from one pocket and put it in another and spin it as a savings or a greater cost depending on the situation then existing and how many news cameras are present and which way the opinion needs to swing that day.

    BOTTOM LINE: I will be one of the first to raise his hand and agree to Life Without Parole really meaning, 1) life without parole, 2) prison meaning prison and 3) taking away any and all rights and liberties. Yup, as in hard fucking labor from 5 o'clock in the morning until 10PM at night. No work programs, no release programs, No college or counseling services, no degree programs (cause that kinda means you may be getting out, don't it?). Let's go to the big rocks into little rocks and paint the little rocks in the hot blazing sun forty year program. Unless it involves a child and then you get the forty year with castration program.

    But, we know that's not going to happen either.. Cause you know, we'll get to hear such wonderful platitudes like Dostoyevsky's, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons" or Pope John Paul II's, "A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members" ad nauseum infinitum.

    (1) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/tssp.pr



    +1

  2. Quote

    >it is more civilized when murderers are not here to threaten us.

    Agreed. Of course, you can accomplish that via the death penalty OR prison for life. And the prison-for-life is nice because it's cheaper.

    But if you want to spend the extra money, I am totally in favor of you paying it.



    Cheaper? How can $10 in electricity be more expensive than housing an inmate at 50k a year be more expensive?

  3. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Feel free to dispute the numbers.



    Firstly you are confusing profit and revenue.

    Secondly, what Exxon lists as cost of a gallon of gas at retail already contains a hefty profit margin.



    If you'd actually read the post, you would have seen that Exxon said their PROFIT on a gallon was slightly over two cents, as opposed to the 48 cents that gov't gets.

    Feel free to provide the numbers proving your claim, however.



    That's because they are only listing their downstream profits.Downstream activities account for only about 30% of their profits.

    They buy the crude on the international market, like everybody else. However, they are also major sellers on the international market. So, when they buy crude for downstream activities, part of that money goes into their own pocket as profits, yet for their "blog post" they would list it as a cost.

    May help if you think about it as opposed to just reading a blog post.



    lets say you are right, if we add in the 70% that you say is missing then we have under 10 cents per gallon, and that is still a huge difference than what the government is taking. 10 cents per gallon at $4 a gallon is 2.5% total profit and that is very low as compared to things like ...... almost anything else. I don't hear you screaming about the evil apple company, or general electric, or liberal leaning colleges all making more profit. lets wake up and start really putting the blame on those that deserve it, like politicians that spend us into debt, tax us to death, restric oil drilling, distribute our hard earned money to those that are to lazy to work becxause welfare and unemployment are to easy to get.

  4. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    You make them sound like party hacks. :S



    Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.


    Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.


    Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. :S


    Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial.


    Funny, don't you think, that in so many cases 5 of the most prominent legal minds in the country can think the Constitution means "X" and another 4 of them can think it means "not X". If it isn't the SC's politicization that's the problem, it must be the law.


    Or is it that the 4 are not using the constitution to rule on the law

  5. Quote

    Quote

    Feel free to dispute the numbers.



    Firstly you are confusing profit and revenue.

    Secondly, what Exxon lists as cost of a gallon of gas at retail already contains a hefty profit margin.



    profit for oil companies is much less per gallon than what the government takes per gallon.

  6. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    You make them sound like party hacks. :S



    Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.


    Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.


    Right, you should NEVER let your ideology affect your decision making. You should use a Ouija board. :S


    Being a judge is never about party or beliefs, it is about deciding an outcome based on law, the SC law is the constitution. when you make rulings based on anything other than law the rest of us can no longer trust that we would get a FAIR trial.

  7. Quote

    Quote

    You make them sound like party hacks. :S



    Eagles don't normally waddle and quack like ducks.


    Obama was right in one aspect, and that is the SC does allow politics and ideology into their decisions, otherwise it would not be a 5 to 4 vote it would be 7 to 2 or a 3 to 6 vote. They are there to uphold the constitution not party affiliation. To bad the justices have forgotten what their jobs are.

  8. Quote

    Quote

    Why don't we hold these people responsible for not performing due diligence. Also why not make those repay the money they got in salary towards the loan.



    Remember this when you vote this election in 2012



    yes I will remember when I vote, I have the ability to make choices that many others don't. All those projects the left wants and many on the right want also, can not happen if we are bankrupt.

  9. Quote

    Quote

    Did no one in the Obama administration even look into the financial abilities of these companies before giving them all the stimulous money?
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-trust-seeks-bankruptcy-protection-161510918.html



    Sure they did...they looked into the their financial ability to contribute to Obama's campaign.



    maybe any political donations paid to anyone running for public office should be repaid towards the bankrupcy.

  10. Quote

    It's interesting to me to see the frequent results of government intrusion into markets. The government likes to create markets, shut down markets, stimulate markets, etc. Sometimes this is successful, as in defense contracting and the like. Other times it is not successful, such as in situations we see here.

    The governmental policy seems to be to make it as easy as possible for alternative energy companies to get going and they STILL end up falling flat in the market. Why? Because the costs are extensive, the product is expensive, and when given a choice people will opt for a less expensive product.

    Imagine, if you will, what happens when the government actually takes over the system. It doesn't matter how expensive the project becomes, it continues to be funded. Indeed, to make up for the difference, funding is increased.

    I've written on here countless times about the four ways to spend money.
    (1) Spend your money on yourself (most efficient because you buy what you want/need at the best price);
    (2) Spend someone else's money on yourself (you buy what you want/need but don't care about the price - inefficient)
    (3) Spend your money on someone else (you buy a person what you think they should want/need and at a low price (it's why Santa always gave me underwear in my stocking); and
    (4) Spend someone else's money on someone else (most inefficient because you spend on what you think/hope/feel a person needs/wants and don't care about the price).

    These green power company loan guarantees are an example of the fourth option. The loans were guaranteed because nobody out there would spend their own money on these companies. Investors did not see hope for returns on this and found that their money would disappear if these projects were funded. But then the government guaranteed them because the government isn't losing anything. It's other people's money. And the government put money where it feels people should put money, regardless of what the people want.

    What stake did the people guaranteeing these loans have in guaranteeing them? None. It wasn't their money! The people who loaned the money DID due diligence and found that the odds of a successful return on investment were so low as to make the project unfeasible. No way they are parting with THEIR money. Solar Trust could ONLY get funding through people who spend other people's money on other people.

    Welcome to the world of government finance. This is how government operates. Why perform due diligence?



    Why don't we hold these people responsible for not performing due diligence. Also why not make those repay the money they got in salary towards the loan.

  11. Quote

    Quote

    Illegal imigration is allowing companies to lower the pay scale of many workers to stay in compitition with foriegn companies


    Like what gutting fish? Picking crops?

    Not like they are working in offices.



    when you parents were 15-20 years old they did jobs like bus boy, shelf stocker, fast food resturaunt worker, and other jobs like that. Now those jobs are filled by many illegals and hard to get for a teenager today. My stepson was turned down by burger king and McDonalds because he could not speak spanish, In america a high school kid has to speak spanish to flip burgers!!! these are the low paying, introductory jobs that influence and build character in our children that are no longer available to them.

  12. Quote

    illegal imigration, HU? Those guys and gals are not middle class workers?

    free trade, I can see this.

    high taxes, They were much much MUCH higher when my step father was my age! Look it up!

    and handouts to the lazy, they had the same system when he was my age.



    Higher taxes became a bigger problem after free trade since companies could go over seas and still keep the US market.

    Handouts to the lazy is a huge issue now, back then you were ridiculed if you were on food stamps, now it is looked at like it is someone elses fault not yours. Food stamps and welfare are now multigenerational entitlements, not a bridge to help you get back on your feet.

    Illegal imigration is allowing companies to lower the pay scale of many workers to stay in compitition with foriegn companies, another free trade issue.

  13. Quote

    Is this the new "normal" 7-10% unemployment?
    Is this the new "normal" the death of the full time employment and perpetual life as independent consultants?
    After listening to NPR for the past few days I can't help but we a little dismayed.
    I don't know from any ones point of view but this gilded economy is starting to lose it's luster and the led core is starting to show.

    And I don't know about you guys but I don't want our nation to be on the same economic footing at third world countries such as China. Been there seen it, it's not pretty. 45% of the population perpetually sick or dying, from what best could be described as exhaustion another 45% living in fear of starvation at any moment in time and the remaining 10% living a life that well honestly would make your head spin with respect to excess.

    Are we on a slippery slope? I know for a fact I'm not living a life as good as my step father lived when he was my age. He was divorced at the same age more or less from his first wife and also lived in NJ. But with his one state job he was able to have his home paid off in 10 years and had a little cabin in the woods for vacation, drove a newish car and had money saved aside for retirement. And he just had a degree in sociology.

    I'm an engineer with an MBA and all the little certificates such as Six Sigma Black Belt and what not and I can't help but be envious of my stepfathers generation and worry about the kids I work with. How bad will their lives be? A life filled with disposable hand held computers and zero prospects of living a comfortable life much like their Chinese counterparts? For the Jellocrats and the Richuplicans sold off the country so as to do nothing but to maintain power for no one.

    What are your thoughts?
    [:/]



    yep and you can blame illegal imigration, free trade, high taxes, and handouts to the lazy for votes.

  14. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    >If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what
    >was done for the last 200 years.

    Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times.



    by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it



    So you reckon it IS OK to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.



    You can shout fire if you want, you may not like what happens after that.

  15. Quote

    >by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has

    By amendment BECAUSE someone doesn't like the restraints it has. We got rid of prohibition because we didn't like that restraint, for example.

    >the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants.

    Correct, they decide whether laws are constitutional. If they decide that the individual mandate is constitutional, then it is. End of story.



    Obama is pissed because it doesn't look like the scotus will allow the law. My feeling is that if he doesn't like it he has the right to have it put to a vote by the american people and congress, unfortunalely he wouldn't have the support of most of the country.

  16. Quote

    >If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what
    >was done for the last 200 years.

    Yep. So I guess the Constitution WAS intended to change with society; we change it to fit the times.



    by amendment not because someone doesn't like the restraints it has, the scotus' job is to uphold the constitution not change it as Obama wants.

  17. Quote

    >It has nothing to do with today's society
    >The constitution was not meant to fit
    >We are intended to fit it

    Sucks about us abolishing slavery, then.



    If you don't like the constitution then add an amendment, that is what was done for the last 200 years. I didn't hear Obama bitching about prop 8 being overturned by a gay judge. it really pisses him off when the constitution gets in his way doesn't it.

  18. Quote

    Quote

    The gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue.

    The price of oil (and so of gas) is set by the world market. Oil companies are under no obligation to make oil available to the US market at below-market prices, even if that oil originated from a US source. Once they extract it, they can sell to whomever offers the best price. Besides that, US oil production is at the highest level in 8 years, and the storage facilities are full to capacity, leading to a boom in construction of new storage tanks. In Cushing, OK storage capacity has increased from 26 million barrels in 2005 to 65 million barrels today, and 125 new tanks are under construction. If your statement that gas prices are determined by oil production is true, why are gas prices not at an 8-year low?

    The only way US production could significantly lower prices at the pump would be if:
    1) US production could have such an impact on global demand as to drive global prices for oil down, or:
    2) the government would legislate restrictions so US-produced oil could only be sold here.

    The first is essentially impossible, as US reserves are only 2% of the world total, and entities such as OPEC would simply defend the price by lowering their production to compensate for increased US production. As a result, US reserves would be depleted faster, and would be sold for less money, while the OPEC nations could make the same amount of money from selling less oil, and conserve their reserves to sell later at an even higher price.

    The second strategy would be rather anti-capitalist, to say the least. I'd be very surprised to learn you were in favor of government mandated price controls on the oil industry (or anything else).

    In reality, the current price spike is being driven by speculators capitalizing on fears that an Iran/Israel/US conflict would disrupt oil supplies coming through the Strait of Hormuz. The easiest route to lower prices would be to deflate tensions by curtailing the saber rattling and seriously pursuing a diplomatic solution. Of course, that wouldn't be in the interests of our current crop of Republican candidates-in-waiting, who are falling all over each other to show who can be the biggest militarist hawk (Ron Paul being the only exception).

    The tactic of blaming the government (i.e. Obama) for gas prices is a transparent Republican election ploy, entirely without factual merit but nevertheless appealing to those for whom stimulus/response is the limit of their capacity for critical thought.

    Don



    to bad your information on our oil reserves is wronghttp://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html all we need is a little american enginuity to pull it out

  19. Quote

    Six months of above average temperatures in Chicago this winter. I have lilac in bloom already in my yard.

    Screw the people in the southwest and in coastal areas, I've decided I like it.



    Well I say you open up a bottle of r-12 and buy some new shorts. this global warming thing is good for us.

    But what caused the warm winter here? Possibly a shift in the pacific ocean currants do to the earthquake and sunami in japan?

  20. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    So it is not a Health Care issue, it is a Justice issue.



    It's a socialism issue.



    +100



    Welfare
    Farmers
    Indigent emergency medicine care
    School programs
    Indigent burial
    Unemployment benefits
    Government nursing homes
    The list goes on and on, but now all of a sudden everyone is worried about Socialism, after all of these years.
    And everyone is a Capitalist, until gas hits $4 a gallon.



    The gas would not be $4 agallon if we could produce more in the US. this is not a capitalism issue it is a government restriction issue.

  21. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Why are you so supportive of a system that allows some people to freeload off the rest of us?



    Why are you supportive of a system that expands the pool of those to be freeloaded off of?



    Because it reduces the number of freeloaders.



    no it doesn't, with all the waivers and exceptions it just increases what I have to pay so the freeloaders get more. The only way it would help is if everyone paid the same and nobody was excluded from paying. but that would really piss of the liberals.

  22. Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote



    Maybe that is because the people are taining for jobs they want instead of jobs that are available or they can actually get and do. Maybe the colleges need to offer jobs skills classes instead of basket weaving and discussing our favorite auther 101.



    Of course, that ignores the FACT that unemployment among those with college education is far less than among those without. Apparently colleges are doing something right.

    www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm



    How many of those with college degrees are actually working in the field they trained for? How many went to college and are now unemployed because the field they trained in was saturated. How many could have saved tens of thousands of $s by going to a trade school and learned a trade that is currantly looking for people to fill the employment gaps?



    Find out and report back to us.

    Until you do that we'll just have to go with the data we have, which is that a college education leads to lower unemployment rates and higher income.



    I say you are wrong,



    However, the data prove me right.

    www.mymoneyblog.com/unemployment-rates-vs-level-of-education.html
    www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
    steadfastfinances.com/blog/2010/03/05/education-versus-unemployment-rate/
    www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/
    www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm



    No that doesn't prove it, it proves that those with the qualities I described, college worked for them and some it did not work for. It shows that those that did not complete the programs they started started did worse than those that did. I don't have a college eduacation And I make almost 80% more than that of the average college graduate (46K). I learned a trade in 6 months and saved over 50k in college tuition. college was not the correct route for me and is not the correct route for many that are in college. College is a tool to use not the cause for employment and higher wages. Learning a trade that is in demand and your desire to sucede in life is more important that any college eduacation.

  • Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    Quote

    i have to speak up here. if you follow your conclusions, you are correct in your figures to a point. when you are drawing unemployment, you are not travelling anywhere, eating lunch out, and incurring no additional expenses. the price of gas alone with a 25 mile one-way trip to work 5 days a week puts a dent in the take home pay as does the deduction of taxes. in wv, you have the option to have 10% taken out of unemployment, but it is a choice, not mandatory. don't know about other states. i had the option of drawing unemployment or working for $10 an hour and chose unemployment for these reasons.



    Staying on unemployment because you don't like working for less is wrong. This causes increases to the products you buy by raising costs to the bisiness. Unemployment is a bridge to get you to your next job not to support you in a way that makes you more confortable.



    Doesn't help that there are 4 people looking for jobs for every job available.

    We also have a serious mismatch between skills available and skills needed.



    tell the dems to allow projects like the pipeline and the mine in wisc, that would takes tens of thousands off the unemployment lines and improve the economy, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.



    That ass-umes that the millions of unemployed are qualified for those jobs. Mismatch of skills IS one of the problems we face.



    Maybe that is because the people are taining for jobs they want instead of jobs that are available or they can actually get and do. Maybe the colleges need to offer jobs skills classes instead of basket weaving and discussing our favorite auther 101.



    Of course, that ignores the FACT that unemployment among those with college education is far less than among those without. Apparently colleges are doing something right.

    www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm



    How many of those with college degrees are actually working in the field they trained for? How many went to college and are now unemployed because the field they trained in was saturated. How many could have saved tens of thousands of $s by going to a trade school and learned a trade that is currantly looking for people to fill the employment gaps?



    Find out and report back to us.

    Until you do that we'll just have to go with the data we have, which is that a college education leads to lower unemployment rates and higher income.



    I say you are wrong, Self determination, good choices on schooling, competitive drive in the work place and pride in ones self leads to lower unemployment and higher income. Schooling is just a tool in ones tool box to achieve a goal. Picking the right tool is what is needed and to many people are picking the wrong tool and expect society to just drop the entitlements into their laps.