The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Food Stamps benefits cut

You are dense.

You changed what Kaotic said, incase you still don't understand.


4 for being crazy.

It is what it is, and I have never known you to pay much attention to inconvenient facts.

Your obsession with "sides" is starting to get boring as well.

Here is what exactly he said:



Considering that I am not the author, acknowledged or was in any way involved in the production of the peer-review papers I linked they are not MY facts. They are just facts.

As such, quoting it:


this way is accurate.

I am just being polite. What I really think is....

There were no relevant facts in the links you posted. Thus the quotation marks. Your links, like nearly all of the ones you post, are merely conjecture based on belief.

I'm sure Derid's offer of a copy of Resetta Stone English is still good if you decide you'd like to try and learn the language.

I will hold your hand while we read one of the papers I linked together.

Title: "Allocating Resources Among Prisons and Social Programs in the Battle Against Crime."

Published in 1998, so not too long ago that you can claim drastic social changes made it irrelevant. Published in "The Journal of Legal Studies" from University of Chicago Law School. ResearchGate tells us the journals impact factor is 1.35, this is low enough that you can question its peer-review process, but this journal is legitimate publication avenue. Authors of this paper are from Stanford Law and Yale Law, so as ivory as it gets. These people clearly would have a reputation to protect.

Abstract says:



On incarceration the article says:



Very damning. We have incarceration problem in USA, and it is getting worse. Too many people in prisons. US population is ether bloodthirsty savages and scoundrels when compared to the rest of the world, or we have too many people incarcerated that don't belong in jail.

The article on costs of incarceration:



That is 1993 dollars, so you have to adjust for inflation to get 2013 number. So it costs more today. $30K in 1993 would be equal to $45K today adjusted for inflation.

Then the paper goes on to talk about lost of wages, cost on family, impact on productivity after release and so on. They don't attach solid number on this, but we can easily conclude that whatever this number is, it will adjust $45K cost upward.

Interesting bit:



They didn't because a lot of it is genetics. So is violent tendencies. Apparently so is tendency to become conservative at some point in life, but if you ask me that is more likely a result of a brain infection. One day we might even develop a vaccine.

Lots of other interesting stuff in the paper, but lets skip to the conclusion:



So conclusions says that based on small scale social programs, we can reduce criminality and incarceration. If programs scale, we will have huge social benefit and cost savings. If they don't scale, then we will still can come out ahead because how damn expensive it is to incarcerate so many people at ever-increasing rate. I mean, Stalin with Gulags had nothing on US penal system.

Here you go.

Drug war responsible for a great portion of penal populace. Cutting food stamps drastically and suddenly would likely have a negative effect. In the grand scheme, the cuts currently implemented give no reason based on available data to suspect drastic increase in criminality as a result. Not that I would have endorsed cutting the program.

But anyhow, as I said previously - Dems cut the program. They wanted FLOTUS school "obesity" program. Maybe you should have linked the study for Mrs Obama, and explained to her that cutting an established program that is relatively effective for a govt program in favor of unproven pet vanity pork projects is not such a good idea.

Because cutting it (or letting the extensions expire, w/e) apparently was on their agenda. The fact that your "side" (as you view things) can be counted on to articulate one philosophy, and govern via another just does not seem to phase you.

Running in same circle gets old. I think everyone gets it, if there was ever anything to get. People who hold {x,y,...} views are seen by you as one cogent group, that you inartfully articulate here as a "side". Obviously I think your grouping criteria are silly but /shrug

For the sake of not seeing the 1000th minor variation of the same argument, lets find some variety k? thnx.

Meanwhile Sweden closes prisons due to lack of prisoners

So what argument are you trying to make? After reading the article, it looks like your saying "Ok, yeah what Derid said". But that wouldnt be in character.