Our Tax Dollars At Work

I don't know. I agree with you in principle but... screw it, what they're doing now doesn't work. Maybe they should try it in Chiraq next. They need to do something.
 
Buffy Summers said:
It sounds great but where's the money coming from?
Click to expand...
How the city handles the funding of the stipends — right now, the plan is to set aside public money for the program — could represent a touchy issue with potential critics of handing out taxpayer money. Donations, which Richmond has relied on entirely to fund its stipends, are not outlined in the Washington program, and Mr. McDuffie said any fund-raising efforts would be at the discretion of the program’s director.
 
Judging from that article, it is a far cry from bribing a child with sweets. A reward program, which is a far cry from my favourite pedagogy, yes, but that is not the same as bribery. If the incentive program actually motivates people who are creating trouble for a lot of others in the situation to start the hard work of building a different life, it will save a lot of money in the long run.

(Hey, white avenger. I've missed disagreeing with you. ;-) )
 
Mr. Pole said:
I it has proven results and has shown it has worked in other cities.
Click to expand...

But has it been in effect anywhere for long enough to qualify as a "long term" solution? It just seems to me that, when you start paying someone NOT to do something, inevitably, the funding dries up, and you wind up in a worse situation than you had originally.
 
"Mr. Boggan pointed out, however, that the most popular incentive is not the money. It’s the trips, he said.

Successful participants are eligible for “horizon-building educational excursions” that could include a visit to a college campus in the state, or even traveling to London, Paris or South Africa.

The difference between who gets to go where is critical. Those who take trips outside California, Mr. Boggan said, have to be willing to travel with a mortal enemy.

“And oftentimes,” he said, “what they find out through the experience is that they actually like the guys that they’ve been trying to kill better than the guys they’ve been hanging out with.”"

This is more than paying people to not do something. It is paying people to change.
 
white avenger said:
But has it been in effect anywhere for long enough to qualify as a "long term" solution? It just seems to me that, when you start paying someone NOT to do something, inevitably, the funding dries up, and you wind up in a worse situation than you had originally.
Click to expand...
Considering there has been a reduction in gun violence and some of the people have since gotten their GEDs and went to college it seems like good results. But the welfare system was also beneficial when it started and look at it now... so. I don't know.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
do you secretly feel the Bern? ;)
Mr. Pole said:
Considering there has been a reduction in gun violence and some of the people have since gotten their GEDs and went to college it seems like good results. But the welfare system was also beneficial when it started and look at it now... so. I don't know.
Click to expand...

But by doing this, even if it results in people getting GEDs, it just seems to me that we take the very real risk of simply ending up with a better educated class of criminals. Still, if it actually shows real, long lasting, beneficial, results, rather than just a quick fix that doesn't last or have any permanent benefits, I would begrudgingly admit that it might be worth it. I never saw the logic in paying farmers not to plant certain crops, either.
 
My first reactions were how are they going to monitor it? It's sad that there is a need to pay people to not commit crimes and what a bad aid solution to the problem of crime.

But the more I think and read about it, maybe it isn't such a bad use of money. It's seems to be on a very small scale so the cost isn't going to be huge or impact tax payers enough to talk about, and if the program focuses on enriching people's lives more so that bribing them not to be criminals it seems like it could be good.
 
Skanky Vamp
Skanky Vamp
That's kinda what I think... but I am disappointed as I am starting to sound like a guldarn liberal..
@brinkster130 Actually I do support Bernie! I had a banner for awhile but I never posted it.. now since the cat is out of the bag should I use it?
lomax.jpg
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
Use it :D
The US now has a prison-industrial complex that has already been shown to collude with judges to give out long sentences. (The judge who was caught will get out when he is 87 years old.) Private prisons are doing a large amount of business and may take some business from Federal prisons, possibly enough to shut them down. The US has more people per capita in prison than any other country in the world. I don't see a large difference between this and other programs designed to get inner-city people off the street. You can bet that the prison owners will put up a fight against this because it might be effective. America is addicted to spending money on drug interdiction, to the tune of $40,000,000,000 per year. A lot of people depend on that payroll and none of them want to see an actual decrease on crime.

Of course there will be objections based on inability of the government to pay and how people are selected to get the money. Why should some kid from a poor family but not considered at risk be refused money whereas someone with a proven tendency toward crime gets paid? It appears to be rewarding prior bad judgement.
 
Mr. Pole said:
Considering there has been a reduction in gun violence
Click to expand...

But, contrary to what the politicians continue to say, gun violence has been steadily dropping in the U S since the 90's, so, how can we be sure that this program has made any significant contribution to the situation at all?

FBI: Gun Murders Continue to Fall

We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.

Careful with the Panic: Violent Crime and Gun Crime Are Both Dropping

I'm all for lowering the rate of gun violence, as well as every other kind of violent crime, and even the non-violent ones, but are the reduced crime rates actually due to this program, or just coincidental?
 
Honestly this is not a bad idea. It's been shown that people prone to crime often come from a poor background, have a history of abuse, have mental illnesses etc. Many times, resorting to crime is due to the lack of services and money that goes to helping people at risk.

I think they should install better service, not necessarily select a few to get the money, but the principle makes sense as long as it's not about giving money for the sake of money, but more so about getting people out of a bad place that would push them towards criminal activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom