Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (130032)	12/21/2000 1:45:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570354

Ted, more cops was not a bad thing but Clinton did not have nearly as much impact in this areas as he claims. He did not fund 100,000 cops. He put in place a program to provide funding for 100,000 cop/years. (1 cop for 1 year = 1 cop/year). The 100k cop/years never happened either but perhaps some good was done by the program. IMO this is properly a function of the states a localities and should not be the job of the federal government but I don't think the program had bad results, just very overstated results. The 3 things you mentioned were important but you missed another likely cause of the decline in crime in the 90s. Demographics. The number of boys and young men of the age most likely to commit violent crimes decreased as a percentage of the population (and I believe in absolute number) during this time frame. I understand however that this change is at an end. The kids of the baby boomers are at the right age now or soon will be. Hopefully the continuation of the factors you mentioned will be enough to overcome this change. Tim

To: tejek who wrote (130032)	12/21/2000 4:00:06 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 1570354

Ted, Anything good which happened under Clinton was either coincidental or actually bad. Reduced crime is bad, because it happened in spite of right wing philosophy to the contrary. The most important virtue is to uphold the beliefs of the right. Scumbria

To: tejek who wrote (130032)	12/21/2000 4:42:59 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570354

Dear Ted: That it was another Federal Mandate that was not completely paid for. It was more like 20% US 80% local. Federal Mandates raise local taxes by 200% over what they would be normally and the costs are very high since the US requires gobs of strict paperwork to boot so that costs go up five fold once for the service, 3/4ths for the paperwork on the service, and 9/16ths to the paperwork showing that you did your paperwork correctly, and so forth. It is madness. It overrules good state laws and systems that deal already with the problem for less overhead. The Federal Government runs like 50 programs that all do the same thing but require 100 different forms and 50 different sets of procedures some of which are totally opposite of some other sets. It has been estimated that Government pays 80 cents on each dollar towards overhead. That is the real waster of money. Pete