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: TimF who wrote (360473)	11/27/2007 4:53:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574280

You're not correct Tim. Stop trying to make something right when its wrong. Let's start from the beginning. My original premise was that there is a correlation between the crime rate and the health of the economy. The health of the economy is not the only factor but its a major one. Now let's look at the crime rate for the past 25 years in the US. All during the 80s and early 90s the crime rate in almost every category kept rising, and not down as you suggested, and peaked just as Clinton took over as president. For an example, according to the FBI, the violent crime rate increased from 620.1 in 1986 to 757.7 in 1992. The murder rate went from 8.6 in 1986 to 9.8 in 1991 and the robbery rate went from 226 in 1986 to 272.1 in 1991. Under Clinton, the crime rates for the various categories began to drop and then plummeted. By 2000, at the end of Clinton's two terms in office, most rates had dropped precipitously......violent crime: from 758 to 506; murder: from 9.8 to 5.5; the robbery rate from 272 to 145. Now let's look at the first five years of Bush's term, the rates for those same three categories have either remained static, gone down slightly or gone up slightly. The violent crime rate is down from 506 to 469; the murder rate is up slightly from 5.5 to 5.6; the robbery rate is virtually static going from 145 to 140. Of the 8 categories covered by the FBI, four are up slightly, two are down slightly and 2 are static since 2000. And from what I understand, crime rates have worsened since 2005. So then, why did Clinton have huge gains while Bush II's improvements are anemic at best and Bush I and Reagan saw increases? Its not coicidence, Tim. Under Bush I and II and Reagan, conditions improved only for a certain segment of the population while under Clinton everyone benefited, including the poorest segments of the population who are most likely to commit crimes. Again.....its not by chance.......the statistics don't lie. fbi.gov Tim, the American crime rate has not been small for a long long time. Sure it went down under Clinton but it was still high when he left office It went down under Clinton, before Clinton, and after Clinton. Its still lower than it was for all of Clinton's time if office, and also lower than it was under Bush I or Reagan. And probably than it was under Carter but the FBI crime rate site didn't go back that far. The violent crime rate was lower in 2001 than it had been since the FBI series started. It was lower in 2002 than in 2001. Its lower in 2007 than it was in 2002, yes it is higher now than it was in more recent years but a modest increase after a long drop doesn't indicate that crime is suddenly a huge problem.