To those saying flipping burgers or dunking fries deserves 15.00 per hour...

[ScienceRocks]

Grampa murku probably believes these workers should work for a buck per hour.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.

Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

What makes you believe these reformed prisoners won't simply become smarter criminals? Learning a skill etc while in prison is nice, but it is not any guarantee they won't be repeat offenders.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Grampa murku probably believes these workers should work for a buck per hour.

Soon it won't matter, as automation is replacing them already, then they won't be working at all. :SHRUG:

 

[Humorme]

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.

Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

 

[Humorme]

Do you live in a vacuum? Our prison population has increased every year for a long time. Let's take the time period you cited:

Between 1990 and 2002 the federal prison population increased 153%! I won't even began to tell you what was going on at the local and state levels.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/sp/1044.pdf


What really happened? More people started going to prison; the numbers of people on drugs went up. The recidivism rate in prisons went up.

Again, nice try at misrepresenting my position. I'm for reducing welfare. I'm also for taking steps to make sure people, including employers have options. Under my proposal, after a couple of years, you could see how many employers are paying the current rate of taxes and which ones opt for paying less taxes in exchange for helping Americans get jobs that pay a realistic wage.

Then you would have the real answer.

Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:

View attachment 165296

OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?

Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.

But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.

How did I change the parameters? I said welfare reform, and welfare reform passed in 1996.

First off, if you do not cite laws, cases, etc. to build your case on, you can't expect me to do your work for you.

In post # 1010 you state:

"You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's..."

AFTER I covered the stats for the 90s, you then claim figures that didn't start until 1997 /1998. The government doesn't even to try and extrapolate from that any cause / effect for at least three years of study.

Cudos, you left yourself a lot of wiggle room to build a phony case.

You must have ADD or something. My claim was very clear and I can't see how anybody (but you perhaps) found it to be misleading. You were the one who tried to claim that after welfare reform, our prison population shot up. It was a false claim. The prison population started going up long before Welfare Reform. If anything, my chart shows how it began to decline in the early 2000's.

I don't need anybody (especially you) to do my work for me. I do quite well myself as you witnessed......even if you refuse to admit it.

That's the best you got? YOU talk about the 90s then move the bar toward the 2000s and because I didn't do your work for you, I have ADD???

You have almost as much as Uncensored going for you at this point.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i love seeing those vids/reports of democrats complaining about thier wages. "Now How iz eye supposed to pay my rent,my car,my food,my electricity, and my four keeds on 9.00 an hr bitch?"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That would be a failure too. We did that here in Ohio. In fact one of the places I deliver too participated in the program. They were getting money from the state to hire felons.

It didn't take long before fights broke out between the felon workers and some being carted away in an ambulance. So the owner hired private security to keep them tame. That didn't work either as they attacked the security guard, so the security company refused to do business with the company unless they could provide an ample amount of officers to discourage violence and attacks on them. It ended up costing so much money for all the security that the owner got out of the program.

You can't say that what I propose is a failure, Ray. What I propose has never been tried.

You want to measure some half assed ideas against a complete program that has never been tried. There is no prison system , state or federal, that has the rehabilitation program I'm suggesting.

Ray, admit it. You like to argue, but like the Democrats, your ideology has a history of abject failure. You are afraid to explore new ideas and so what works and what don't is irrelevant. It's now about who has the most votes to stay in power. You don't want any solutions. You simply want your side to have power. That is made evident by your efforts to misrepresent me... much like the board troll on this thread does. It's dishonest, son.

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

. Not good to waist time in prison if going to be let back out on the street. I would rather a good candidate for rehabilitation get that education in order to cope upon release, and yes with a job skill to boot if possible. Ray, do you realize that to a bum in prison, it is punishment for him or her to get education then forced upon them, and to make them work on a job skill to boot while on the inside.. Ohhh the horror's it must be for a buck wild bum to then be forced to get educated, and then to learn a job skill instead of running around selling drugs and impregnating your daughters. Wake up Ray.

Well......I think there were less people wanting to be locked up before we turned them into "rehabilitation" centers; a day before computers, before workout rooms, before football fields and libraries, a day when you spent much of your day in a cell and not starting a family with your wife on the outside.

If our prisons were run like in the movie Cool Hand Luke, that was rehabilitation because you never wanted to be locked up like that.

. Agree with this also, but do you think that because of the guilt that was born over time in which had set so many bad things in motion, that it may have resulted in the changes we have since seen when it comes to the treatment of prisoners who have the high probability of rejoining society ?? Otherwise the expected fall out from it all was inevitable right ??? The guilt you see, has since led the culprits (that fixed the system in the ways that they had done), to then know that of course it was going to cause the huge problems that it caused, and so they are highly empathetic to the plight of the poor in prisons today... Why ??? Is it because they knew their policies and ideas helped to create the high population explosion in the prison systems over time ?????

In times past, way past, otherwise where it was virtually impossible not to find a job at any level of society, and yet a person decided to become or to be a criminal instead, then yes Ray your hardcore punishment was understandable back then, because there was no excuse for being a criminal back then.

However, when times changed, and the policies of greed and cold heartedness became more and more the norm, then the idea of who prisoners we're and how they were treated also changed..This is when new tactics were created that would attempt to fix a person who might have turned to crime because of desperate measures born out of an economy that had locked so many out as the pendulum swung. Time changes many things, and man himself changing throughout time can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing all depending.

When we look for correlations between our prison population and changes, we see that the liberal courts tried to create as comfortable of an environment in prison as possible. As this took place, we began locking up more and more people. We didn't do this for fun, we did it because less and less people became fearful of being in our prisons.

One of the major players in our prison population is drugs. A very small percentage of people are in there for using alone. Most of the violators are in there for drug related crimes, particularly selling.

Nobody has to sell drugs to survive. It's quick easy cash and a lot of it depending on what level you are on selling dope.

So we should teach these people a trade or some way to make a living once outside of prison?

It seems to me the way our country is going, we reward failure. Look at it this way: liberals are constantly complaining that we taxpayers don't fund trade programs or college. But if you break our laws, hurt people, fight with our police officers, we now will train you?

So we reward bad behavior. As for the people that don't break our laws, screw them. If they want to learn a trade, let them do it on their own time with their own money. We won't help good people, we will only help the bad people.

Two people get married and want to start a family. So they work hard, save money, and responsibly only have enough children they can afford. What do people on welfare do? They have as many kids as they desire. Why? Because they don't have to support them--we taxpayers do.

I hope you see where I'm getting with all this. I think we would be a much better country if we start rewarding good people and turn our backs on the bad. I have these Fn HUD people living next door to me. They keep me up all hours of the night because they don't have to work in the morning. I go to work every day so I can afford to live in the suburbs, and these lowlifes just run to government and they reward them with suburban living because........ maybe it will rub off and they will become better people?

It just doesn't work, and it's a slap in the face of honest, law abiding, taxpaying citizens.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

As you claim: Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

OK, So what do we do? Build more jails/prisons? Hire more guards/employees to man these prisons? Increase of govt is inevitable, with your ideals. Nothing you have proposed has decreased the scope of govt as you claim as your ideology. SMFH

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your theory holds no water. Welfare reform was signed in August of 1996 which means the program didn't even get into swing until around late 1997 to 1998. Our prison population was already increasing at rapid levels before anything with welfare reform happened:

View attachment 165296

OMG, I cited the 1990s because YOU brought them up. Now you want to change the parameters?

Look, dude, let's make this simple. If you're right, then your side controls the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They will pass the requisite bills and in the next election, Trump will be re-elected.

But, the reality is, whether you're talking Bush administrations, Clinton administrations, Obama or Trump, the situation has gotten worse and worse. I don't offer a theory. What I offer is a plan to see which position will increase the pay of American workers.

How did I change the parameters? I said welfare reform, and welfare reform passed in 1996.

First off, if you do not cite laws, cases, etc. to build your case on, you can't expect me to do your work for you.

In post # 1010 you state:

"You realize this was the exact same argument the left made after welfare reform was passed in the 90's..."

AFTER I covered the stats for the 90s, you then claim figures that didn't start until 1997 /1998. The government doesn't even to try and extrapolate from that any cause / effect for at least three years of study.

Cudos, you left yourself a lot of wiggle room to build a phony case.

You must have ADD or something. My claim was very clear and I can't see how anybody (but you perhaps) found it to be misleading. You were the one who tried to claim that after welfare reform, our prison population shot up. It was a false claim. The prison population started going up long before Welfare Reform. If anything, my chart shows how it began to decline in the early 2000's.

I don't need anybody (especially you) to do my work for me. I do quite well myself as you witnessed......even if you refuse to admit it.

That's the best you got? YOU talk about the 90s then move the bar toward the 2000s and because I didn't do your work for you, I have ADD???

You have almost as much as Uncensored going for you at this point.

No, I think you might have A.D.D. because you can't understand something so simple. I didn't move the bar anywhere. I said "if anything" the chart shows just the opposite of your claim looking into the early 2000's.

I mean, I write something that I think anybody can figure out, and you try to complicate it as much as you can.

 

[beagle9]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?


Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.

Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.

You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.

That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?

Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?

The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."

Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???

Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?

Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.

For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.

Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.

I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.

I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.

. They don't need to be hiring or consider hiring illegals as in your hire anyone they want to idea. Just Americans to be hired, and if the nation needs additional help brought in for undesirable jobs such as seasonable work and such, then make it legal to come here temporarily again, and then leave within that same year. No one over stays a temp visa, no one.

I can argue this issue one way or the other. You have to make up your mind whether you are on the right or the left of this issue (although both sides are unified here and both going toward a NEW WORLD ORDER.)

Either a job belongs to the employer OR it belongs to the people. When people say so - called "illegals" are stealing our (sic) jobs, they are inadvertently claiming that the jobs are owned by the people of the U.S.. If, indeed, the jobs are owned by society, you have socialism.

"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people..."

What Is Socialism?, socialist education, socialism online, socialist organization

I'M NOT TAKING SIDES ON THIS POINT

My critics are crying foul, but the right is the ones wanting to build a wall around America AND the genesis for the idea came not from conservatives, but from National Socialists and the theories were espoused first by Democrats. Don't get mad at me. I'm only telling you what is true. I'm only telling you what socialism is, according to the socialists themselves.

My critics can stomp their feet until Hell freezes over, but it will not change the facts. Neither will it make me a socialist. Dude, for real. I sometimes I advertise gigs on Craigslist. I need some landscape work done, a room painted, etc. I advertise. If you can do the work at the price I can pay, you got the job. The government, the people, nor anybody else is going to tell me who I can and cannot hire. I know what I can afford and when I need the job done. That's me. Every individual answers for himself.

. Not falling for it.... Illegals are illegals, and attempting to give them a job over Americans for the purpose of their dirt cheap labor is not acceptable. Now if Americans are saying as a collective that they should control the Jobs and outcome instead of the American company owners themselves (minus the illegal equation), then yes that is Americans engaging in socialism or worse in Communism etc..

 

[Humorme]

If Uncensored's posts cannot withstand scrutiny and honest questions, the ridiculousness is on him, not me.

So, we have laws against foreigners coming in here to take jobs when it is NOT required - NOR SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY for one to become a citizen in order to engage in the free market.

So then I assume you object to patents just as stringently as you object to borders and national sovereignty? After all, why should Chinese counterfeiters be blocked from the "free" market by something as simple as a patent?


Reference back to my prior posts, which you lacked the intellect to grasp.

Governments are formed among free men to secure natural rights. Among the most important right is that of property. Obviously you don't believe in private property. Intellectual property is protected by patents, national property is protected by borders.

You advocate that borders be ignored, that all may trespass on the property of others at will.

If you were to sit down with the average anti-immigrant before they were exposed to this thread and ask them what purpose the immigration laws serve, a primary reason would be to protect American jobs.

Borders protect the property rights of the legitimate inhabitants of a nation.

That you seek one world government is irrelevant to the need of a sovereign nation to secure the property rights of the citizens of that nation.

So, on the one hand we will engage the federal government to keep foreigners out on the pretext of protecting the American worker only, on the other hand, to make that same worker subservient to a much more powerful mega - corporation wherein the corporation has all the power and can keep the masses working for poverty wages. And some here find it unethical that I'm suggesting the corporations earn their tax breaks.

If your concern is the transfer of American wealth to Mexico, why not advocate for direct payments rather than this convoluted scheme to displace American workers with third world peasants who accept a vastly lower standard of living?

Unless of course your goal is to retard the standard of living for American workers?

The left often decries the collapse of unions and blames Republicans. But of course it was open borders that destroyed the unions, it was hordes of illegal aliens who accept a dramatically lower standard of living that broke the back of organized labor and began to push down the standard of living for Americans.

This is NOT about whether welfare is good or bad. The reality of our laws is that welfare IS. It exists. And, when employers don't pay employees a realistic wage, the government makes up the difference in welfare. Constitutionally, nobody has a specific right to welfare; however, when employers pay crap wages, welfare programs kick in and help those who don't make enough. The right denies WHO is on welfare; partly because they don't understand it; the left sees the haves as the enemies and somewhere between the extremes lies a solution that will incentivize employers to pay employees more money without being penalized. And you are NOT going to get most welfare outlawed.... Not even under Trump:


7 Lies About Welfare That Many People Believe Are Fact

There is right and wrong. Your desire to destroy the property rights of Americans, to force a significant decline in the standard of living for the once middle, but now under-class is a prime example of "wrong."

Now we're going to make this a pissing contest about what I said and did not say???

Now you're going to LIE about what I advocated and turn this into an immigration thread? You mean you are so insecure at this juncture that you want to misrepresent me to the point that you think that load of horseshit deserves a serious response?

Oh Hell yeah, you're the only defender of Liberty on this board. You are Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, and Nathan Hale bundled into one package.

For those of you who have actually READ this thread, I posited the fact that the right wants to put a wall around the United States under the pretext of government saving jobs from so - called "illegal aliens." It does NOT have me advocating one way or another on the issue. I'm pointing out that this is their pretext. Uncensored is creating multiple straw man arguments.

Truly, if someone were libertarian in their thought process, they would not object to an employer giving a job to whomever they think can work the job and do what the employer wants to get done at the price the employer can or be willing to pay. Uncensored pretends he's your knight on shining armor, but he is too ignorant to realize that a job belongs to the employer that creates it. So much for him being a champion of private property rights. A job belongs to an employer for the same reason that a song belongs to the songwriter that creates it.

I'm not saying any of you should like that or agree with it, but once you have gotten into the realm of telling an employer who they can and cannot hire, you've run out of legitimate reasons that you can't tell the employer how much they have to pay their employees.

I'm not advocating either position and Uncensored's lack of reading skills doth testify against him. I'm saying that if you give the employer the leeway, the employer gets to choose whether to retain the Right to hire whomever they want OR get substantial breaks to hire Americans and pay them a realistic wage. I think that such a system would reveal in a few years which position is really the most profitable.

. They don't need to be hiring or consider hiring illegals as in your hire anyone they want to idea. Just Americans to be hired, and if the nation needs additional help brought in for undesirable jobs such as seasonable work and such, then make it legal to come here temporarily again, and then leave within that same year. No one over stays a temp visa, no one.

I can argue this issue one way or the other. You have to make up your mind whether you are on the right or the left of this issue (although both sides are unified here and both going toward a NEW WORLD ORDER.)

Either a job belongs to the employer OR it belongs to the people. When people say so - called "illegals" are stealing our (sic) jobs, they are inadvertently claiming that the jobs are owned by the people of the U.S.. If, indeed, the jobs are owned by society, you have socialism.

"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people..."

What Is Socialism?, socialist education, socialism online, socialist organization

I'M NOT TAKING SIDES ON THIS POINT

My critics are crying foul, but the right is the ones wanting to build a wall around America AND the genesis for the idea came not from conservatives, but from National Socialists and the theories were espoused first by Democrats. Don't get mad at me. I'm only telling you what is true. I'm only telling you what socialism is, according to the socialists themselves.

My critics can stomp their feet until Hell freezes over, but it will not change the facts. Neither will it make me a socialist. Dude, for real. I sometimes I advertise gigs on Craigslist. I need some landscape work done, a room painted, etc. I advertise. If you can do the work at the price I can pay, you got the job. The government, the people, nor anybody else is going to tell me who I can and cannot hire. I know what I can afford and when I need the job done. That's me. Every individual answers for himself.

. Not falling for it.... Illegals are illegals, and attempting to give them a job over Americans for the purpose of their dirt cheap labor is not acceptable. Now if Americans are saying as a collective that they should control the Jobs and outcome instead of the American company owners themselves (minus the illegal equation), then yes that is Americans engaging in socialism or worse in Communism etc..

There is nothing to fall for. Either an employer creates the job he / she creates or they don't. If they own the job, they give it to whomever they damn well please.

We're going way off the reservation, but FWIW (and you may want to make a mental note of this):

The United States Constitution only gives Congress jurisdiction over immigrants with the following words:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Both the left as well as the right really believe that rights are granted by government and one must be a citizen in order to have rights and / or participate in the free market.

The fact is, until 1875 the issue of who could and could not work in the United States was left up to the states. Throughout the lives of all the founding fathers, this was a state issue. Then in the case of Chy Lung v Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted plenary power to the United States Supreme Court over immigration.

It should be noted that the Court had something of note to say here. According to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2007,1010-crs.pdf

So, for all those constitutional purists, this issue is put simply like this:

The current crop of "conservatives" wail about legislation from the bench while hiding behind a legal precedent that did exactly that. There is not one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant plenary powers to anybody. IF such an authority exists, somebody should cite it. The United States Supreme Court merely granted themselves a lot of powers not IN the Constitution.

Again, what I just told you is the legal community's way of teaching and explaining what happened - NOT MY OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Don't call me names or make judgments against me. IF the founding fathers intended the free market to be hindered by anti-immigration sentiments, they would have challenged the states while the founders were alive. Yet, we had millions of foreigners in the United States and they were working when they could not become citizens.

My point is, and I'm not siding with anybody here, if you argue a free market, then Liberty is not applicable to citizens only. Citizens have certain privileges and immunities, but by our Constitution, all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws (and my personal view is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.)

If we continue this conversation, it will be another thread.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Grampa murku probably believes these workers should work for a buck per hour.

It's just incomprehensible to you, the idea of people not having any desire to mandate the lives of others, isn't it? YOU want to run people's lives, and so you assume everyone wants that.

 

[Humorme]

Being on this thread is tantamount to being like a rodent on a treadmill. We keep making the same points over and the same usual suspects keep throwing up roadblocks, pretending that their arguments have not been asked and answered.

BEFORE a business can operate in the United States, they have to get a business license; they get incorporated (which gives them certain privileges.) In short, the business exists by permission and not by any "right." Of course, in reality, the courts have ruled differently.

Corporations can, in the eyes of the law, act as a person though we cannot hold corporations accountable as you would an individual. And, since the more affluent (those within corporations) are disproportionately represented in the legal / political system, the laws favor them and the spin they put on the issues.

While nobody has a right to welfare (you don't even have a right to get back the money you paid into Socialist Security) the powers that be have limited the ability of churches to help those in need. Furthermore, the people who are in control have changed the moral tone of this nation and have lowered the standards of the average American.

Nobody wants to be held accountable nor fix the root causes of the problems and corporations think they only exist to pad the pockets of their stockholders. Personally, I find it immoral, reprehensible, and indefensible for a corporation to not want to pay their employees for the work they do. But the corporations want our permission to do business and once they get the benefits, there is no room for an atmosphere of quid pro quo (something for something.) I'm not a leftist, socialist, communist or liberal. I see, having been the son of a single mother for many years of my life (my father having been a mercenary and then a felon in prison for many years of my life) what it's like to be trapped in a dead end job that does not offer one hope of being able to become self sufficient and independent.

As much as any person on this board, I know what it is like to be disadvantaged. In my early life I lived in a town so small that the school had grades one thru 6 in one room and grades 7- 12 in another. We ate lunch at our desks (and it was prepared by teachers and the older students.) We had outhouses and stoves that used coal to keep us warm in the winter.

Our house was a log home and we used mud as insulation during the winter. Welfare workers would bring us a couple of boxes every month with crackers, peanut butter, spam, vienna sausage, potted meat, and some canned goods.

When I went to work, I learned harsh lessons. I'm working long hours and even if I applied my entire check (after 50 hours a week) I could not obtain basic necessities living by myself. Yet my employers thought nothing of putting a $20 bill in the garter of a strip dancer, blowing more than I made in a month to buy a ticket to a football game or wasting more on a two week vacation than they paid me in a year.

More than anybody on this board, I know the lure of socialism. But, I was not and never have been jealous of the other guy's wealth. What I do realize is that IF employers paid their employees more money, a lot of them would not qualify for welfare. And, if they don't qualify for welfare, there are less bureaucrats costing you money to distribute money that could have been paid out by employers on the front end.

I don't want employers to be forced to have to pay any so - called minimum wage. For that matter nobody hardly ever pays minimum wage, but they try to pay poverty level wages and then saddle the rest of society with the balance. We are not going to have a real conversation here, but just so you know: both sides will have to give up something if they want a solution - and if you fail to do it, the government will continue to raise your taxes, take your Liberties, and keep the rest of the sheeple acting like rodents on a treadmill.

 

[Papageorgio]

Seems you have a problem with everybody misrepresenting you, so I"m in good company.

Prison is not a vocational school, prison is punishment.

And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.

Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There is nothing to fall for. Either an employer creates the job he / she creates or they don't. If they own the job, they give it to whomever they damn well please.

Nobody has stated differently, since labor laws are in place, they are limited to those legally allowed to work. If we were to go with your "free market" then employers could hire children as well, after all what good are laws/statutes/regulations in a free market.

We're going way off the reservation, but FWIW (and you may want to make a mental note of this):

The United States Constitution only gives Congress jurisdiction over immigrants with the following words:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

Both the left as well as the right really believe that rights are granted by government and one must be a citizen in order to have rights and / or participate in the free market.

The fact is, until 1875 the issue of who could and could not work in the United States was left up to the states. Throughout the lives of all the founding fathers, this was a state issue. Then in the case of Chy Lung v Freeman the United States Supreme Court granted plenary power to the United States Supreme Court over immigration.

It should be noted that the Court had something of note to say here. According to Wikipedia:

"The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

http://www.ilw.com/immigrationdaily/news/2007,1010-crs.pdf

Funny, no where in Chy Lung nor your wiki link does it say Plenary Powers were granted. The Chy Lung case denied the state the power to regulate immigrants due to the Foreign Relations Power of the US Govt according to the US Constitution.

Or if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the

Page 92 U. S. 280

injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, while it does not prohibit to the states the acts for which it is held responsible?

The Constitution of the United States is no such instrument. The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the states. It has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations; the responsibility for the character of those regulations and for the manner of their execution belongs solely to the national government. If it be otherwise, a single state can at her pleasure embroil us in disastrous quarrels with other nations.

So, for all those constitutional purists, this issue is put simply like this:

The current crop of "conservatives" wail about legislation from the bench while hiding behind a legal precedent that did exactly that. There is not one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant plenary powers to anybody. IF such an authority exists, somebody should cite it. The United States Supreme Court merely granted themselves a lot of powers not IN the Constitution.

I suggest you take a basic constitutional course to understand the basics of that very document. Your court case has no bearing on Plenary Powers, it was a Foreign Relations Power the Feds already had.

Again, what I just told you is the legal community's way of teaching and explaining what happened - NOT MY OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. Don't call me names or make judgments against me. IF the founding fathers intended the free market to be hindered by anti-immigration sentiments, they would have challenged the states while the founders were alive. Yet, we had millions of foreigners in the United States and they were working when they could not become citizens.

NO, what you just told us was your failed interpretation of the US Constitution, to include your failed claim of Chy Lung trying to claim the cover of "the legal community" which would smack you upside the back of your head for your claimed bull shit. The founders didn't intend a "free market". They believed in capitalistic ideals.

My point is, and I'm not siding with anybody here, if you argue a free market, then Liberty is not applicable to citizens only. Citizens have certain privileges and immunities, but by our Constitution, all persons are entitled to the equal protection of the laws (and my personal view is that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.)

If we continue this conversation, it will be another thread.

All persons are only entitled to the equal protection of the laws of the state they are in per the 14th.

Please explain what Liberties you have lost due to the 14A or from immigration laws.

 

[Humorme]

And rehabilitation doesn’t happen, it works for a few but the vast majority of the prison population isn’t wanting to rehab, they want to make sure they aren’t caught the next time.

Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

 

[Papageorgio]

Exactly. How does one rehab an extremely violent person or one who dedicated their life to drugs?

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

Rehab doesn't work, never has. What you will get is a bunch of cons who will work the system so they can get out and then go back to what they were doing and have a bigger network of friends that the met in prison.

 

[Humorme]

What kind of society sends that caliber of people back onto the streets after they are caught? Perhaps YOUR kind of society?

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

Rehab doesn't work, never has. What you will get is a bunch of cons who will work the system so they can get out and then go back to what they were doing and have a bigger network of friends that the met in prison.

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

 

[Papageorgio]

So what are we supposed to do with them?

Ray, I've answered this so many times for you that it is getting monotonous. Let's try this one more time, using a case that I'm familiar with:

Currently: Our prisons are so full that my wife has a son that was sent to prison for EIGHT years on a felony and, after FOUR plus years, he has not served more than six weeks in jail.

Under my proposal: He would have been sent to jail. There would be no early release of ANY kind without him applying himself.

So, on day one he enters prison. There he is met by someone who says:

"It's as simple as this. You've been found guilty of a crime. You can do eight years living in misery OR you can prove yourself and get out of here and live your life according to the rules of society.

You will work eight hours a day and you can sign up for GED classes. While taking GED classes you are required to begin removing tattos (beginning with prison tats, gang tats, etc.) Once you have a GED, you will be eligible for a two year reduction in your sentence. From there you will qualify to take training in some skill set that is in demand. You could qualify for another year - possibly two years toward early release, depending upon what jobs you will qualify for once you leave. Once you have those two things out of your way, you will be subject to drug / alcohol rehab classes (that you can take at any time) if applicable AND undergo a series of seminars for applying for a job, credit and getting an apartment / house, balancing a budget, setting priorities, maintaining a home, etc.

All said, you can leave in 28 to thirty months. OR you can stay the course.

While in prison, there is NO coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream, and you will have three hours of Internet / phone privileges / visitors per week to conduct any business you need.

Breaking any rule will result in a loss of that time.

Now, Ray, a guy goes to prison and gets a GED, alcohol / drug abuse counseling, training for the job he is going after upon release and has had seminars in basic life skills plus is bonded by the state so an employer doesn't lose money by hiring him. It's a win / win for everybody with no appreciable cost to taxpayers.

Those who choose to stay will, most likely keep returning. Add time for the recidivism upon a third prison stint and they will most likely die there after the third conviction since a third conviction would mean NO early release and a serve time of one year beyond their sentence.

So you are taking away coffee, tea, cigarettes, candy, cookies, sodas, cake, ice cream. Other than cigarettes it sounds like grade school. Again, school is already available the sad fact is the percentage of them changing is slim to none. You can’t force someone to do something against their will, they have to want it. Bribing them to change behavior has never been successful.

Bribing them? I'm not bribing anyone. I'd remove the luxuries of life and allow them to be exactly where they want to be without access to the things we enjoy in life.

Prison time should be for short stints and then to punish people while allowing them to get their excrement together and go back to society, make restitution, and rejoin society.

If they choose to stay in prison, there should not be one, single, solitary thing that is enjoyable about it.

You pretend like everybody goes to prison and that's how they planned their life. But, prisons are where we banish the emotionally disadvantaged, those suffering mental retardation, and those who were brought up by people imparting values foreign to what you feel are normal.

Sometimes people are raised where the most abnormal things you can imagine are considered normal. If they don't adjust to your values, you want to punish them and then turn them back into society with them still unprepared to live what you think is a normal life.

You have to remember I grew up in such an environment. My father had a low regard for life and when he was around, he would beat my mother. The only advantage I had over my siblings and cousins is that when the old man was in the hoosegow, my mother got sick (they thought it was TB at the time) and the cops found out that I was taking care of my siblings alone at the ripe old age of 11. We ended up in a neighbor's house and I got my first taste of normal. That didn't last but for a few months, but it was enough for me to prefer it over what I had been brought up in.

Other people tell me how "lucky" I am, but I wonder if it had not been for the right circumstances I'd be like the people I grew up around: drunks, drug addicts, cigarette smokers, law-breakers, the heathen. If somebody had not shown me a better lifestyle and got through that I too could have it if I sacrificed, applied myself and worked hard, this might be an entirely different conversation.

The bottom line is, you are not going to fix all of America's problems with low wage jobs and punishment. If that's all you got, this country is pretty well screwed.

Rehab doesn't work, never has. What you will get is a bunch of cons who will work the system so they can get out and then go back to what they were doing and have a bigger network of friends that the met in prison.

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

You can get a degree or certifications from prison as it now stands. It's not required they go however if they are not motivated to learn, they won't. If they want to get out early then they will do what they need to, to get released but no guarantee they will go straight after they are released. It's a start however, I am not confident that the motivation to change will be there. You can work a day as a welder make $280 or you can make a five minute drug deal and make $2000 and then go home and smoke weed for the rest of the day.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Again, the program I'm discussing has never been tried. We are just now beginning to implement it here:

Georgia opens first prison charter school

Education at heart of Georgia’s next wave of change in criminal justice

Your own link says it has been tried in other states:

Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which studies criminal justice, said Georgia is among only a handful of states that have launched charter schools in state prisons. He called them one of the most effective ways to reduce recidivism.

Doesn't look like the inmates are the ones teaching either:

His spending plan includes funding to hire 48 more staffers for prison classrooms, create a statewide GED fast-track program and add more learning centers in prison, and bolster the diesel-mechanic and welding vocational programs.

and

Deal and state lawmakers set aside more than $12 million this year to hire instructors and jump-start the prison charter program, known as the Foothills Charter High School. It will likely require substantial new funding to expand it throughout the state.

This paragraph says the program has been going on for years:

Inmates in Georgia prisons have long been eligible to take GED coursework and vocational training programs for skills such as electrical work and culinary arts. But the charter school program gives them a first chance at earning a full-fledged high school diploma from behind bars.

So the only difference is they can now obtain an actual diploma verse a GED.