His Excellency Aethien wrote:
So people thought too much money is being spent on the Military = no reason.
People thinking too much money is being spent on prisoners = reason.
And your argument to just spend less is a good way to reduce the amount of money being spent.
******.
Edited, Jun 7th 2012 11:56am by Aethien
And you people have the audacity to call me dense.
I really don't know how else to break it down further. You thinking that something is being over paid is NOT a reason, it's a stance.
You: "Hey boss, I think I need a raise".
Boss: "Why do you think that you deserve a raise?"
You: "Because I think so"
BOss: "Since you put it that way, of course!"
I'm sorry to burst your illusory fantasy, but that's not a reason; however, stating the effects on why or why not is a reason.
You: "Hey boss, I think I need a raise"
Boss: "Why do you think that you deserve a raise?"
You: "Well, I've been responsible for 37% of all sales which is twice the number of sales as any other employee. Furthermore, I've been working a plan that is promising of a 10% overall sale increase for the company."
That's a reason. The trigger for this thread to reduce money was the necessity to release criminals early.
It's really not that difficult.
TLW wrote:
Yeah, you guys keep arguing because you think somehow you can rationalize things to him.
He's just dumb. It's hard to accept, but it's true.
He's just dumb.
Ironically, those are my sentiments exactly with many on this thread. Somewhere deep down, I think that someone would grasp simplicity. Yet, only on this forum do I face constant disappointment.
Gbaji wrote:
The issue of whether or not someone has a legitimate reason to think that we're spending too much on something is completely separate from a discussion of the proposed reaction to said thing. I'm reasonably sure that Alma would be equally opposed to reducing military spending by cutting the total number of people in the military by X% as he would to reduce prison spending by reducing the total prison population by X%. You're conflating the "why" with the "how".
The question at hand is whether letting convicted felons get out of prison early purely because it costs too much to imprison them is a good idea. It is absolutely correct to examine why costs are so high before making such a decision. Wouldn't you agree? If we can save X% of money by making some changes other than letting prisoners go, that would seem to be a much better solution. I don't see anything wrong with questioning where money could be saved in this case, and it's absolutely different than questioning whether the costs are too high in the first place. Again, those are two different parts of the puzzle. If we decide that we're spending too much *then* we should look at how to reduce costs. Nothing strange about that at all.
Exactly.
I would support doubling the amount of money spent per prisoner if it deems efficient. I don't care. I just don't want prisoners out early because we spent money on televisions and weights.
It's a good idea. Also, perhaps prisons could double as slaughterhouses. 
