|
Post by johng on Jun 30, 2009 16:47:39 GMT -5
Like wrestling a pig in the mud...after awhile you realize the pig is enjoying it!
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 30, 2009 20:30:43 GMT -5
Hatch- I think you must be agreeing with me. The perception is that republicans are tougher on crime.Hell no, I'm not agreeing with you! You need to loosen those sutures in your cranium and give your brains some room to romp around. OK. I agree with where you are coming from about "republicans are tougher on crime". The twenty year stats don't bear that out. But, neither does the claim that it went down under Clinton and up under Bush. There were slight reductions of various crimes under Bush. Rather than rehash, I will PM you a file I downloaded from either the FBI or DOJ, if I can attach the file. If not, I will locate the links. They have to be on one of these computers. If I can send the file, look under the US Crime Index tab. I highlighted the periods of the two administrations. Yellow is Clinton and pink is Bush's. Of particular interest are the columns titled "Violent", "Murder" and "Rape". What is also interesting is the stats for the years under G.H.W. Bush and Reagan. Not good for Republicans. All in all, Bush didn't do badly. He not only had reductions per capita, he also had reductions in total. So did Clinton. Hatch, I appreciate you sending me the file. It supports what I am saying. If you put it into Excel and look at the rate of change you see a couple of things. Violent crime trended upwards from 1980 to 1992. They went down from 1992 to 2002 and they have gone up and down since then (they went up in 2007). Do you see the pattern? Murder trends up from 1984 to 1992 and then goes down from 1992 to 2000 and then basically remains flat. I think we kind of see a pattern here too. That same patterns holds fairly consistent for the other categories as well. I think the economy was better under Clinton, but crime actually went up during Reagan's recovery period. If you turned each category into a line graph showing crime rate over time and superimposed who the president was you will see that the data makes my point. If you fit a line to the data it would be even more obvious. Thank you for the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jun 30, 2009 20:36:33 GMT -5
I think that means most of the hoodlums are Democrats and are happiest when the welfare increases and not so happy when its not? No that doesn't work cause now you'll tell me Clinton reduced the welfare rolls???
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 30, 2009 20:48:46 GMT -5
I think crime has more to do with demographics, when the Boomers were younger they did more crimes, then they aged and are doing less, and Gen X never did as many crimes for whatever reason. I don't think you will find any direct corollation between the economy and crime.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Jun 30, 2009 22:03:49 GMT -5
Someone once told me that all problems are local. Clinton's community based initiatives appeared to have been successful. Certainly the good economy helped. I guess he might have had something to do with that. Sadly Clinton derangement syndrome requires that we can only attach blame to the Clinton legacy.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Jul 1, 2009 14:37:56 GMT -5
Someone once told me that all problems are local. Clinton's community based initiatives appeared to have been successful. Certainly the good economy helped. I guess he might have had something to do with that. Sadly Clinton derangement syndrome requires that we can only attach blame to the Clinton legacy. Larry, I know that you know by now that I am often just a smartass and in reality I did not have much issue with Clinton - GOREY on the other hand has been in my cross hairs (figuratively) since day one. Much the same way and reason that Quayle and Biden get to me.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Jul 2, 2009 18:04:20 GMT -5
Larry, this is from the numbers I gave you. My intention was to shed light on facts, not to debate who was a bigger crime fighter, Clinton vs Bush. To blame Clinton for crime is nonsense. To blame Bush for it is even more so. Policies change based on what's happening. Economy has something to do with it, I am sure.
United States Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants
Year Violent Property Murder Rape(1) Assault(2) Burglary Theft.....Theft(3) 1993 746.8....4,737.7 9.5.....41.1......440.3.......1,099.2...3,032.4..606.1 1994 713.6....4,660.0 9.0.....39.3......427.6.......1,042.0...3,026.7..591.3 1995 684.5....4,591.3 8.2.....37.1......418.3.......987.1......3,043.6..560.4 1996 636.6....4,451.0 7.4.....36.3......390.9.......945.0......2,980.3..525.7 1997 611.0....4,316.3 6.8.....35.9......382.1.......919.6......2,891.8..505.7 1998 566.4....4,049.1 6.3.....34.4......360.5.......862.0......2,728.1..459.0 1999 523.......3,743.6 5.7.....32.8......334.3.......770.4......2,550.7..422.5 2000 506.5....3,618.3 5.5.....32.0......324.0.......728.8......2,477.3..412.2 2001 504.5....3,658.1 5.6.....31.8......318.6.......741.8......2,485.7..430.5 2002 494.4....3,630.6 5.6.....33.1......309.5.......747.0......2,450.7..432.9 2003 475.8....3,591.2 5.7.....32.3......295.4.......741.0......2,416.5..433.7 2004 463.2....3,514.1 5.5.....32.4......288.6.......730.3......2,362.3..421.5 2005 469.0....3,431.5 5.6.....31.8......290.8.......726.9......2,287.8..416.8 2006 473.5....3,334.5 5.7.....30.9......287.5.......729.4......2,206.8..398.4
(1) Forcible (2) Aggravated (3) Vehicle
There is a space between property crime and murder. Sorry that it is hard to read.
If you study the trends, Clinton had a greater change in the amount of crime, however large or small one wants to make it. It is plain that crime reduced under Bush, as well, just not to the same degree. It could be said that crime may not go below certain levels. I read something about that at the FBI site. I don't recall the reasons.
However, during the periods reported, the Clinton era had much more crime per 100,000 inhabitants than under Bush. A reduction from a large number is commendable. But, as far as people's lives, property and personal safety is all that really matters.
In 1993, the population (inhabitants) was 257,908. In 2006, it was 299,398,484. That was a 16% increase over that period of time. The decrease in crime over that entire period was remarkable.
But, just looking at Violent Crimes, Property, Murder and Rape averaged for the reported periods from each administration from the data above:
Violent: Clinton +30% Property: Clinton +21% Murder: Clinton +30% Rape: Clinton +13% Robbery: Clinton +36% Assault: Clinton +29% Burglary: Clinton +25% Theft: Clinton +20% Auto Theft: Clinton +21
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 1, 2010 0:07:49 GMT -5
I'm diverting the Korea problem to this thread for a moment, just for some perspective on America's role in the Korea peninsula. I suppose, since it's pretty much been decided by most of the world that we have to be the enforcement arm of the world community, (think about how Riyahd is begging us to bomb Iran) that war in Korea would be our war. And the world doesn't even think it has to pay us for our services. (I still wonder why we had to do the Iraqi's dirty work for them and eliminate Saddam. Damn chickensh*ts) How much is it going to cost? Are we just going to bomb the sh*t out of them, or will we have to invade? How can we protect Seoul? We can't nuke, even if we were that bloodthirsty. The South Koreans would freak, not to mention when the fallout cloud hits China or Japan. Our options seem rather limited...it's tough being the world's policeman. Remind me why we volunteered, I keep forgetting.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 3, 2010 5:19:51 GMT -5
www.economist.com/node/17629709How will a rising China affect America's role as World Policeman? That is, if anyone still wants to debate anything in here. Maybe a San Diego Scene version of Political Correctness is all people really want.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Dec 3, 2010 18:54:28 GMT -5
www.economist.com/node/17629709How will a rising China affect America's role as World Policeman? That is, if anyone still wants to debate anything in here. Maybe a San Diego Scene version of Political Correctness is all people really want. Good question, JD. I don't think I have the answer, but, I am watching closely. I have a lot of trepidations about China's motives, but, they cover for themselves so well.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 3, 2010 21:41:17 GMT -5
I have a couple of observations:
1) We fought a four-year war with Japan for control of the Pacific. After winning, it became "Our pond".
2) Because it was "our pond", first we fought in Korea to keep it from becoming unified and succeeded. Ten years later we fought to keep Vietnam separated and lost.
3) Now China, who before the arrival of the Europeans and the rise of Japan was the big power in the Western Pacific, is starting to reclaim it's influence in "our pond".
4) So what should our response be? Should we fight them for control, or let them have their share? It's a test of the basic motives that drive us.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Dec 3, 2010 21:59:12 GMT -5
I don’t mean to butt in I’ll just offer my simple view. China can do what the hell they please, if they are doing something the US opposes we tell’em. If they don’t listen, we tell’em again and tell’em why it’s important to the US. If we can’t come to terms after that: We bomb the shit out of’em and take the pond back, otherwise we stick our tail in the air and say, “have at it.” I avoid latter’s.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 3, 2010 22:25:08 GMT -5
Oh, I forget an observation:
5) We have been committed to preventing Mainland China from unifying with Taiwan for 60 years. This could be the basis for a confrontation. Is it really in our interest to keep Taiwan independent?
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 3, 2010 22:35:25 GMT -5
Oh, I forget an observation: 5) We have been committed to preventing Mainland China from unifying with Taiwan for 60 years. This could be the basis for a confrontation. Is it really in our interest to keep Taiwan independent? It is in the WORLD's best interest to keep Taiwan independent.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Dec 3, 2010 22:37:16 GMT -5
Oh, I forget an observation: 5) We have been committed to preventing Mainland China from unifying with Taiwan for 60 years. This could be the basis for a confrontation. Is it really in our interest to keep Taiwan independent? In the long run it will not hurt the US if China shallows Taiwan. If one would say, “Taiwan is a free nation,” then I would not be one to see a lesser nations destroyed by a more powerful nation. If China is to make a move it would be now, the US has a very weak man at the helm so the world better get while the getting is good because I think the getting is about over.
|
|