Violent crimes on the rise, Bush will stop it ;)

Discussion in 'In the News' started by tace, Sep 24, 2007.

  1. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    Here is an article about how violent crimes are on the rise. For those of you who remember, many of the thousands of LEOs Clinton funded are now in Iraq. In response to these, "The Bush administration has pledged to spend $50 million this year to combat gangs and guns, and is pushing Congress for new laws to let the federal government better investigate and prosecute violent crime."

    Let's see at 15000+ police agencies in US, that's little over $3300, per agency. That should go a long way towards stopping violent crime, right? NOT!

    That's less than the cost of replacing one plane that gets worn out in Iraq operations.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/crime;_ylt=AhAc24L8yaJsvQyOKEVvBJ2s0NUE
     
  2. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    That is $50 million too much. The feds have no constitutional authority to fund local cops. To argue the increase in the crime rate is due to all the Clinton funded LEOs being in Iraq is no different than claiming it is rising due to the sunset of the AWB.
     

  3. wsweeks2

    wsweeks2 New Member

    6,306
    0
    0
    Has anyone ever looked at what Bill Clinton actually accomplished by adding an alleged 100,000 police officers nationwide? There are 50 states as well as DC, which would mean that if the funds were dispersed equally from state to state, each state and DC would have received 2,000 officers. If the funds were dispersed equally among the 15,000+ agencies, each agencie would have received 6.6 officers on average.

    If we take Georgia for example, there are 159 counties, which would give each county an additional 12.5 officers per county. Since I live in Gwinnett, I will use that as an example. Take those 13 officers just to go with a best case scenario and that means that of Gwinnett's 5 districts, each one gets an additional 2.6 officers. Once again, if we go high and say that each district gets an additional 3 officers and these officers are assigned to shift work, let's put one officer on day work, one on evening, and one on midnight shift. That would mean that in any given 8 hour period, Gwinnett's Northern District would have 9 officers instead of 8 on the street. Is this really going to impact crime? Considering that Gwinnett has approximately 750,000 residents (that we know of) and a sworn force of approximately 700 officers, you do the math.

    Another way we can look at it is by agency as opposed to by state. There are an estimated 15,000+ agencies nationwide to use Tace's estimates - that would mean that each agency received an additional 6.6 officers. I'll use that in the same context as before for Gwinnett. If they receive an additional 7 officers to be on the high side, that would mean 3 districts received one additional officer, and 2 districts received 2 additional officers. Three of the districts would have one person added to their busiest shift, and the 2 districts that got 2 additional officers would have an extra officer on their 2 busiest shifts.

    Now, explain to me how if what you are saying is true - that if the officers in Iraq were the ones funded by Clinton, how has that suddenly allowed crime to run rampant in their absence?

    *Edit* - If you add in municipal jurisdictions in GA alone such as Duluth, Suwanee, Lawrenceville, Snellville, Roswell, Milton, Alpharetta, Atlanta, etc. that cuts the number of officers each agency may have received. This also doesn't factor in Marta police and any other special type agency similar to that or even GBI.
     
  4. tace

    tace New Member

    1,981
    0
    0
    Yes, I know, it is totally illogical to think that 1 more LEO in the streets at all times of day in every police jurisdiction wouldn't decrease crime the least, but $3300 would.

    :twisted:
     
  5. fallison

    fallison Guest

    895
    0
    0
    No it is illogical to think that Washington taking our tax dollars, use 95% to pay the bureaucrats, and sending 5% back to the states to hire more LEOs will decrease crime, whether done by Clinton or Bush.

    (PS: Percentages completely made up but probably closer to the truth than any of us care to admit)