By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Gitmo costs U.S. $2.7 million per prisoner- We can waste money on whatever we Want!

Kasz216 on 04 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
I never knew terrorists were better off than actual hard working civilians. Certainly a great reason to shut down Guantanamo, even though there were many reasons to close it anyway.

I'm sure America would be a far better place if it ended it's $700 billion military budget. A lot of domestic areas of spending have been ignored for far too long.

Where do you get that from this?


They aren't better off... it's just expensive as fuck to run an out of the coutnry maxium dentention center for terrorists.

 

There are ~160 prisoenors there.

For those 160 prisoners they have 2,000 employees from  guards, interegators, cooks, janitors, doctors, pscyiatrists not to mention the higher ups... and since these guys are military you can't just include their military salaries and healthcare but also have to include their various benefits.

Then you throw in the fact that the soldiers eat for free, have paid entertainment, housing costs, utilities.

 

Basically these guards get paid a full salary, free healthcare, free living arrangements, free food, free entertainment... etc.

Throw in stuff like....

•  $14.1 million for prisoner review boards for the 71 captives at Guantánamo who are currently not cleared for release, convicted of crimes or awaiting trial;

•  $40 million, already appropriated by Congress for a not-yet-built fiber-optic cable linking the base to Florida;

•  $56.9 million for contractors, including intelligence analysts, librarians and linguists;

•  $65.9 million to the Navy base, which functions as a landlord to the detention center zone, and charges for use of its facilities, including prison staff housing;

•  $116 million for the base’s war court complex, including security, translation and computer services as well as charter fights between Washington and Guantánamo.

It adds up fast.

They get $2.3 million spent on them per person per year, no ordinary person has that much spent on them. Even if that money is spent on torturing them. But to me Guantanamo just shows how spineless Bush was. He knew he wouldn't get away with it in America, so he forces a country like Cuba against it's will to house it. 

Also, i don't see how all that spending is worth it just to keep 160 terrorists locked up. It has made no difference to these terrorist organisations anyway, they can always recruit more. And i know they are military but why do they deserve all that? Healthcare and food is a given, but everything else shouldn't be free. They get paid, don't they? 

I think for the small amount of people involved, it's just not worth it to be honest. All that money could be helpful somewhere else, that could be enough to give universal health insurance to the public, regardless of whether they are employed or not. 


Did I say it was worth it?  I was simply taking offense at saying they have it better off then a regular american because it takes a hell of a lot of money to keep them in place to torture them.

Which likely does still happen since gitmo isn't really "American" soil.

 

So much easier and cost effective to send them to Eastern Europeon Nations for torture if that's what they want to do.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 04 August 2013
Zkuq said:
I have a simple solution: throw everyone against whom there is enough evidence to a regular prison, let everyone else out. That's what you do it what everyone else, and that's what's typically called 'justice' in the West: innocent until proven otherwise.


Too much public disapporval for that plan.  For some reasons most Americans don't want the terrorists on American soil.  Guess they fear is they'll break out and guy on some terrorist spree that only a combination of Nick Cage and John McClaine could stop.



Kasz216 on 04 August 2013
ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:
tres said:
 


and in america we have more prisoners than the entire world combine because its a for profit business

First off.  Recorded number of prisoners.  I'd guess you'd find a number of countries have us beat by them selves in actuality.  Eaisest example is China who's numbers don't count reducation slave camps, political prisoners, and many other types of people locked up for "administrative" reasons.

The Slave camps alone almost match the US prison population.

Do you have a source for that? A quick google search pointed me to an Amnesty International report, which mentioned a number of 260.000 people in such camps, but that is just about 1/10th the number of prisoners in the USA. The report also mentions political prisoners, saying that the absence of data makes it hard to say how many there are, but they estimate a few thousand.

The information I could find did not point to China actually having more prisoners than the USA (despite China having five times as many citizens and a badass human rights image).


http://laogai.org/system/files/lrf_laogai_factsheet.pdf



Kasz216 on 04 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
the2real4mafol said:

If i was running America i would cut the military budget down to $100 billion but i would cut it gradually over the years. I would close most or all foreign US military bases, cut the nuclear arsenal by half (which is still 4,000 odd nukes) at least, i would stop use of drones out there completely. Just generally take every step to stop America from being world police, the way it was in world politics up until 1914. Powerful but not interfering. For some reason, America still spends on military like it's the cold war still. But, with such a high ownership of guns, why does America need an army?

Let's face it, todays understanding of military defense has nothing to do with the classical understanding of defending the actual territory of the country, against offensive military troops trying to cross the borders and take over control of the territory. Todays "defense" is more about protecting our own economic well-being now and in the near future, access and control of critical natural resources in other countries etc. As a comedian over here likes to say: "For us christians it's hard to understand why god buried our precious oil right under the crazy muslims feet." ;)

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just coopearate? 

Also, our American and European governments need to understand, we are in decline. There's nothing to stop our decline, especially with the ever lasting recession being a massive advantage to Asia. The sooner, we get over our own arrogance, we might see peace hopefully. It's not really worth fighting over resources that will run out when we have the technology around for solutions which are ignorantly ignored currently. 


I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up with economic news lately.

Sure the US and Europe are doing pretty crappy... but China is back in full out recession... and considering it's generally accepted that China has been cooking the books to some level up till now... it's REALLY bothersome.

Only country in Asia that's shining right now is Japan... and Japan's long term structual problems seem to be an issue.

Now Brazil.   Brazil is where i'd be looking for the next big thing.  Espiecally if they liberalize their ridiculious tariff and trade laws.



the2real4mafol on 05 August 2013
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
the2real4mafol said:

If i was running America i would cut the military budget down to $100 billion but i would cut it gradually over the years. I would close most or all foreign US military bases, cut the nuclear arsenal by half (which is still 4,000 odd nukes) at least, i would stop use of drones out there completely. Just generally take every step to stop America from being world police, the way it was in world politics up until 1914. Powerful but not interfering. For some reason, America still spends on military like it's the cold war still. But, with such a high ownership of guns, why does America need an army?

Let's face it, todays understanding of military defense has nothing to do with the classical understanding of defending the actual territory of the country, against offensive military troops trying to cross the borders and take over control of the territory. Todays "defense" is more about protecting our own economic well-being now and in the near future, access and control of critical natural resources in other countries etc. As a comedian over here likes to say: "For us christians it's hard to understand why god buried our precious oil right under the crazy muslims feet." ;)

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just coopearate? 

Also, our American and European governments need to understand, we are in decline. There's nothing to stop our decline, especially with the ever lasting recession being a massive advantage to Asia. The sooner, we get over our own arrogance, we might see peace hopefully. It's not really worth fighting over resources that will run out when we have the technology around for solutions which are ignorantly ignored currently. 


I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up with economic news lately.

Sure the US and Europe are doing pretty crappy... but China is back in full out recession... and considering it's generally accepted that China has been cooking the books to some level up till now... it's REALLY bothersome.

Only country in Asia that's shining right now is Japan... and Japan's long term structual problems seem to be an issue.

Now Brazil.   Brazil is where i'd be looking for the next big thing.  Espiecally if they liberalize their ridiculious tariff and trade laws.

How is China in recession? It's growing at 7% currently. It's still among the fastest growing economies. So what if it ain't growing at 10%+ per year, it's hard to maintain that sort of growth. And i wouldn't say Japan is safe yet, it's still early for abe and there debt is a huge problem. I don't know much about Brazil but i though India was doing ok along with most countries in South East Asia. 

And if our economies are fucked then so be it. Maybe, it's time to change the economic model and abandon neo-liberalism. The idea of limitless growth is crazy anyway. Growth has to stop somewhere due to a range of factors like population and amount of resources. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 05 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
the2real4mafol said:

If i was running America i would cut the military budget down to $100 billion but i would cut it gradually over the years. I would close most or all foreign US military bases, cut the nuclear arsenal by half (which is still 4,000 odd nukes) at least, i would stop use of drones out there completely. Just generally take every step to stop America from being world police, the way it was in world politics up until 1914. Powerful but not interfering. For some reason, America still spends on military like it's the cold war still. But, with such a high ownership of guns, why does America need an army?

Let's face it, todays understanding of military defense has nothing to do with the classical understanding of defending the actual territory of the country, against offensive military troops trying to cross the borders and take over control of the territory. Todays "defense" is more about protecting our own economic well-being now and in the near future, access and control of critical natural resources in other countries etc. As a comedian over here likes to say: "For us christians it's hard to understand why god buried our precious oil right under the crazy muslims feet." ;)

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to just coopearate? 

Also, our American and European governments need to understand, we are in decline. There's nothing to stop our decline, especially with the ever lasting recession being a massive advantage to Asia. The sooner, we get over our own arrogance, we might see peace hopefully. It's not really worth fighting over resources that will run out when we have the technology around for solutions which are ignorantly ignored currently. 


I'm guessing you haven't been keeping up with economic news lately.

Sure the US and Europe are doing pretty crappy... but China is back in full out recession... and considering it's generally accepted that China has been cooking the books to some level up till now... it's REALLY bothersome.

Only country in Asia that's shining right now is Japan... and Japan's long term structual problems seem to be an issue.

Now Brazil.   Brazil is where i'd be looking for the next big thing.  Espiecally if they liberalize their ridiculious tariff and trade laws.

How is China in recession? It's growing at 7% currently. It's still among the fastest growing economies. So what if it ain't growing at 10%+ per year, it's hard to maintain that sort of growth. And i wouldn't say Japan is safe yet, it's still early for abe and there debt is a huge problem. I don't know much about Brazil but i though India was doing ok along with most countries in South East Asia. 

And if our economies are fucked then so be it. Maybe, it's time to change the economic model and abandon neo-liberalism. The idea of limitless growth is crazy anyway. Growth has to stop somewhere due to a range of factors like population and amount of resources. 

A) China wasn't actually growing at 7%.  Current projections are 5% and overestimated by the rigged numbers

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/07/15/china-back-in-recession-us-economy-sluggish-n1640647

In general, the chinese economy is a regular sized man in an oversized coat.  With GDP numbers picked by the government to look good and regional data made up by the local polticians to get promotions.  The GDP number is more a propaganda tool then reality.

http://world.time.com/2013/08/05/how-a-beige-book-could-shed-light-on-chinas-shadow-economy/

 

B)   You'd have to use a neolieralism model before you could abandon it.  The current problems are do to a lack of such uses.

 

C)   Limitless growth isn't a crazy idea if you generally know how the economy works.   Not all economic value is tied to physical goods.   I'd expect that much to be obvious to somebody on a videogaming website.    Not to mention just innovation and optimization creates wealth.

There should and will be pullbacks, but there is no reason to expect that we will ever be in a very long term or permanent stop to growth....

unless governments fuck it up too badly



the2real4mafol on 05 August 2013
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:

How is China in recession? It's growing at 7% currently. It's still among the fastest growing economies. So what if it ain't growing at 10%+ per year, it's hard to maintain that sort of growth. And i wouldn't say Japan is safe yet, it's still early for abe and there debt is a huge problem. I don't know much about Brazil but i though India was doing ok along with most countries in South East Asia. 

And if our economies are fucked then so be it. Maybe, it's time to change the economic model and abandon neo-liberalism. The idea of limitless growth is crazy anyway. Growth has to stop somewhere due to a range of factors like population and amount of resources. 

A) China wasn't actually growing at 7%.  Current projections are 5% and overestimated by the rigged numbers

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2013/07/15/china-back-in-recession-us-economy-sluggish-n1640647

In general, the chinese economy is a regular sized man in an oversized coat.  With GDP numbers picked by the government to look good and regional data made up by the local polticians to get promotions.  The GDP number is more a propaganda tool then reality.

http://world.time.com/2013/08/05/how-a-beige-book-could-shed-light-on-chinas-shadow-economy/

 

B)   You'd have to use a neolieralism model before you could abandon it.  The current problems are do to a lack of such uses.

 

C)   Limitless growth isn't a crazy idea if you generally know how the economy works.   Not all economic value is tied to physical goods.   I'd expect that much to be obvious to somebody on a videogaming website.    Not to mention just innovation and optimization creates wealth.

There should and will be pullbacks, but there is no reason to expect that we will ever be in a very long term or permanent stop to growth....

unless governments fuck it up too badly

A. It actually wouldn't suprise me if the China's growth figures was fake despite the massive expansion their economy has seen over the past 30 years. They are building far more than is currently needed and as a result a load of "ghost towns" has spawned in China as there is a lack of demand for them. ~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDeS_mXMnM

At first it grows the economy but eventually damages the economy as this empty cities are like dead weight. But I'm not sure if this is better than allowing slums to build up. At least slums do something for a economy unlike a empty city. 

Another thing that puts their growth in doubt is the wide grip of corruption. A lot of the time it stops things from developing. 

B. If we ain't in a neo-liberal system now then what are we? The economy is no longer mixed like it used to be (at least in my country we used to have a mixed economy anyway)

C. I don't see how growth could be truly limitless, something will hold it back. Like the aging population will reduce demand probably. If we want to grow, we can't really grow materially much more because resources are starting to run out. Not like mass consumerism is a good thing anyway. Relying on a small elite of TNC's to create jobs most of the time isn't great . And also in certain government acts like Bailouts which i think do nothing good for the economy. Strong regulation or Unions to protect workers is necessary but i'm not sure if trying to save a failing business or bank is a good idea. It's like trying to keep the titanic afloat despite having a hole in it and something else will replace it in the end. 



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

Kasz216 on 06 August 2013
the2real4mafol said:
Kasz216 said:

A. It actually wouldn't suprise me if the China's growth figures was fake despite the massive expansion their economy has seen over the past 30 years. They are building far more than is currently needed and as a result a load of "ghost towns" has spawned in China as there is a lack of demand for them. ~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbDeS_mXMnM

At first it grows the economy but eventually damages the economy as this empty cities are like dead weight. But I'm not sure if this is better than allowing slums to build up. At least slums do something for a economy unlike a empty city. 

Another thing that puts their growth in doubt is the wide grip of corruption. A lot of the time it stops things from developing. 

B. If we ain't in a neo-liberal system now then what are we? The economy is no longer mixed like it used to be (at least in my country we used to have a mixed economy anyway)

C. I don't see how growth could be truly limitless, something will hold it back. Like the aging population will reduce demand probably. If we want to grow, we can't really grow materially much more because resources are starting to run out. Not like mass consumerism is a good thing anyway. Relying on a small elite of TNC's to create jobs most of the time isn't great . And also in certain government acts like Bailouts which i think do nothing good for the economy. Strong regulation or Unions to protect workers is necessary but i'm not sure if trying to save a failing business or bank is a good idea. It's like trying to keep the titanic afloat despite having a hole in it and something else will replace it in the end. 


B)  The world economy is still full of protectionism and regional trade 

 

C) Virtual goods don't require anything etc.  All that's needed for economic expansion to contine is to believe that humans will continue to progress foward in technoogy, innovation and production of virtual products.