TxHoops

In the early to mid 90ks, the average cost of a death penalty case to the taxpayers was between $2M to $2.5M. The average cost to imprison someone in a maximum security, single cell was around $20k a year.

Google is your friend. In addition to the link I posted in this thread, there exists overwhelming data on the "costs" issue. My work was done under Professor Jordan Steiker at UT. If it was a BS moment, I wasted months of my life on research. Your son's employment at the Stiles Unit notwithstanding.

To be sure, he has not demonstrated the ability to bring the parties together that Reagan and Clinton had. I had hopes when his administration started that he would. Instead, he has had a more divisive effect, much as his immediate predecessor had. With President Obama, I believe he exhausted his political capital with the Health Care act. That will be his legacy. While I believed, and still believe, health care is in need of reform in this country, I was not especially pleased with the product congress came up with. As far as its lasting effect, it is too early to tell.

Pretty sure one of you racist Obama haters changed the subject.

Didn't Reagan have a Democratic Congress and Senate? So who was responsible for his success. The reality is that Reagan and Clinton were masterful at getting the other party to work with them. They transcended party lines. And if you believe Iraq was responsible for terrorism, you have some reading to catchup on.

I'll bite.  Ironically, in my lifetime, the President who was the most sound fiscally was a Democrat - Bill Clinton.  Don't believe me?  Ask Reagan appointee Alan Greenspan.  He's probably a little more astute in economics than anyone posting on this board.   Since Clinton, the biggest tax sucker we have had BY FAR is the war(s) in the Middle East.  Who got us into that mess?

In addition, I participated in a similar study about 20 years ago. Although the costs are higher for both now with inflation, the comparative figures are relatively unchanged. We found the cost of execution back then was 3X cost imprisonment for somewhere between 40-45 yrs.

You will note that what makes DP cases so expensive are the automatic and numerous appeals. Until we figure out how to avoid killing innocent people, I would not advise reducing their rights of appeal. Watch the documentaries "Paradise Lost" about the West Memphis, AR child murders. Without extensive appeals, an innocent kid would have been murdered by the state in that case as well.

Sure. Note I stated in Texas. It varies from state to state. Everywhere it is more expensive. [Hidden Content]

Ok - although I was NOT going to get into my personal religious beliefs on this thread, I will go ahead and state that I am, in fact, opposed to abortion, just as I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not believe in killing period; I believe it is God's divine right to both bring souls into this world and take them out. For those of you that are staunch pro-lifers and pro-capital punishment, I would submit that we have killed innocent people in this country in the name of "justice," and will continue to do so. Furthermore, I am a firm believer in God's grace and believe that He can save the coldest hearted criminal (as he did in the bible). Fiscally, in the state of Texas, a death penalty case costs the taxpayers about THREE times more than imprisoning someone for 40 years (which is more than the average mortality rate of a lifer without parole). In other words, we can put someone in prison for 120 years for the same cost as executing someone. Now, those are my beliefs. I say this for any non-believers who are put off by the judgmental, "you are going to hell if you believe this" right wingers who are apt to be the loudest. I believe God will welcome you as you are. I don't presume to hold His answers. What I do know is that I don't have His answers and that NO ONE other than Him knows YOUR heart (no more than they know President Clinton or Obama's heart). You can believe what you want. The Bible I read will also lead you to the ONLY belief that matters in terms of becoming a Christian. And Biggirl accurately quoted one of the scriptures on that belief in this thread. For the rest of you, you may resume your judging. I am pretty certain there is scripture on that too (Matthew Ch. 7).

I see what you were saying. I think we are splitting hairs. I was pointing out that we did have an income tax prior to that, used primarily to fund the war.

And one win away from a record 35th trip to the College World Series. Hook em \m/

Not true - [Hidden Content]

As a matter of fact, it was Abraham Lincoln who, in effect, created the federal income tax in this country when he signed the Revenue Act in 1861.

Sounds like a hell of an event with a LOT of bang for your buck. Kind of makes me wish I still played golf!

So Bill Clinton, who was raised southern Baptist, and has gone into detail when he became born again, is going to hell? You really are way up "North" to be able to make those calls...

Awesome. Thank you for sharing.

I am starting to feel like I am in a fist fight with someone with no arms or hands...

So your assertion is that you cannot be a Christian and pro-choice? Further, you cannot be a Christian and support gay marriage?

Or to put it another way, Lincoln would not be a republican for the same reasons Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the late Steve Jobs, 90 percent of the academics at the elite higher education institutions in this country are not republicans. He was too damn smart to be one. ;) There's an argument you can probably follow! ;)

Or spelling or grammar.... Translation: Your dad became a republican when he became senile.

Yes, use supposition about what you THINK he would not support, rather than examples of what he actually did do during his service. That helps when your argument is severely flawed.

For what it's worth, he wasn't even a Republican for the majority of the time he was on this earth.

To play along though, in addition to obviously being deeply invested in civil rights, Lincoln was very much a progressive. He would likely be vilified by today's GOP, with his core belief in a strong federal government. He created the income tax (gasp!) for goodness sake with the Revenue Act. He created the Federal Bank, the Department of Agriculture, and the Draft. He spoke frequently against the bourgeois wealthy and was a champion of the working man. For Pete's sake he was a proud trial lawyer. Yep he definitely would not have been a 2014 Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously your use of exclamation marks makes it true. When an argument lacks foundation, logic, or intellect, overuse punctuation...