Public Problems and Private Prisons

Damocles said:
One more time for the uber-slow.

Dano. The people who own those corporations would have no laws against their right to lobby in their own interest. Just because the "company" cannot doesn't make it so the people who own it cannot create their own 501c(3) non-profit to lobby for them using their personal cash they wish to increase.

Does it sink in this time? Does it finally hit home?
Click to expand...
I am not uber-slow, you are changing the argument and to be honest you found a good loophole. But still, banning the company from lobbying does decrease the incentive to gain inmates.
As for the rest, have we seen a larger increase and holding of prisoners in states that have private prisons over those that do not?
The drug war started a lot earlier than private prisons did and I would say if anything since then we see more laws LEGALIZING drugs.

Damocles said:
You help continue the most inane and worthless laws ever by incentivizing profit in the imprisonment of citizens. I believe that industrializing prisons has got to be the stupidest decision that we have made in the name of "savings" ever. It creates a whole wealth of side-effects that are unpleasant and almost undetectable to the normal citizen.
Click to expand...
If this were true, why is it that Holland which has private prisons has helped make less crimes when it comes to drugs (which are a huge prisoner supply)?

I understand the theory and it appears to make sense, but reality both here and abroad has not shown a correlation between the 2.
 
uscitizen said:
But everyone knows that private industry can run things better than any government can!

Just look what the finiancial sector did for our economy.
Click to expand...

Fannie and Freddie were the 2 most heavily invested with government oversight and they were at the center of this problem.
Yes the private sector overloaned but government was even worse and moreso when you consider that they encouraged it with the Fed setting weak interest rates and congress passing laws to try and incentive more loans to poorer neighborhoods.
 
uscitizen said:
And only fannie and freddie?

BOA and Citigroup are fine then.
Click to expand...
Nope not only fannie and freddie, as I said above, the private sector overloaned, they are bad too, just not AS bad as the entities that had more heavy government oversight like Fannie and Freddie.

You once said you support Dems over Repubs, not because you like them but because you consider them not as bad. Likewise I am saying that yes the private entities in the financial sector did not do well but the ones with more government oversight (as is being proposed as the "solution") did worse.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I am not uber-slow, you are changing the argument and to be honest you found a good loophole. But still, banning the company from lobbying does decrease the incentive to gain inmates.
As for the rest, have we seen a larger increase and holding of prisoners in states that have private prisons over those that do not?
The drug war started a lot earlier than private prisons did and I would say if anything since then we see more laws LEGALIZING drugs.


If this were true, why is it that Holland which has private prisons has helped make less crimes when it comes to drugs (which are a huge prisoner supply)?

I understand the theory and it appears to make sense, but reality both here and abroad has not shown a correlation between the 2.
Click to expand...
I'm not "changing the argument" I give reasons that privatizing prisons is the stupidest decision we have made. There are more than one, but the largest is the very human attribute of greed.

And again you propound Holland? Again, they privatized after changes, I suspect that if their government is as coin-operated as ours (it isn't) they too would trend toward ever restrictive measures to increase profitability of the prisons.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Nope not only fannie and freddie, as I said above, the private sector overloaned, they are bad too, just not AS bad as the entities that had more heavy government oversight like Fannie and Freddie.

You once said you support Dems over Repubs, not because you like them but because you consider them not as bad. Likewise I am saying that yes the private entities in the financial sector did not do well but the ones with more government oversight (as is being proposed as the "solution") did worse.
Click to expand...

Well according to some Fannie and freddie did very poorly becuase they had no choice. Although have there not been instances in recent years fo Fannie and Freddie leaders cooking the books a bit?

I think Fannie and freddie were pretty much forced to back mortgages that other finiancial firms sold. They were the trashcan for the other outfits junk.

Then Moodys and such rated the packages of junk mortgages AA and AAA so everyone thought they were ok.
Moodys is of course a govt agency aren't they?
 
The fundamental problem was the existence of mortgages "backed by government" via fm/fm. When something is backed by government people COUNT on bailouts, then we have bailout mania, like now. Of course the deregulation, breach of separation between investment banks and commercial banks, and overleveraging didn't help either. And acorn strongarming Fm/FM into giving bad loans based on "social justice" instead of common sense was also unhelpful.
 
The real pisser is everyone knew this was going to happen, was in on it, and is mostly still in charge of fixing it. Mother fuck.
 
Watermark said:
Exactly the attitude that will one day leave the US stranded and alone when we need help due to conservatives destroying everything good about this place.
Click to expand...

Europe pretty well fucked up the world all of last century, but I don't see most countries holding it against them.

And the American experiment failed long ago. Seeing everything that is good about this place fade away is inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top