Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Private Probation Companies Jailing The Poor  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

I read this article in the NY Times and was, quite frankly, shocked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us...mpanies-profit.html?pagewanted=all

Here in the UK we have some private sector involvement in the penal system, but nothing like to this extent. The whole principle of a for profit, private enterprise having direct involvement in getting people jailed and piling on fees is abhorrent. I personally think that the private sector should have no involvement whatsoever in the judicial system, penal system, or any aspect of policing.

In Britain we are now seeing private companies being awarded contracts to fulfil some police functions, and we have had privately run jails for a long time. I fear that if this creeping rise of the private sector in state functions continues, we shall eventually end up with the same kinds of nightmares described in this article.

How on earth can anyone seriously think this is a good idea? I'm all for people paying for their crimes, but it should be proportionate, and definitely not influenced by profiteering scumbags.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3692 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Beyond the private probation companies, this is nothing new. Cailifornia granted its DMV the legal right of thievery several years ago. My local county has a free-for-all should you desire a building permit. I once paid a fee to pay a fee. Fees are the new tax.

User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
How on earth can anyone seriously think this is a good idea?

In my experience, cash-strapped, rural politicians see dollar signs before sense. They obviously care more about their bottomline than the people they're elected to serve. The system described in this article is horribly backwards.

Now for the devil's advocate side of me: "don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I can forgive a couple speeding tickets, but in the example given in the article (Gina), she knowingly drives without a license. In another (Hills McGee), he is charged with public drunkenness. These are not mistakes. It's so easy to keep your nose clean and avoid trouble with the law, but these people seem to have a problem with that.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1):
I once paid a fee to pay a fee.

Did you happen to go to my university? They're pretty good at that.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
I personally think that the private sector should have no involvement whatsoever in the judicial system, penal system, or any aspect of policing.

Agreed, though in these rough economic times, governments seem to find favour with privately run jails and the like.

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
How on earth can anyone seriously think this is a good idea? I'm all for people paying for their crimes, but it should be proportionate, and definitely not influenced by profiteering scumbags

Unfortunately lots of people on the right seem to want as many government activities as possible 'outsourced' to the private sector with little regard for the incentives that they create. As an example, you might want to have a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal. Sickening.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4037 posts, RR: 28
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 3):
Unfortunately lots of people on the right seem to want as many government activities as possible 'outsourced' to the private sector with little regard for the incentives that they create

It is funny to hear the left talk about incentives - I thought the whole premise in which your ideology was based on was that incentives don't work. Let's raise taxes, people will keep working their asses off anyway, let's give people free money not to work, they will keep looking for a job anyway, let's give people money for having children off of wedlock, they will be responsible and try not to have them anyway, let's give teachers and other public employees tenure, they will keep doing their best at work anyway, etc. etc. etc.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2519 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
They obviously care more about their bottomline than the people they're elected to serve.


Think one step further...a positive bottom line does what? It enables the municipality to provide the services, essential and non-essential, it has promised its citizens.

I skimmed the article, but I didn't see why these municipalities were so far in the hole. But, I can guess.

I'm mixed on a privately run penal system. A private system (with adequate governmental oversight) and with competition should be able to provide service at a lower cost than the government doing it. But, the penal system is the province of the State. Like I said, mixed.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Four reasons for privatized judicial detention and jails (as well as many other government functions):
One, is to get the state out of the short and long tail money costs of employees from base pay, health insurance, pensions/retirement savings, sick pay, easier to hire/fire workers, etc.;
Two, is to use the tax policies as to private companies to cover capital investments costs;
Third, is to limit liability costs; and
Four, to give potentially very profitable contracts to campaign contributors and friends.

Taxpayers either out of need to reduce taxes as their incomes decline and for the wealthy out of greed, governments have been pushing the envelope to privitize many government functions. Many privitized functions cut pay, don't offer much in beneifts to remaining employees, no job security, yet owners, managers and executives may make several times more than the governement bosses did.
I don't like privatization beyond certain levels it as there are certain jobs that should be for security, privacy, worker rights and other factors to be the sole responsibilities of governments and not in private hands with no options.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2482 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
Think one step further...a positive bottom line does what? It enables the municipality to provide the services, essential and non-essential, it has promised its citizens.

I totally agree. Government should always try to operate above water so that it can provide additional services, but services that benefit the collective. I can't see how this money-saving initiative justifies the cost to those being burdened by it. Government (at this level) should be profit-seeking, but not profit-driven.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4037 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2461 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
Government (at this level) should be profit-seeking, but not profit-driven.

Government is never non-profit - government is for loss. There are many areas where government operates and loses gobs of money in while providing unfair competition to actual non-profits.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 9):
Government is never non-profit - government is for loss.

Interesting way of looking at it and I suppose you are correct but its very similar to management or human resources in a manufacturing business they don't add to the bottom line but they very much can facilitate those who do.

Look at somalia, not much govenment there so they should be rolling in it   

Fred


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
Government should always try to operate above water so that it can provide additional services, but services that benefit the collective.


No, not additional services...essential services. When government starts to provide 'additional services' we start to see budgetary problems that necessitate additional revenue raising measures.

It's my thought that the criminal justice system, including penal, is an essential government function. Some governments have chosen to outsource it in order to save money. So long as they retain stringent oversight, I see this only as a minor deferment of power to the private sector.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8421 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
It is funny to hear the left talk about incentives

Like the GOP's Socialist $1,000.00 per child per year cash handout. Now that is a stimulus (to certain body parts) as well as an incentive.

As far as the programs go, it is basically a rip off. Not a surprise in a backward state like Alabama. Hopefully there will be sufficient legal actions against the localities and the companies to make it financially undesirable.

It is also important that organizations like AAA and sites like Google Maps identify these locations for speed traps and kangaroo courts. It used to be that when you got a Trip Kit from AAA the locations with the shady cops & courts were not only identified, but you were routed around them when possible.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 8):
There are many areas where government operates and loses gobs of money in while providing unfair competition to actual non-profits.

There are many areas where the government should be effective enough so that the non-profits aren't even necessary...but that probably won't happen in our lifetime.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
No, not additional services...essential services. When government starts to provide 'additional services' we start to see budgetary problems that necessitate additional revenue raising measures.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. Governments are going operate, whether with a surplus or deficit, and provide the essential services. But when a government enjoys a surplus, it can provide additional services on top of the essential services.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
So long as they retain stringent oversight, I see this only as a minor deferment of power to the private sector.

Apparently oversight is lacking in this case. The private company in the article seems to be over-stepping their bounds.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
But when a government enjoys a surplus, it can provide additional services on top of the essential services.

When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.

Who do you think the services are for?



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21796 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
So long as they retain stringent oversight, I see this only as a minor deferment of power to the private sector.

I have a big problem with giving private companies an incentive to get the government to take away people's freedom.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.

It should be put into a rainy day fund, actually.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1391 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2211 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):

It should be put into a rainy day fund, actually.

I'd see no problem with that.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):

I have a big problem with giving private companies an incentive to get the government to take away people's freedom.

I think it's appalling that there are folks who even pretend to disagree with this, let alone support such things. When we're jailing people for nothing other than profit, we can't be far from the political systems we used to fight wars against.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Some governments have chosen to outsource it in order to save money. So long as they retain stringent oversight, I see this only as a minor deferment of power to the private sector.

By definition, it is impossible to oversee this correctly, so this is clearly not an option. Secondly, going from a democracy to a Fascistic state happens, without exception, with as you say "minor deferments of power." Capitalism works only when vigorously regulated and when its wrongs (which this unmistakably is) are severely and quickly punished. Since we effectively do not do this, accustom yourself to having your rights removed in incremental and minor deferments...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8421 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
No, not additional services...essential services.

When you get down to it, there are a lot of "additional services" that most people would support.

Start with the Interstate System. It was not essential, but it was smart and it has been a major factor in the growth of this nation.

ATC? We could cut that in half and limit air traffic. Just keep enough capacity available to handle military fights in an emergency. Only the really essential stuff.  
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Some governments have chosen to outsource it in order to save money.

I think a lot of that outsourcing has been functions taken over by political friends, who are pulling in big profits.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
o long as they retain stringent oversight

That is the last thing I exact to find in outsourcing. The funding for oversight will be one of the first things cut.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
There are many areas where the government should be effective enough so that the non-profits aren't even necessary...but that probably won't happen in our lifetime.

It is already here. Called Medicare.

Medicare competes with Medicare Advantage - the private Medicare program that was supposed to prove that private industry could do a better job and do it cheaper.

Needless to say the private Medicare Advantage is more expensive than Medicare. 15% more expensive.

Not a big surprise when you get down to it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.

That is what Bush was talking about with his "Tax Cuts" - a refund of the surplus.

Unfortunately we have continued to refund the surplus long after it was gone.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5599 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2193 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
But when a government enjoys a surplus, it can provide additional services on top of the essential services.

And when the funds aren't there, how is easy is it to take those additional services away? No, you provide the essential services and return the surplus, after building an emergency fund, to the tax payer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story

  

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 16):
By definition, it is impossible to oversee this correctly, so this is clearly not an option.

By definition? No, done properly, through adequate regulation and/or legislation, oversight is easy and comprehensive. I point to the air transport industry. Part 121 carriers basically run their operations and audit themselves, within the framework of the FAR's. The FAA provides oversight through periodic audits, inspections, visits, etc.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
When you get down to it, there are a lot of "additional services" that most people would support.

Please stop getting melodramatic. I can easily make constitutional case that the interstate system is essential to country, along with ATC.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Apparently oversight is lacking in this case. The private company in the article seems to be over-stepping their bounds.

Absolutely. If the state can not imprison someone for an offense, no private company should be able to. In fact, a private entity should never be able to imprison anyone.

Quoting darksnowynight (Reply 16):
Capitalism works only when vigorously regulated

We call that Socialism.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 14):
Who do you think the services are for?

Whose money do you think that is? Tax money is not the government's money per se. It's a necessary contribution to the government to provide me services that I need. The process needs to be "I need these services and it will cost X dollars" not "I'm paying the government X dollars, let's see how many services can be squeezed out of that."

The government should provide essential services: defense, infrastructure, law enforcement, and a few other things. The government should therefore do its best to collect only what money it needs to provide those things. If there's extra, it should go back to the taxpayers. Spending more just because you have it is about the dumbest possible thing you could do.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1903 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2138 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
And when the funds aren't there, how is easy is it to take those additional services away?

Incredibly easy! They are non-essential services after all. Most cities hold budget meetings every year in which the mayor and city councilors debate which services to keep, which to roll back, and which to dissolve completely.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
along with ATC.

Reagan seemed to think so  
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
In fact, a private entity should never be able to imprison anyone.

   To add to that: a private entity shouldn't have a say in the imprisonment of anyone who hasn't committed a direct crime against that entity.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
The government should provide essential services: defense

I'm going to have to stop you right there. We're talking about local government here, not provincial/state or federal. I believe local governments should hold onto the surplus and provide additional services (or use them for other growth initiatives).



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21796 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
I believe local governments should hold onto the surplus and provide additional services (or use them for other growth initiatives).

Or stockpile it, since you have to figure you're not going to run a surplus every year, and it would be really nice to have a reserve on hand to dip into so you don't have to start cutting essential services in the bad times.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2098 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
It is funny to hear the left talk about incentives

Well actually I'm centre-right (much more centre than right though), not that this is relevant here.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4):
It is funny to hear the left talk about incentives - I thought the whole premise in which your ideology was based on was that incentives don't work. Let's raise taxes, people will keep working their asses off anyway, let's give people free money not to work, they will keep looking for a job anyway, let's give people money for having children off of wedlock, they will be responsible and try not to have them anyway, let's give teachers and other public employees tenure, they will keep doing their best at work anyway, etc. etc. etc.

Please show me evidence of where I have 1) said that incentives don't work, 2) supported any of those points you have mentioned above.

The fact is that when correctional facilities are privately run there is an incentive for the company to maximize the utility of their prisons i.e. to get more people arrested and sentenced. As an example, Corrections Corporation of America spent more than $2.7 million from 2006 through September 2008 on lobbying for stricter laws. In 2011 their total lobbying expenditure was $1,070,000. There is no incentive to actually rehabilitate those in prison, but rather to keep them there for as long as possible. Infact from a Private-Prision's perspective there is an incentive to make sure that the prisoner does re-offend so that after being released, they can get arrested again (and jailed) as soon as possible. Obviously this is converse to public good.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021940&year=2011
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/News/73...-Jailhouse-bloc/?page=3#TOPCONTENT

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 7):
Taxpayers either out of need to reduce taxes as their incomes decline and for the wealthy out of greed, governments have been pushing the envelope to privitize many government functions. Many privitized functions cut pay, don't offer much in beneifts to remaining employees, no job security, yet owners, managers and executives may make several times more than the governement bosses did.
I don't like privatization beyond certain levels it as there are certain jobs that should be for security, privacy, worker rights and other factors to be the sole responsibilities of governments and not in private hands with no options.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
So long as they retain stringent oversight, I see this only as a minor deferment of power to the private sector.

Problem is that when governments are trying to save money, its cheaper not to have oversight at all and trust the private sector to self-regulate.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.

Or more likely get spent on one politician or another's pet projects. That's just how things seem to work.

Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
It should be put into a rainy day fund, actually.

  . Sovereign wealth funds are great. Singapore's Temasek Holdings could potentially return the Singaporean Government 22bil SGD each year (if they decided not to reinvest any of their profits) - that is 22bil SGD that doesn't need to be paid in taxes.


Quoting Mir (Reply 15):
I have a big problem with giving private companies an incentive to get the government to take away people's freedom.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
I think a lot of that outsourcing has been functions taken over by political friends, who are pulling in big profits.

  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
That is the last thing I exact to find in outsourcing. The funding for oversight will be one of the first things cut.

Or not there to begin with, as I mentioned above.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 18):
We call that Socialism.

Socialism is when the government takes over all business and thus doesn't need to regulate.



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2094 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
I believe local governments should hold onto the surplus and provide additional services (or use them for other growth initiatives).

Even local governments should give the money back to the people (who quite possibly will put it into the local economy anyway) and if they really need the growth initiatives the government can put it on the table and on the budget and collect more money when it's needed. When you start keeping money and then spending money just because you have money you start a vicious cycle.

The bottom line is that the government works for the people not the other way around. The government needs some money to provide the essential services it exists to provide, but as much money as possible should remain in private hands. The government doesn't know how to manage my money better than I do.

If a new house comes in under the estimate the homeowner won't tell the contractor to keep adding rooms until they meet the original cost. The homeowner will take the house he commissioned and keep the change. Allowing governmental mission creep is how you end up like Illinois and California.

Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
Or stockpile it, since you have to figure you're not going to run a surplus every year, and it would be really nice to have a reserve on hand to dip into so you don't have to start cutting essential services in the bad times.

One must be ruthless in cutting and not adding non-essential services to ensure that essential services can be fully funded even in bad times, without undue tax burden.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):

When the government enjoys a surplus the money should be returned to the taxpayers, end of story.


Or perhaps pay off the deficits (debts) its incurred.



Gordo:like this streaming video,Sky magazine,meals for sale at mealtime-make customer satisfaction rank so high at UA
25 MD11Engineer : The problem is that a democratic society built on individual freedoms needs economic freedom (best brought throuzgh capitalsm), but capitalism doesn
26 greasespot : I like how it is here. Most. High way traffic tickets are not arrest able and are sent away with a ticket If they do not pay the ticket their dl gets
27 Pyrex : California Prison Guard Unions do exactly the same... if you want to talk about perverse incentives you need to talk about the ones in the Public sec
28 Post contains images WestJet747 : What you are describing is raising taxes. I'd prefer my city use the surplus they received this year rather than hiking up taxes on me next year. I s
29 fr8mech : Much easier said than done. Take for instance, trash pickup. There are some communities that provide pickup through taxation and some communities whe
30 Flighty : I was thinking of starting my own municipality. That way, I could keep all of my money tax-free, and furnish the mayor (me) with a nice house, car, e
31 WestJet747 : Nobody said it was easy, but it's necessary to strategically review the feasability of provided services on a frequent basis. Tell that to Rob Ford,
32 StuckInCA : I don't know exactly what happened that you're referring to, but I'm guessing it's what caused me lots of hassle. I moved to WA several years ago. Wh
33 BMI727 : When the government is adamant about providing only essential services and returning surpluses to their rightful owners, you can raise taxes a bit to
34 flipdewaf : The problem is though people have to budget just like a goverment does and in times when the government isn't getting as much money in as normal then
35 Flighty : I believe your your state and federal income would be zero, after adjusting for local taxes already paid.
36 zkojq : which is crazy, particularly how they have become so powerful.
37 DocLightning : The evidence is that this is not true. The evidence as collected shows that generally private contractors cost more than direct public administration
38 MD11Engineer : One problem I often see here as well is that public sector employees think that, because they are employed by the state with it´s "limitless" funds,
39 RussianJet : Indeed. In the UK we end up with all manner of absurdly costly government groups and mechanisms having to oversee all aspects of privatisation, regul
40 PPVRA : They have been fighting a war for decades. According to the left's dearest economist, John Maynard Keynes, they should indeed be rolling in it. Alas
41 PPVRA : Please delete The ability to edit your message is only available for 60 minutes after posting.[Edited 2012-07-07 06:57:53]
42 Mir : If that were true, the term "market failure" wouldn't exist. -Mir
43 PPVRA : LOL, anyone can put two words together. Every "market failure" you can read about has been addressed and dismissed on the premises of poor logic and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Knows Of Any Private Search Companies posted Sun Dec 27 2009 09:53:20 by Captaink
Why Dont The US And Canada Drive On The Left? posted Sun Nov 8 2009 19:34:23 by Aeroflot001
US Citizens Are Taking To The Streets! posted Mon Feb 9 2009 13:05:31 by MadameConcorde
Should US Airlines Get Part Of The Bailout $? posted Tue Nov 18 2008 11:59:28 by BP1
Rental Car Companies: What's The Difference? posted Wed Nov 14 2007 23:10:16 by KFLLCFII
US Most Armed Country In The World posted Wed Aug 29 2007 15:08:09 by Hkg82
Decorating Not For The Poor! posted Sat Oct 1 2005 20:01:28 by WhiteHatter
Please Explain To Me The Poor IPod Engineering. posted Mon Jul 12 2004 15:03:13 by Kay
Wary Of Attacks, US Troops Send SOS To The World posted Sun Sep 7 2003 01:06:59 by Keesje
Non US Peeps: Did You Watch The Super Bowl? posted Mon Jan 27 2003 23:10:05 by USAFHummer