Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[kaz]

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

Where in the Constitution does it refer to electricity as a Federal government power? Liberals never can divide discussions into levels of government because you view all government as subjugated to the central government.

So the direct answer to your question is that yes, it was immoral. The Federal government has no constitutional power to redistribute money. But that does not imply as you will take it that "government" has no power regarding electricity. In fact I listed management of limited resources as a legitimate power of government. I'm thinking this is lost on you because it doesn't fit your paradigm of thinking regarding government, confirm or deny.

 

[dnsmith35]

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

Criminal acts are criminal acts. If it is against the law don't do it. BTW, your left wing site is BS.

But to get down to the nitty gritty, if you don't like drug addiction as a crime, THEN LEGALIZE DRUGS. Everyone who uses illegal drugs supports criminality of the entire chain of distribution, thus when you "break the law" by using you help create a viscous and violent chain of distribution. I do not accept that as a public health problem, nor does it criminalize poverty. That statement is Bullshit and your source is typically left wing extremist.

 

[dnsmith35]

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

Where in the Constitution does it refer to electricity as a Federal government power? Liberals never can divide discussions into levels of government because you view all government as subjugated to the central government.

Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds. The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America.

So the direct answer to your question is that yes, it was immoral. The Federal government has no constitutional power to redistribute money. But that does not imply as you will take it that "government" has no power regarding electricity.

The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue.

In fact I listed management of limited resources as a legitimate power of government. I'm thinking this is lost on you because it doesn't fit your paradigm of thinking regarding government, confirm or deny.

 

[kaz]

Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds.

And then you've just eliminated "general" from general welfare because if you can divide people by "culture or geography" then you can divide them by anything and you've just authorized redistribution of wealth between classes. The Constitution was intended to protect the people, not subjugation them. You just authorized subjugation.

The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America.

Liking the program doesn't make it a Federal authority. Show where in the Constitution you find the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide electricity. And again, I did not say I am against utilities, I said I am against the Federal government doing it.

The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue.

I guess after Dred Scott, they should have dropped the blacks aren't property thing...

 

[dnsmith35]

You have a right not to be killed by other humans. I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail. How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert? Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.

That's a start (the right to not be killed). But the right to not be killed is not the right to not be tortured. Do you grant that humans should not torture other humans in the same manner that one has the right to not be killed?

People naturally can only exist around sources of food and water among other stabilities. So your example of the desert is not all that relevant.

The right to exist, if you think about it, is natural. People born in nature are obviously born where food and water is supplied otherwise the mother would have perished without giving birth. Only in the formation of complex society, especially modern society, did the right to exist perish. That's because once you allow people to privately own and control water and land (agriculture) then you undermine the basis for access, the natural state of persons to exist.

I can't imagine anyone keeping the purpose of society in mind could disagree with such a virtue or right. Society exists for the betterment of all, not a few or some or only most. It should exist for all humans (within society) since all human beings in society have the capacity to learn, love, think, feel, smile etc. it's only a matter of allowing their flourishing or withering by allowing access to sustenance (which is not denied in nature but through human action). Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life. And if you think about who controls land and water, it is largely a game of profit, not a matter of human flourishing. But is this how we want society to operate?

So should society reflect the interests of the wealthy or the common good of society?

The right to exist is inalienable to the extent that some criminal acts causes one to lose that right. Society does exist for the betterment of all, but not in the way you seem to believe it does. The right to exist includes the responsibility of the individual to be sufficiently responsible, within their physical and mental capacity, to provide for themselves in a reasonable manner withing that society.

(Gnarley said, "Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life.)

Wow, right out of the Georgist hand book. Persons owning land or controlling land does not in any way deny others of sustenance; and since the government controls water (at one level of government (the community) or another, that part of your statement is moot. The facts of the matter are, if someone does not develop the land and its resources then no one gains sustenance from that land. In addition, even when the community owns or controls the land, it is still EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS for the person paying that land value tax to the exclusion of all others. The issue is DISTRIBUTION, NOT OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL. If I have an exclusive right to occupy property and I choose to use it to feed my family and my family only, even under Georgism I have that right. Thus in effect, LVT system or freehold ownership is not that different in result. Every one pays rent in one manner or another, either to a private entity or to the community.

Except for the disabled (physical or mental) no one has the absolute right to mooch off his neighbor except to the extent that his neighbor chooses to allow.

That being said, our neighbors (government), chooses to allow social programs to help those who cannot help themselves and I approve of those programs. However, I categorically deny the right of the community to control all the land and collect LVT (rent). Ownership of land is the way it can be used to its highest and best purpose because the owners want it to live on, or make a profit, or both. It is that profit through renting it out or performing profit making production which creates the prosperity which allows funding of our social programs.

Every socialist experiment (either government or smaller communes) have failed miserably because the concept of "from each to his ability and to each according to his need" creates a situation in which the High Achievers get tired of doing all the "work" (to include investing and actual production) and will eventually choose to leave the commune. At a country level, it requires a dictatorial government with the power to prevent migration to keep those HIGH ACHIEVERS in check. Their next method of "leaving" is to stop performing at a high rate such that he only supports himself, thus the whole community goes down hill economically. Only the leaders (commissars) achieve any kind of wealth.

Capitalism is THE ONLY SYSTEM which has created sufficient prosperity to support social programs for the needy.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith35 said "Kaz, I generally agree with you about big central government getting to big and too authoritative. But we differ on the subject of the general welfare. I believe that the acts of the Federal government which are designed to help entire classes of people, either by culture or geography, are within those bounds."

And then you've just eliminated "general" from general welfare because if you can divide people by "culture or geography" then you can divide them by anything and you've just authorized redistribution of wealth between classes. The Constitution was intended to protect the people, not subjugation them. You just authorized subjugation.

The TVA project was one of those acts. Not only did it create employment in the creation of that program, it also extended electric power to millions of people who did not have that power prior to the program. But don't forget, they still had to pay for that power. I personally believe it was a good program, just like the Rural Electrification programs all over rural America.

Liking the program doesn't make it a Federal authority. Show where in the Constitution you find the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide electricity. And again, I did not say I am against utilities, I said I am against the Federal government doing it.

If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people. Even today, the existence of the TVA has an effect of reducing electric costs even for those who are well off in the effective region. As to "the general welfare" clause, it effectively is a blanket authorization for many public infrastructure creation, just like the creation of roads, keeping the population healthy, controlling streams or the environment, et al. You may not believe you personally are getting the benefits of the TVA, and you may effectively not getting any benefit of THAT program. But if you dig deep enough, there is some benefit you get which does not apply to the whole.

The redistribution of money, power, health care et al, all fall under the GENERAL WELFARE clause of the constitution. You may not like the way that is interpreted, but as a "catch all" it applies to what most federal social programs accomplish. We may not like the way the Congress and Administrations have usurped the 9th and the 10th amendments, but unfortunately that becomes a political issue, not a constitutional issue.

 

[kaz]

If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.

LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people." What color is the sky in your world?

 

[dnsmith35]

If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.

LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people." What color is the sky in your world?

1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.
2. Helping poverty stricken people reduces the strain on society in many ways, to include health care costs and by keeping those health people available for the kind of labor they are capable of performing.
3. By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population.

So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice.

 

[georgephillip]

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

No.

Point out the immorality in the following:

"U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.

"The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.

"An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.

"Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.

"The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.

 

[georgephillip]

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

 

[kaz]

If you wish to describe functions of the government to achieve "the general welfare" of a given class of people subjugation that is your choice. But those programs which help entire classes of people either culturally or geographically tends to end up benefiting all of the people.

LOL, wealth redistribution "tends to end up benefiting all of the people." What color is the sky in your world?

1. Recognize first, all of their "redistributed" money is put back into the economy, which of course creates employment and prosperity for the whole.

Because of course the money poof, appears from no where! Actually, the money is taking from producers. They pay people to work, and make a profit, and that grows the economy and "creates employment and prosperity for the whole." Your scenario that taking it away from the one who earned the money and giving it to someone who didn't who spends it not having worked or created any economic value providing a boost to the economy is, let's go with, reality challenged...

2. Helping poverty stricken people reduces the strain on society in many ways, to include health care costs and by keeping those health people available for the kind of labor they are capable of performing.

Trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty not changing poverty rates and creating what is now multi-generational dependency belies that claim.

3. By reducing the squalor found in most 3rd world countries which in turn breeds disease and vermin exposing the entire population.

I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...

So Kaz, if we had the kind of third world conditions, even in an area away from your habitat, you would still be exposed to some of the negative conditions those conditions breed. I am sure there are more reasons that can be expressed, but really I don't feel the need to do that much research on the issue. I am satisfied to make the assertion and if you choose to accept it good. If you don't that is your choice.

I'm waiving my hand over my head right now and saying, "swoosh"...

 

[georgephillip]

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

Poverty is not against the law. However, stealing is.

"A story is told about an incident that happened during the thirties in New York, on one of the coldest days of the year. The world was in the grip of the Great Depression, and all over the city, the poor were close to starvation.

It happened that the judge was sitting on the bench that day, hearing a complaint against a woman who was charged with stealing a loaf of bread. She pleaded that her daughter was sick, and her grandchildren were starving, because their father had abandoned the family.

"But the shopkeeper, whose loaf had been stolen, refused to drop the charge. He insisted that an example be made of the poor old woman, as a deterrent to others.

"The judge sighed. He was almost reluctant to pass judgment on the woman, yet he had no alternative. 'I'm sorry," he turned to her, "But I can't make any exceptions. The law is the law. I sentence you to a fine of ten dollars, and if you can't pay I must send you to jail for ten days.'

"The woman was heartbroken, but even as he was passing sentence, the judge was reaching into his pocket for the money to pay off the ten-dollar fine. He took off his hat, tossed the ten-dollar bill into it, and then addressed the crowd:

"'I am also going to impose a fine of fifty cents on every person here present in this courtroom, for living in a town where a person has to steal bread to save her grandchildren from starvation. Please collect the fines, Mr. Bailiff, in this hat, and pass them across to the defendant.'"

"And so the accused went home that day from the courtroom with forty-seven dollars and fifty cents — fifty cents of which has been paid by the shame-faced grocery store keeper who had brought the charge against her. And as she left the courtroom, the gathering of petty criminals and New York policemen gave the judge a standing ovation."

Spirituality & Practice: Spiritual Quotations: Justice, Forgiveness, Stealing, Poverty, Judgment by James N. McCutcheon

 

[georgephillip]

it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
you're a coward pure and simple

Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.

only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions

according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"

but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking

you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy

you're simply an idiot

I'll type slower.
There's a Big Fight coming to the US.
The Rich v. the Rest.
I've been waiting for it all my life.
Maybe punks like you should run?
Moron.

 

[gnarlylove]

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?

Again, I don't understand what you're looking for. Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other? No. Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others? Yes. I don't get your implication.

You get it, I just don't think you understand its implication.

The corporate world has enclosed and restricted access to much of the earths resources, granting them exclusive freedoms to extract resources at virtually no cost (subsidies and tax incentives reduce actual costs) and selling them to the people for unsightly amounts of gain--the fact that people survive or are satisfied is secondary to the profit motive. Now why is it ok for much of the earth to be restricted to being exploited for profit instead of the common good of all, the freedom of all?

If you are serious about freedom, you must fight for all people, as I'm sure you agree. Favoritism (giving wild freedoms) towards wealth is cowardice and shallow; defending the freedom of those trampled underfoot is virtue and courage. I'm not saying you are favoring any group, and frankly I think you know not to. Again, if you're serious about freedom, freedom is not to be granted according to what group you belong to but should be a universal matter.

 

[georgephillip]

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You are a poster child against government schools. You even quoted the right lines and still don't understand what it means. Amazing, simply amazing. I would sue your parents and your school system, they have failed you.

Were you homeschooled?
Did you learn about Closed questions?
Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich to pay for the TVA?
Ask Mommy if confused.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.

 

[georgephillip]

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

You were talking about prisoners manufacturing goods.
Because if there is one thing we can't do without, it's low skilled manufacturing labor.
So let's try again.
How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit

It's true, criminals socialize the cost of their crimes. Just look what they've done to many poor minority areas around the country.

I was taking about parasite CEOs earning $3.7 and $5.7 million a year from US taxpayers to house "criminals" whose biggest crime was being too poor to afford a lawyer. You were talking out of your ass, as usual.

It's true that Wall Street criminals crashed the global economy in 2008, bankrupting millions of productive Americans of all colors. Just look at what happened to them.

 

[dnsmith35]

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

No.

Point out the immorality in the following:

"U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a bill that created the TVA on May 18, 1933.

"The law gave the federal government a centralized body to control the Tennessee River's potential for hydroelectric power and improve the land and waterways for development of the region.

"An organized and effective malaria control program stemmed from this new authority in the Tennessee River valley.

"Malaria affected 30 percent of the population in the region when the TVA was incorporated in 1933.

"The Public Health Service played a vital role in the research and control operations and by 1947, the disease was essentially eliminated. Mosquito breeding sites were reduced by controlling water levels and insecticide applications."

CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - History

Capitalists are always too busy getting rich to spend money on little things like malaria.

Actually that is a huge misstatement. At the time Capitalist were not capable of such investment, even if they could make a fortune off the electric power generated. Since then, many capitalists tried to mimic the TVA but the government controlled at the water ways and even if the capitalist paid for part of the construction, the government maintained control. Those ventures produced huge profits while the collateral effects were control of malaria and the enrichment of the general population because of the power generated. Capitalism almost always trumps government activity as a prosperity for all effort.

 

[dnsmith35]

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

"Corrections Corporation of America

66: number of facilities owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison company based on number of facilities

91,000: number of beds available in CCA facilities across 20 states and the District of Columbia

$1.7 billion: total revenue recorded by CCA in 2011

$17.4 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 10 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$1.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$3.7 million: executive compensation for CEO Damon T. Hininger in 2011"

"The Geo Group, Inc., the U.S.’s second largest private detention company

$1.6 billion: total revenue in year 2011, according to its annual report
65: number of domestic correctional facilities owned and operated by Geo Group, Inc.

65,716: number of beds available in Geo Group, Inc.’s domestic correctional facilities

$2.5 million: lobbying expenditures in the last 8 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics
$2.9 million: total political contributions from years 2003 to 2012, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics
$5.7 million: executive compensation for CEO George C. Zoley in 2011"

Socialize the cost and privatize the profit
What capitalism does best.

By the Numbers: The U.S.?s Growing For-Profit Detention Industry - ProPublica

What capitalism does best in the private detention system is to save government capital expenditures while making a reasonable profit in the process. Don't forget, the private prison systems are not the persons making the decisions as to who is incarcerated and for how long. That is the justice system.

Is there some corruption in the justice system? Yes, there is always some corruption in any government/socialist system; much more so than in most private capitalist systems.