A Red State Privatization Horror Story

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: butcherguy

Why don't you put in the same energy Googling "privatization" and REALLY join the conversation?

What states do not have private liquor stores? .... if you would like to join the conversation that I am involved in.

The OP DID mention PA and privatizing of liquor stores... or not?
Relevant... right?

Liberals cry and moan when someone uses breitbart as a source.... truthpout is better though.

Crony-capitalism/corporatism is even more rampant in the Democratic Party, the Pres and his Solyndra and similar contracts being examples.

originally posted by: Tusks
Crony-capitalism/corporatism is even more rampant in the Democratic Party, the Pres and his Solyndra and similar contracts being examples.

You may want to do a little fact checking before complaining about Obama and Solyndra. The DOE didn't need permission from Obama to loan them money that loan was already set up by the previous administration.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Tusks
Crony-capitalism/corporatism is even more rampant in the Democratic Party, the Pres and his Solyndra and similar contracts being examples.

You may want to do a little fact checking before complaining about Obama and Solyndra. The DOE didn't need permission from Obama to loan them money that loan was already set up by the previous administration.

Hmmm.

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.

Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.

Bush Admin. Voted AGAINST Solyndra Loan

Hmmm....

a reply to: xuenchen
Damn your facts!

I'd like to include this entire article, but I won't. I would advise reading it, though.

GOP Privitization Would Substitute an Un-Electable Board of Directors for Democracy

Seen in that light, does privatization really seem like such a good idea?

Think about this for a minute: we can elected our governments. We can also un-elect them if they go to far, through recall campaigns. Ultimately, we have control over who serves in our government through the democratic process.

The democratic process does not exercise control over who runs a corporations. We have no control over a CEO or over a board of directors. We can’t recall what we can’t vote for in the first place. It is difficult to imagine a government every being as terrifying as a corporation.
...
The Founding Fathers bequeathed us democracy, the idea that political power derives from the will of the people. Increasingly, that power derives from the pocketbooks of the wealthy, and of corporations. It is increasingly evident that if we are to speak of democracy, that we are not speaking of the Republican Party.

And another topic that 98% of the membership might have liked to discuss jacked by the political "arguers". And that's a polite term imo.

originally posted by: jtma508
Once again, it's not about privatization, per se, but rather the epidemic of political corruption and cronyism. Until we pass laws that make political corruption a Class C or higher felony nothing will change. Politicians have learned that that are no real repercussions for their actions but a rather impressive financial upside. So the problem gets geometrically worse with each new bus load of politicians.

My avatar says it all: Bring out the guillotines. It worked in France.

So you blame politicians (government) and not big business for the Pillage of We The People.

Is that what I'm hearing you say?

Politicians are corrupted by big business interests not the other way around. But you appear to think that government corrupts business. It is a unique perspective.

a reply to: FyreByrd

In AA terms that means "enabling". If they didn't allow the ground to be fertile this bastard crop wouldn't grow.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: jtma508
Once again, it's not about privatization, per se, but rather the epidemic of political corruption and cronyism.

I agree to a point. It's not privatization, per se, but the corruption, greed and cronyism that many power-hungry PEOPLE (not just politicians) are willing to exercise to get more money, more power and more control.

ANY system of organization would work fine if the PEOPLE in charge were honorable. But they are not. People who run for political office these days are not doing so because they want to help the people. They do it for their own self-interest and that of their supporters (read financial supporters).

You cannot have honorable people in an unhonorable system. It's not personal 'honor' (whatever that means) that is the problem - it's a corrupt system. And the system was corrupted quite deliberately by the weathly.

originally posted by: badgerprints

originally posted by: FyreByrd
A Monday morning drive-by (and excuse to leave for work late - LOL):

www.truth-out.org...

The idea:

Conservatives and libertarians have been saying for a long time that if we just get rid of government and replace it with the private sector, everything will run a whole lot better.

Wow,
Never heard that.
Seems to me that a government that consists of 1/3rd of the population is a bit excessive though.

Are you including all the private military contractors that make 1000 times more then a GI for participating in our endless wars. Are you including the private constractors that spy on us 24/7?

No - they work in the private sector - we pay for them but have no control or recourse over their actions in Our Name.

Point 1

Conservatives and libertarians have been saying for a long time that if we just get rid of government and replace it with the private sector, everything will run a whole lot better.

The idea is that since the main goal of all private corporations is to make money, they’ll be much more willing than the government is to cut costs and eliminate waste.

The result, conservatives and libertarians say, will be more efficient, responsible and responsive services.

Yes Yes

AND; Point 2

The report, which was released today and is titled “Pay to Prey,” focuses on how Republican governors in states all across the country used the cover of privatization to enrich campaign donors and political cronies.

The worst culprits include some the biggest names in Republican politics.

Looks like the article is clearly separating "Republicans" from "Conservatives" and "Libertarians".

So which is closer to the "Left Wing" style big business models?

[ Taking a "Political" chance in a Social forum ]

Since privatization is so horrible, maybe we should (be forced to) buy all of our products at government stores. That would be real nice.

a reply to: butcherguy

A sale of commodities is extremely different than running a prison. One is a tax benefit, one a tax drain. Or should be. Once you privatize jails for profit you are opening the doors to rioting. What suffers? Everything. Food is subpar. The guards are probably not properly trained. Goons. The gov. has to realize that not everything can be run for profit.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: butcherguy

A sale of commodities is extremely different than running a prison. One is a tax benefit, one a tax drain. Or should be. Once you privatize jails for profit you are opening the doors to rioting. What suffers? Everything. Food is subpar. The guards are probably not properly trained. Goons. The gov. has to realize that not everything can be run for profit.

But wouldn't it be better if our well intentioned government took all the profit away from the evil corporations like Walmart? Just think how cheap our commodities would be.

I am making an argument for the government being all of the businesses..... not just prisons.

a reply to: butcherguy

OK. Would it be safe to say that a corporation that is hired to run certain aspects of education, health care or corrections due so because they are altruistic? Or are they there to make money?

Strange things.

It seems Florida got more votes for Obama in 2012.

Not as "Red" as we think.

United States presidential election in Florida, 2012


but Florida does have 17 "Red" U.S. House Seats and 10 "Blue" Seats...
United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: butcherguy

OK. Would it be safe to say that a corporation that is hired to run certain aspects of education, health care or corrections due so because they are altruistic? Or are they there to make money?

Are all teachers and administrators there for altruistic reasons?
Is the government running schools for altruistic reasons.... or are they using the educational system to train drones?
Are doctors doing what they do to drive BMWs and Mercedes OR are they donating all of their dispensable income to health research and charities?

Cripes it's like conversing with prepubescents. It was an easy question. Do corporations do things out of "fellow feeling" or for profit?

a reply to: butcherguy

Breitbart is dead isn't he?

Just not soon enough.

Since I tend toward the more positive attributes of society being propagated, the 'conservatives' are an ugly manifestation IMO of regressive stupidities. Schooling is better handled by amateurs, mainstream religion is important, freedom from regulation regardless of consequences, taxes are evil, freedom as defined by the moral moron Ayn Rand is useful to anyone, survivalism, supporting the troops and Is-it-real, blaming I'llbombya (I did not say I liked him.) for events clearly not under his control, misunderstanding economics to the majority's detriment, failing to understand charity and welfare, privatization, prisons and punishment, drug laws, concepts of the commons, their support for Repulsicans, etc.

They are a mashup of crazy beliefs which they can not visualize alternatives to. They cling with the devotion of acolytes to without any identifiable cause other than their self-enforced ignorance. They watch Faux News (which lies regularly more than 1/2 the time) without a critical thought whispering in those empty craniums. Then they want to slaughter, either politically at their kindest or physically, any opposition to their manic creeds.

Yet, because of my nature, I understand the 'birthers' arguments, the defense of gun ownership, the unwillingness to accede to the governmental state, worrying about the NWO (even though influenced mightily by BILLIONAIRES), that a moral tradition is important, that our focus should be local, that they be respected for trying to implement change.

They do listen to their media with devotion and the insane machinations of profit driven pundits.

I find most news sources to be horrific at their professions (disseminating actual news and investigating). The 'conservative' press is the most offensive and frankly it's a chore to make sense of many of their positions. They gloss over and glide past the monumental inconsistencies of their own preachments.

If I sound this alarm, in fairness, I also think that neither party represents us. It just so happens that the Demoncrats are just less offensive as to their 'stated' objectives.

I believe in a middle class. I think most jobs are stupid and greatly underpaid. I think that we are in general dissatisfied with the USA as currently composed. I think that we MAY deserve this as we fail to pull ALL of us out of that crab pot which all those hard-core proponents of 'rugged individualism' are constantly dragging us back into.

Since I expect nothing other than a continuance of shouted idiot views expressed by an extremely vocal bunch of dolts, on either side of these issues, I question my ability to maintain equanimity. It's like sandpaper on sensitive parts. AN irritation that will only grow.

To the topic-ALL functions of a state are better served by the state employing directly. Profit motive eventually makes ALL private employers more expensive. It is not worthy of discussion because there is NO information indicating otherwise.

When we speak of corruption, name the major players that aren't beasts of self-interest. Name the states that are wholly corrupt. You can. Name the corpserations that are honest brokers. You can. But in one, the purpose is to serve. In the other it's to PROFIT.

Morality in the public sphere is easier to divine because they have laws that let you look into them. (Not that they always cooperate.) Where the corpserations actions are only revealed when we take them to court.

If you stop private political contributions or severely limit them and have Government employees sign no compete contracts, most of the corruption will vanish. There is no effective way to do this to Corpserations. They will continue to pollute, steal, evade taxes, overpay management, cause corruption, mangle smaller organizations as long as they can profit. What most 'think' is not what they are seeing. They are deluded into thinking that 'capitalism' of any stripe is effective. In every measure it fails long term because of it's inability to restrict itself. It must grow and name one thing that can grow indefinitely without concerns or internal feedback.

Cancer.

Every time you propose to inflict further enhancements of a libertarian (LIBERTARD truly) theocracy you put yourself in a self-imposed chokehold. I do not wish to join you because I understand you. You are reprehensible if you do this from sheer greediness, inadequate in reasoning if other motivated.

The world ain't perfect. It will get worse. When the nadir is hit, like most people with mental disorders, a change is possible. Not that I am awaiting a concession speech of vast apology but LOOK around. That's a pretty sad sight for someone who thinks that WE ALL deserve better than this.