And They Want $1.2 Trillion

[jeninflorida]

And that isn’t racist?

Don't let him bother you...he's nothing but a bitter old redneck. He certainly doesn't bother me.

 

[jeninflorida]

and stay out of gangs! maybe break the cycle for many city kids that have no hope

AND those youths will be off the streets, out of trouble, learning skills, gaining a little more confidence in themselves...

 

[jeninflorida]

Well I’ll take your comment as sarcasm. It might be less expensive the first year but over time way more expensive to put more people in jail.

One issue about sending kids to jail is that most learn new skills on how to not get caught and what crimes are more profitable.

Well, jail is cheaper. They learn lots there too.

 

[DesertPirate]

And that isn’t racist?

Cloudy is a racist, she just thinks she's special is all.

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy is a racist, she just thinks she's special is all.

Oh, fuck you.

Since when is "redneck" a racial insult? Since right now? So that you can try to undo the damage you've already done to yourself?

You're as stupid as she is.

 

[jeninflorida]

Wow, don’t you think that some people might not like the term and find offense to the word or are you so “stupid” that you’re so stuck in your little world that you can’t think of others?

Oh, fuck you.

Since when is "redneck" a racial insult?

You're as stupid as she is.

 

[DesertPirate]

Oh, fuck you.

Since when is "redneck" a racial insult?

You're as stupid as she is.

The first to always claim racist is the worst of the bunch. That describes you perfectly.

 

[cloudy]

Ah, the fresh clean air of the Ignore function.

 

[DesertPirate]

Ah, the fresh clean air of the Ignore function.

I hope it lasts more that 24 hours this time

 

[jeninflorida]

Well sorry to say but I have to run. Couldy this has been enjoyable as always but I want a cheese burger in Paradise and it’s a perfect day for a boat ride

Ah, the fresh clean air of the Ignore function.

 

[DesertPirate]

Well sorry to say but I have to run. Couldy this has been enjoyable as always but I want a cheese burger in Paradise and it’s a perfect day for a boat ride

While eating the Last Mango in Paris

 

[PamCarolson]

I remember reading something back in the 1990’s about California and how proud the governor was about a growing industry: Prisons. I was confused by how can this be good for society? Sure, building a prison puts construction companies to work, and the prison has to have a staff….but the operation is funded by taxpayers so it’s a drain not a boom for the economy.

Well, jail is cheaper. They learn lots there too.

 

[PamCarolson]

When anything is not government run, it will be less expensive due to the fact that most “private” companies do not have to support pension plans.

Actually, I doubt jail is cheaper - it's just privatized in many areas.

 

[Stella_Omega]

When anything is not government run, it will be less expensive due to the fact that most “private” companies do not have to support pension plans.

As we see in that other thread, though, it still can cost the taxpayers many arms and legs. The company might have lower expenses, but that only means the managment can suck a bigger profit.

 

[PamCarolson]

Yep, more money for management and stock holders. I agree with what you said before (I think it was you), about getting kids off the street. Might be more expensive in the short term, but way better for society in the long run, but I for one have no issues paying more in “taxes” to support for that.

As we see in that other thread, though, it still can cost the taxpayers many arms and legs. The company might have lower expenses, but that only means the managment can suck a bigger profit.

 

[freshface]

When anything is not government run, it will be less expensive due to the fact that most “private” companies do not have to support pension plans.

Also, private companies can think more short term than the government. I was reading a few weeks ago about a city that privatized its water supply ten years ago. Last year, the company went bankrupt and the city took the plant back. Now the city is spending millions of dollars on all of the maintenance and upgrades that should have happened over the last ten years.

Government isn't supposed to turn a profit. It's supposed to provide those services that private companies can't or won't provide.

 

[PamCarolson]

I’m torn on this one, when I went back to earn my MBA one of our case studies was on power companies. We had to take a look at nuclear power (a company in Ill), government run enterprise (in Gainesville Florida), and one of the power companies in California (I was really hoping that we could have studied Enron).

Anyway, Gainesville had the highest cost.

I think that if a government enterprise goes private there needs to be checks and balances. Example, if the private enterprise does not do maintenance (the plan must be created, and both parties agree to the plan before a contract is signed), than the firm gets fined and has the potential to lose the contract.

I firmly believe that a private firm can operate an organization for less money than a government enterprise. This can be accomplished with less layers of management, smarter purchasing, and adapting to the market quickly. Government is too big and moves slowly, has a hard time adapting to any type of change.

Also, private companies can think more short term than the government. I was reading a few weeks ago about a city that privatized its water supply ten years ago. Last year, the company went bankrupt and the city took the plant back. Now the city is spending millions of dollars on all of the maintenance and upgrades that should have happened over the last ten years.

Government isn't supposed to turn a profit. It's supposed to provide those services that private companies can't or won't provide.

 

[jeninflorida]

would love to visit Paris! maybe in 2 years....

jumping....no burger today the sea fog came in and wow was it thick!

While eating the Last Mango in Paris

 

[rgraham666]

Question I've often pondered.

What proof is there that private enterprise is more efficient than government? Is General Electric, one of the largest private organizations in the world, larger than many countries, more efficient than a country of comparable size? How do you prove this?

Is efficient the same thing as effective? Is efficiency always good?

Does the profit motive always serve the public good? What would happen if say, for example, the armed forces, was made private? Would they be willing to fight on our behalf if it wasn't profitable? Would they fight when we didn't want them to if it was profitable? How could we prevent them from following the path of the condottieri of the Italian Renaissance often took when they decided to turn on their paymasters and take over the nation?

Can the profit motive support the finely tuned relationships required by society to thrive?

How can you prevent a society based entirely on the profit motive from reducing most of the people in it to chattel, only worth something as long as they are profitable?

 

[jeninflorida]

Profit is part of the fuel for invention. There are only two ways that create innovation, war and profit.

One of the things about GE vs Government, GE management can try to make each dollar go further also GE would terminate the bottom 10% of staff (or was it management)? Government, once a person makes it past the 90-day trial that employee has a job for a lifetime.

We never hear of government saying “We need to cut our operating cost by 10% this year”, or “We need to reduce our workforce by 10%.”

Question I've often pondered.

What proof is there that private enterprise is more efficient than government? Is General Electric, one of the largest private organizations in the world, larger than many countries, more efficient than a country of comparable size? How do you prove this?

Is efficient the same thing as effective? Is efficiency always good?

Does the profit motive always serve the public good? What would happen if say, for example, the armed forces, was made private? Would they be willing to fight on our behalf if it wasn't profitable? Would they fight when we didn't want them to if it was profitable? How could we prevent them from following the path of the condottieri of the Italian Renaissance often took when they decided to turn on their paymasters and take over the nation?

Can the profit motive support the finely tuned relationships required by society to thrive?

How can you prevent a society based entirely on the profit motive from reducing most of the people in it to chattel, only worth something as long as they are profitable?

 

[rgraham666]

Is the 10% actually necessary? Or is it just a ritual, a fashion, done for no other reason than because 'that's the way things are done'?

What happens to a company when it reduces its costs by 10% and the equipment it uses starts to suffer 20% failure rates due to lack of maintenance? What happens to a company that reduces its workforce by 10% and another 20% leave because of overwork and broken morale? What happens to a company when the rest of its staff is unable to put a proper focus on their work because they know at any time they can be subjected to Soviet management methods?

Also, are you saying the only reasons a scientist does things is to make money or to discover new ways to destroy things and people? That's what Stephen Hawking thinks about when he ponders the shape of the universe? How much money he makes off of his ideas or how many people he could kill? That's what drove Darwin, Madame Curie, Linneaus, Newton?

Somehow, I don't think so.

 

[freshface]

Profit is part of the fuel for invention. There are only two ways that create innovation, war and profit.

One of the things about GE vs Government, GE management can try to make each dollar go further also GE would terminate the bottom 10% of staff (or was it management)? Government, once a person makes it past the 90-day trial that employee has a job for a lifetime.

We never hear of government saying “We need to cut our operating cost by 10% this year”, or “We need to reduce our workforce by 10%.”

You're letting your ignorance show again. Of course government agencies can, and have, been forced to reduce both operating costs and personnel by some percentage amount. With people you don't fill vacancies, you encourage transfers to other departments, and you offer early retirement incentives. With operating costs you stretch another year out of the computers, don't paint the hallways, let employees use ratty old chairs and desks.

The problem is that you can only reduce so far before the agency stops being effective. How many deaths are acceptable because FDA doesn't have enough inspectors to handle its mission? How many planes do we allow to crash because the air traffic controllers don't have modern radar? You want to talk about reducing government, stop talking in platitudes and get into the nuts and bolts of it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Is the 10% actually necessary? Or is it just a ritual, a fashion, done for no other reason than because 'that's the way things are done'?

What happens to a company when it reduces its costs by 10% and the equipment it uses starts to suffer 20% failure rates due to lack of maintenance? What happens to a company that reduces its workforce by 10% and another 20% leave because of overwork and broken morale? What happens to a company when the rest of its staff is unable to put a proper focus on their work because they know at any time they can be subjected to Soviet management methods?

Also, are you saying the only reasons a scientist does things is to make money or to discover new ways to destroy things and people? That's what Stephen Hawking thinks about when he ponders the shape of the universe? How much money he makes off of his ideas or how many people he could kill? That's what drove Darwin, Madame Curie, Linneaus, Newton?

Somehow, I don't think so.

It does seem to be what drives Richard Dawkins.

 

[rgraham666]

That's why I differentiate between efficient and effective, freshface. And good for that matter.

The Holocaust was both efficient and effective at its intended goal. It wasn't a good thing though.

 

[rgraham666]

It does seem to be what drives Richard Dawkins.

I've never read Dawkins. I don't think I ever will. I find the very idea of a 'selfish gene' so laughable I won't waste my time.