October 31, 2015

"For the second time in three weeks, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination wiped millions of dollars off the value of an industry."

Clinton tweeted: "We need to end private prisons. Protecting public safety...should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations."
Corrections Corp. of America fell more than 6 percent, lopping off approximately $200 million in value, while GEO Group Inc. dropped 4.2 percent, losing about $100 million.

95 comments:

campy said...

Good for her! I hope she abolishes all private industry when she's president.

David Begley said...

Not only did Hillary destroy both Pharma and Biotech, she is destroying their future ability to cure diseases. Cure, not manage. Right now we are on the cusp of curing many things. There is a drug in testing that will cure some forms of blindness. I am not kidding.

Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.

furious_a said...

When Republicans screw up the economy, at least someone makes a buck off of it.

When Democrats screw up the economy, they do it for fun.

--P.J. O'Rourke

Sebastian said...

"Protecting public safety...should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations."

Instead, it should be left in the hands of unaccountable former Secretaries of State.

MayBee said...

Are corporations more or less accountable than the government? What exactly is the accountability of the government? Elections?

Come on. This woman ran her government business on her own private server so she could delete and wipe rather than be accountable to FOIA requests. Absurd!

David Begley said...

I should add that Obama has already destroyed the coal industry. One coal company BK. UPRR has had big layoffs and is expecting more. WSJ reports via the EPA that over 200 coal-fired power plants will close in 2016.

And I am just choking on all that carbon dioxide. I'm dying!!

This is a stealth destruction of America. And for what? Avoiding 0.018 temp increase by 2100 per the EPA's own admission.

n.n said...

Wow. Her husband's promiscuity must have really shaken her faith in other people. She should take a break from the political race and rediscover the human race.

PB said...

Like a modern democrat, she perceives things exactly the opposite of reality. It is government that isn't accountable, private corporations are very much accountable.

Etienne said...

I think if you extrapolate the industry a bit, why not outsource the prisoners all the way to a foreign country. Maybe like French Guiana or Honduras. It would really help their economy, and they can send us cheaper bananas.

Mrs. Clinton is textbook on this. Of course you want to have federal jobs, and not private jobs. The federal agencies need about four people for every private employee, and where the hell are people from the big cities going to find jobs anyway.

Heatshield said...

We should eliminate private production and distribution of food - so many of those foods are giving us cancer. Also no more private production of automobiles that kill 30,000 people a year. And taxis and Uber - how many people do they endanger. Airlines are dangerous too. Oil production and mining are extremely dangerous. What about all those barbers and hair stylists with scissors. Stunt people are killed in movie production.

All of these things and more should be nationalized. Because protecting public safety should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations.

Mike aka Proof said...

She may take the place of Obama as a "One man wrecking ball".

themightypuck said...

Elections have winners and losers. The thing is, what percentage of private prisons are federal and what percentage of those could easily be replaced by public prisons in the next 8 years?

JRoberts said...

Isn't this the same woman who after 9/11/2001 said of security screeners at airports, "We won't professionalize until we federalize (aka add to the roles of public employee unions)"?

cubanbob said...

The Hildabitch has it backwards: government officials and civil servants should have the same accountability as corporations and their officers and employees. That would insure the bankruptcy and imprisonment of the Hildabitch and most of the Obama Administration senior officials and a number of the rank and file federal workers. She needs to win in order to stay out of jail.

Richard Dolan said...

There is no reason to think she actually believes what she's saying, or would do anything to bring it about if she were elected. It's just a convenient thing to say to a Dem audience since they instinctively favor government over private. With Hillary! it would be important to know what benefitted her and Bill personally.

Achilles said...

"For the second time in three weeks, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination wiped millions of dollars off the value of an industry."

They just haven't donated enough money to her campaign yet. She will support them if they giver her the appropriate amount of money.

Rusty said...

And all the usual suspects are going to vote for her.

Original Mike said...

"Not only did Hillary destroy both Pharma and Biotech, she is destroying their future ability to cure diseases. Cure, not manage. Right now we are on the cusp of curing many things. There is a drug in testing that will cure some forms of blindness. I am not kidding."

These people are evil. I am not kidding.

Michael K said...

This is an area where Carly would ravage her in debate. If Hillary bought up the HP layoffs, Carly would have a great comeback about the federal bureaucracy.

Michael said...

No prisons have been built by the government in many years. If the Congress eliminated private prisons then the government would have to either buy them from the REITs that own and operate them or build their own. The REITs would exact a price for the real estate and for the operating agreements.

It would be an interesting negotiation to watch.

Michael said...

Oh, and how long would it take for the government to acquire property, plan, budget and build the dozens of prisons it would have to replace?

Robert Cook said...

"Good for her! I hope she abolishes all private industry when she's president."

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I agree that the private prison industry is an abomination and should be dismantled.

Robert Cook said...

"Not only did Hillary destroy both Pharma and Biotech, she is destroying their future ability to cure diseases."

I don't like Hilary Clinton, but it is ludicrous to assert she destroyed Pharma and biotech...or their "future ability to cure diseases."

Heatshield said...

Once we fix all the problems by getting rid of the private prisons, we can finally perfect healthcare by putting everyone into the super-efficient and accountable VA system. We also need to have the government take over service industries so that we can get an accountable and wonderful organization like the TSA - which is already able to stop 5% of of the guns and bombs. And instead of building cars with greedy private industry, we could have the Defense Department take it over - their procurement group is doing amazing things in building the F-35 only tens of billions of dollars over budget.

Original Mike said...

"I don't like Hilary Clinton, but it is ludicrous to assert she destroyed Pharma and biotech...or their "future ability to cure diseases.""

Ability, no. Incentive, yes.

David Begley said...

Hillary is creating a depression in at least two industries and she hasn't even been elected.

Think what she could do after she wins!

David Begley said...

Robert Cook:

Okay, so maybe I got a little carried away.

But if some relative of yours needs one of these new drugs soon and it is delayed due to price controls and a higher cost of capital, be sure to thank Mrs. Clinton in your time of need.

Etienne said...

The VA should be dismantled. The victims moved to Obamacare. They should get a 50% discount off the bottom line, except for combat wounds, which would be 100% discount, and then add in any disability (10% - 100%), and send them a check.

The VA is obsolete, and the doctors are all unfit for medical practice.

walter said...

"I don't know if you're being sarcastic"

!!

avwh said...

"For the second time in three weeks, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination wiped millions of dollars off the value of an industry."

They just haven't donated enough money to her campaign yet. She will support them if they give her the appropriate amount of money."

Bingo!

The shake downs will continue until/unless the Clintons get their cut.

Lots of corporations and countries got the message - that's how the Clinton Foundation stuffed its coffers the last 7 years.

These businesses will learn or Hillary will lobby them out of existence. THAT is the kind of power every liberal fascist aspires to, but only Hillary has achieved it - and she's not even back in the White House yet.

David said...

"Protecting public safety...should never be outsourced or left to unaccountable corporations."

Much better to leave it to unaccountable politicians and government employees, right?

Michael said...

The various regimes that permit these prisons also enter into binding contracts with the owners and operators. Does Hillary propose to repudiate those contracts?

Sebastian said...

So, hostess, has Hillary! lost you yet?

If not, what would it take?

azbadger said...

Perhaps I'm clueless, but I don't understand why Bernie, Hillary, among others, see private prisons as an abomination. It's not like prisons will disappear. Are more rapes occurring now than when prisons were run exclusively by the states or federal gov't? I would think private prisons would be cheaper for taxpayers. For one thing, the gov't would not be on the hook for the uber expensive pensions and benefits for COs, especially since those are hazardous duty pensions. For another, the COs would not be protected by public sector unions and it would appear that COs who run amok could be fired much easier than state-employed COs. Moreover, I would think that states have escape clauses written into the contracts with private prisons that would allow them to break the contract if misconduct occurs and remains uncorrected.

Robert Cook said...

But if some relative of yours needs one of these new drugs soon and it is delayed due to price controls and a higher cost of capital, be sure to thank Mrs. Clinton in your time of need.

How does Hilary Clinton affect how quickly (or not) a new drug is available? (I'm not saying she doesn't or can't, but how, specifically does she, by her votes in Congress?) How do "price controls" delay new drug? What "higher cost of capital?"

Michael K said...

Mr Cook, why don't you do some reading about the vaccine catastrophe she set off when Bill was president ?

Here is a start.

Everyone knows America's vaccine industry is in serious trouble, with an ever dwindling number of producers and recent severe vaccine shortages. What everyone also should know is that the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine has now pinned much of the blame on Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Well, not in so many words. The panel of doctors and economists issuing a report on vaccines last week was too polite to mention the former First Lady by name. But they identify as a fundamental cause of the problem the fact that the government purchases 55% of the childhood vaccine market at forced discount prices. The result has been "declining financial incentives to develop and produce vaccines."

The root of this government role goes back to August 1993, when Congress passed Mrs. Clinton's Vaccines for Children program. A dream of Hillary's friends at the Children's Defense Fund, her vaccines plan was to use federal power to ensure universal immunization. So the government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply (the Clintons had pushed for 100%) at a forced discount of half price, then distribute it to doctors to deliver to the poor and the un- and under-insured.


Suddenly, vaccines, a low margin business, lost a lot of suppliers.

I know, government is what we do together. Just not very well.

Michael K said...

That link was lost.

David Begley said...

AVWH:

Bingo! You have figured out the Clintons' protection racket. Big Pharma now has to donate millions to the campaign, Super Pacs and the Foundation. Hillary says she will go light on them in consideration for their money. Or once she wins, those darn Republicans stop her.

They did the same thing on KXL.

David Begley said...

Didn't read all the comments before that last post.

I am no plagiarist.

It sure would be nice to see CBSNBCNYT do a story on their scheme.

Robert Cook said...

"Perhaps I'm clueless, but I don't understand why Bernie, Hillary, among others, see private prisons as an abomination."

Some things to consider.

And more.

Steven said...

Well, somebody apparently felt the need to give the public prison guard unions a Lewinsky.

David Begley said...

Robert Cook:

Say your company has a new gene to cure or help people with Alzheimer's. You need to go to Wall Street or VC's for the millions you need. You need that money because you will be spending millions and have no revenue.

Financial projects are prepared. If the company can't make a big profit on this risky venture it doesn't get funded. The profit forecasts get cranked down if there a price controls or extended FDA approval trials.

Billions got whacked off the market value of the existing companies as the Street is already discounting the above to present value.

All of this has been explained to Hillary. She just wants that campaign cash.

Robert Cook said...

And still more.

Steven said...

It's amazing that people can talk about the connection between private profit and increased incarceration without paying any attention to the #1 example -- the way that public prison guard unions have openly poured millions and millions of dollars into backing legislative candidates who support longer sentences, initiatives that increase mandatory minimums, and prosecutorial and judicial candidates who are "hard on crime".

Someone genuinely concerned about over-incarceration would be demanding the immediate elimination of public prison guard unions, first and foremost, long before even considering the issue of big business running private prisons. If they aren't, well, that tells you exactly what their concern really is.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

How would you propose the prisons be taken from public companies? What would the cost be to the government to replace them?

The idea that these private facilities are "slave labor" is libelous as well as stupid and innumerate.

Would be interested in your ideas for replacing them with government facilities.

Robert Cook said...

"You need that money because you will be spending millions and have no revenue."


The pharma companies have plenty of capital, derived from all the other drugs they already own patents on and are selling at high markups.

They also overstate the cost to them of developing new drugs. Plus, many new drugs are developed with public money, at public research universities.

Taxpayers help fund the development of many important new drugs. Yet, we pay prices for them as if they they were developed entirely by private investment dollars.

David Begley said...

Robert Cook:

You are dead wrong; especially as applied to biotech.

In order to be granted a patent on a new drug, a company has to spend millions.

You know nothing.

Robert Cook said...

"The idea that these private facilities are "slave labor" is libelous...."

In other words, an unpleasant truth you wish to avoid.

"Would be interested in your ideas for replacing them with government facilities."

Why not first try alternative sentencing that do not require prison terms? The majority of our prison population--the largest in the world, bar none--are non-violent offenders. Why spend money incarcerating them when other sentences might be more appropriate and proportionate...and would save money by requiring fewer prisons and prison cells?

dreams said...

Notice the accountability of the EPA in the recent spill in Colorado, I mean the lack of accountability. If it was the private sector, people would go to prison.

Michael K said...

Obviously, it is of no use to argue with Cookie.

Socialism has just never been tried hard enough.

Venezuela ? Where's that ?

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Yet, we pay prices for them as if they they were developed entirely by private investment dollars."
Yet I would bet about a zillion dollars that Robt. Cook owns none of the stock of these cash cow, sky-high profit 'big pharma' corporations. Why not? Because he doesn't understand how capitalism and markets work! It scares him!
It's much easier to have the LA Times tell you what to think than it is to use the fucking mind God gave you. Jesus Christ, Cook, you can't even be bothered to link to the source of the article the biased LA Times writer used as her source. Like virtually every lefty in the universe, you think that learning things consists of finding a writer you agree with and bookmarking their web page. The article doesn't even support your thesis. There is nothing quantitative in it regarding how much the drugs 'should' cost. Do you honestly believe that the source of life-saving drugs is the moronic political class? Do they study medicine in law school? You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, Cook.

Michael said...

Robert Cook

So, your idea of replacing the privately run prisons (which, by the way, are often run in partnership with the government) is to not put people in prison. That, Mr Cook, is a really imaginative solution. So, I will take your answer as you have no earthly idea as to how to replace the prisons.

I would suggest you read a bit about the topic of slavery both in the United States and in the Gulag. It would assist in making you less stupid.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"Why not first try alternative sentencing that do not require prison terms?"
Robert Cook, we incarcerate people for three reasons:
1) Separate them from society.
2) Provide for their rehabilitation.
3) To punish them, e.g., provide justice.

What is your alternative plan for providing these three things? Or are you going to argue that we should give up one or more of them?

Michael said...

Robert Cook

Also, just a tip, I wouldn't take my information from articles sprinkled with all caps.

What products are these slaves producing and for whose profit?

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Steven has the right of it. Throw a bone to the public prison guards union in exchange for fat stacks of campaign cash. It's absurd to think Hillary give's a rat's ass about prisons, private or otherwise. It's absurd to think Hillary gives a rat's ass about much of anything, other than money and the perks of power. You know, it may actually be good for the country to have a purely mercenary President. We'll find out here shortly.

azbadger said...

Robert: Just a quick read of the HuffPo piece, but it seems as though its opposition to private prisons rests on the belief that, to justify, the cost, the prisons have to be filled. But judges are still responsible for imposing sentences. The best HuffPo can do is allege that there will be "subtle pressure" to make sentencing laws more severe to drive up prison population. That strikes me as a pretty weak argument against private prisons.

The slave labor article isn't much more convincing. When prisons were run by states that have gone private, were those states paying minimum wage? I doubt it.

From the third article, this line pretty much sums up Nolan's silly argument: "second, anything horrible will necessarily turn out to be true, when it comes to private prisons." Huh?

MayBee said...

Richard Dolan- excellent point.

Joe said...

I'm not a fan of private prisons, but Hillary's talk of accountability is, um, interesting.

Fernandinande said...

That's the first thing Billary's ever said that I agree with. And no, a criminal like her shouldn't have anything to do with anything.

PB said...
Like a modern democrat, she perceives things exactly the opposite of reality. It is government that isn't accountable, private corporations are very much accountable.


That'd be true for most private industry, but how are you, or any other citizen, going to hold a private prison company accountable for their actions? Not do business with them...? Their only customer is the government, which creates two levels of accountability.

How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about

Anonymous said...

Well, that's what happens when you invest in a twisted system.

Michael K said...

"So, your idea of replacing the privately run prisons (which, by the way, are often run in partnership with the government) is to not put people in prison."

One solution, never to be mentioned in leftist circles, is to restore capital punishment. Drug legalization is something I could be comfortable with, at least with some drugs, chiefly marijuana and opioids. That would NOT solve the prison problem because the "non-violent drug offender" in prison is a myth. The people in prison are there for violent felonies and maybe capital punishment, enforced and swift in application, would do some good. Probably not but execution of violent offenders, especially murderers, would reduce prison crowding and cost.

Nobody will talk about that anymore than they will talk about reform schools for those violent mostly black thugs in schools.

Lewis Wetzel said...

"It is government that isn't accountable . . ."
The reason the left champions the Federal government is because it is the least accountable level of government. There are three branches of the federal government, congressional, judicial, executive. The Left loves the least accountable branches of the least accountable level of government.

Lem said...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "industry" does not figure in the Clinton Foundation donor rolls.

jr565 said...

I admit to ignorance as to how companies actually profit from running prisons. It seems like a business that doesn't have a clear profit behind it. But, do we really want to add prisons to the things govt is responsible for, considering they are constantly asking us for money to fix roads?

That's now two things we need to raise taxes for. then there are all the plans that Bernie wants to implement. Which will be paid for by raising taxes more and more.

walter said...

Benchmark report sees the cost of bringing a drug to market approaching $3 billion

walter said...

How The US Subsidizes Cheap Drugs For Europe

Michael K said...

"In the U.K., it was $33,500 for annual care."

It's not clear when or even if, this drug is available to NHS patients.

walter said...

True..NICE sometimes isn't. See Tykerb..company tried to make coverage conditional on results. NICE declined.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

We all know the government is accountable.

eric said...

It never ceases to amaze me, with the internet, and books, and television, and radio and all the other mediums out there to gather information and make informed decisions, and people still think the Government can do something better than the private sector?

It makes one realize how entropy effects the human mind and future generations. Eventually, we will be an idiocracy, if we aren't there already.

In the least sense, the private business answers to a higher power. The government which regulates it. But who regulates the government? We've already seen how political power corrupts and how impossible it is to find the truth out with someone like Hillary Clinton. She kept a private server, for crying out loud. This doesn't send up red flags all over the place? Instead, it causes the private sector, specifically the media, to defend her with all the power they can manifest, and to spin and lie for her to keep her campaign alive.

And yet, we're supposed to believe she is more accountable than a private company.

Uh huh.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"Taxpayers help fund the development of many important new drugs. Yet, we pay prices for them as if they they were developed entirely by private investment dollars."

Yeah, peddle it with somebody who doesn't know better. Until recently I ran a university lab developing medical technology with both federal and private funds. The public money available is a pittance compared to the private.

Robert, have you ever done one thing in your life to advance the human condition?

Guildofcannonballs said...

Although I disagree with Robert Cook, his skepticism of private prisons is warranted because, as Steven mentioned, government bureaucrats ultimately decide the methods and legalities of paying, using of course taxpayer dollars, hence any excuse to rent-seek or even defraud if the risk of being caught is low enough will do for some percentage of the decision makers involved, both private and public, warranting vicious suspicion of both.

Cook's link to the Huffpo has a link with a stat saying over 48% of current prisoners in the Federal system are there for drug offenses. I have heard theories over the years that this is a misleading stat (really all stats are "damned" misleading until history can verify their accuracy to an extent) because the people convicted of drug offenses were really guilty of actual, directly violent offenses yet plea bargained down to a drug offense. Also, one could argue that many drug offenses are inherently violent, much as the mob's lessons of prohibition taught. Many convicted of a "non-violent" drug offense may well very be violent drug offenders indirectly and yet culpable, for example such as encouraging an atmosphere where gang shootings are more likely, even if the convicted didn't pull the trigger herself by profiting from contraband.

The Federal Gov. would, if need be for any reason such as because private prison benefiters contributed to the GOP angering Hillary, change the realm of ownership of prisons from more-private to more-public like they did with airline security after 9/11.

The thing is, nobody gives a rat's ass if the transition doesn't go well because the people who get elected to hire the people to write the details of the transition will not face any consequence for failure, but most likely in fact will ask for and receive more (taxpayer of course) money funneled their way.

Kirk Parker said...

Cookie,

Just how far does this "abomination" extend? Can a "public" prison be ok if it, say, contracts with a private painting firm instead of having Official Government Painters on the payroll? Or how about if the food it serves the prisoners comes from outside, private-party food service organizations? And is grown by privately-owned farms? Or is that abomination too? (Life on the колхо́з, eh comrade?)

Lewis Wetzel said...

By God, Guildofcannonballs. are you suggesting that the ranks of politicians and government bureaucrats are filled by the same kind of people who become corporate executives and managers?
Unbelievable! Why, if this is true, it means that government is no more capable of working in the interests of the People than a McDonalds franchise!

Lewis Wetzel said...

. . . we'll need a revolution to replace the government with a REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT!
Problem solved. Back to the ramparts, comeraden!

cf said...

Lack of accountability: the IRS,
. . . just for one example, really, need we go on?

I will take Fiorina and to a lesser extent, Trump, all the way up, if in that, a way could be Paved to rebalance the free market mercantile Business Sectors with our overblown overseeing BigBlueGoovernment.

We are truly crazy Nuts if we elect the blond wife of Bill Clinton to be president. truly.Crazy.Nuts.

cf said...

What keeps me awake at night about Hillary Clinton as president is that more white American children will be burned alive for their parent's beliefs because that's how she knows to move.

That will be the clinton legacy that will echo most achingly when she is president.

cf said...

Anyone but Hillary Clinton -- with the deeply talented Republican contenders First, and other odd ducks can join the festivities, maybe even be part and help wield a New Governance, a New Thing.
A toast to victory of Great Good, Victory! Excellent victory.
Godspeed, America

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

...or left to unaccountable corporations.

Unaccountable? You wanna see "unaccountable?" I'll tell you what's unaccountable!

GOVERNMENT is unaccountable.

OK, that's not true according to theory. Corporations are accountable to the stockholders. Governments are accountable to the People.

But in actuality, instances of Government accountability are rare. More often, Government immunity is improperly extended. General Motors was accountable until Government said not.

Consider the many ways in which Government is uaaccountable:
..cannot be sued without consent;
..legislators immune from libel in session;
..laws which include exception for government agencies or employees "in the performance of their duties" (as Government determines those duties to be!) and often with no practical reason why Government should extend that protection.

Indeed, consider things like running a Ponzi scheme (Social Security) or numbers racket (State Lottery) which are permitted for Government but illegal otherwise.

You wanna REALLY see unaccountable? Look at Hillary!

Curious George said...

"...or left to unaccountable corporations.""

IRS. VA. Benghazi. Fast and Furious. EPA.

People charged with crimes? 0 People fired? 0.

Fuck you Hillary.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Brazen. She's talking about prison. She should be in one.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

If you listen to her, she constantly talks about how SHE is going to add and layer more government bureaucracy. While it all crumbles around us, the inept corruption queen is going to smother us with bureaucratic nanny-state tax payer funded overlords.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Her so called "unaccountable corporations" are all funding her campaign

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

AS seen on VOX - that bastion of right winger.

Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her

Bill said...

It is just rhetorical garbage to call private correction companies "unaccountable". It's so annoying for her treat words like they don't matter.
The corporations have a contract with the government, and if they violate the contract, it is terminated for cause. The government can put whatever it wants into the contract. That's that.
There may be structural reasons outsourcing corrections is bad, but unaccountability is not one of them.

Henry said...

Private prisons are the effect. Prosecutors are the medium. The penal code is the cause. Two of these three lie wholly in the governmental domain.

Tom said...

I'm sure their donations will fall back in line.

Robert Cook said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"But, do we really want to add prisons to the things govt is responsible for, considering they are constantly asking us for money to fix roads?"

Um...government always was responsible for the prisons, until the capitalists saw they could make a buck off it.

Also...how else do you think road are fixed--or built--without tax dollars?

As it happens, our national infrastructure--highways, bridges, rail lines, etc.--are deteriorating because we're not spending enough to keep them up to par. Instead, we're spending trillions on wars of aggression to advance our own power abroad and to enrich the arms merchants and affiliated contractors.

In 1856, Secretary of State William Marcy said:

"The United States consider powerful navies and large standing armies as permanent establishments to be detrimental to national prosperity and dangerous to civil liberty. The expense of keeping them up is burdensome to the people; they are in some degree a menace to peace among nations. A large force ever ready to be devoted to the purposes of war is a temptation to rush into it."

In 1963, (former) President Eisenhower said:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

One can only add: war is a lot more expensive today than then!

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
Um...government always was responsible for the prisons, until the capitalists saw they could make a buck off it.

Also...how else do you think road are fixed--or built--without tax dollars?

I never said they weren't fixed w/o tax dollars. I'm saying the pols always get the tax dollars, but the roads are never fixed. They want to RAISE the gas tax to fix the roads. Where did all the money go prior to this?
And if capitalists can make a buck off of it, at least the govt isn't raising the tax dollars to fund prisons at the expense of the roads. Which I'm sure they will ask for more money for in the amount of higher taxes.

This is an argument about priorities. there is nothing wrong with saying we need to pay taxes to fund roads. If you add "free daycare" "prisons" "free health care" etc etc etc. I just ask that you figure out what is going to get the short shrift. Is it going to be the prisons? is it going to be the roads. Is it going to be our debt?
You can try to tax the rich at 99.99999% of earnings, and its not going to fund the programs that are being promised. So then all these calls to raise the gas tax to fund infrastructure, are simply proofs of how govt can't live within its means and now need more cash. Which it will spend and not actually resolve issues.
Just like Obama got 3/4 of a trillion dollars for "infrastructure" and we have literlaly nothing to show for it. It was simply money down a hole.
And now you want MORE. How about some more accountability and less demagoguery?

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
As it happens, our national infrastructure--highways, bridges, rail lines, etc.--are deteriorating because we're not spending enough to keep them up to par. Instead, we're spending trillions on wars of aggression to advance our own power abroad and to enrich the arms merchants and affiliated contractors.

Did you read Althouse's post from a few days ago where she talked about the cost to CA to drill a hole in a mountain for high speed rail projects? That's where your money is going. How about instead of drilling a hole to nowhere you FIX THE DAMN ROADS!

Birkel said...

It is not true that roads, bridges, lighthouses and the rest were "always" funded by government.

Robert Cook is either ignorant or lying or both.

Unknown said...

----granted a patent on a new drug, a company has to spend millions.


Not millions....Billions with a B!!!!

A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

So like socialists... Get a golden egg a day F that lets kill her and get them all now.

OGWiseman said...

Good. Making people rich for incarcerating and immiserating their fellow citizens is a scourge on our society. It's a sickening practice that only exacerbates the problem of criminality.