Don Perignon
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2, 2011 18:46:42 GMT -5
Posts: 2,024
|
Post by Don Perignon on Aug 2, 2011 20:40:48 GMT -5
"Conjugal visitation" in prisons is contingent upon the prisoners toeing the line and being "model" inmates. Any drug/weapon/violence violations by the prisoner cancels any impending conjugal visitation. In essence, the conjugal visitations are a "carrot" used (in place of a truncheon) to encourage good behavior. Apparently, it is a fairly effective way to motivate the punks to modify their behavior in positive ways.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 2, 2011 23:55:35 GMT -5
...I like carrots...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 3, 2011 8:53:38 GMT -5
Actually the first thing people look at is to STOP THEIR WASTEFUL SPENDING HABITS...there's plenty of waste, abuse, mismanagement, and the like to look at before revenue increases. But that would mean less government jobs, less government spending, less government benefits, stricter government payment terms, and actual sacrifice. The Dems would never go for it...too much effort and it would mean people would have less dependence on government. The HORROR...the HORROR!! Here's the difference between your plan and mine. In your plan you keep taxes where they are and look to people to cut wasteful spending habits. Here's the problem, if they don't cut their wasteful spending habits the deficit gets bigger and bigger and the debt grows out of control. Now lets look at it the other way. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, extend FICA to all income and cut subsidies for wildly profitable businesses. Now if people don't cut their wasteful habits at least the deficit is much smaller and the growth of the debt slows. However if they do cut their wasteful habits and we start seeing larger tax revenues than spending bills, we have a surplus AND THEN we can cut taxes by an amount equal to additional spending cuts. The problem is that republicans would never go for that because it could actually prove that the Bush tax cuts were a major factor in driving up the debt. They also wouldn't go for it because it flies in the face of the "starve the beast" strategy that's just beginning to show positive results on the dems social agenda. And here's the problem with your plan: they haven't proven they can cut anything yet! So you want to hand them more and more money "hoping" they get their financial houses in order and become fiscally responsible (AFTER they have already taken the money). That's been done multiple times in the past and here we are...nearly $15T in debt, out of control spending, multitudes of waste and abuse, etc, etc. What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result? Oh, but this time it will be different...riiiiiight.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 3, 2011 9:30:56 GMT -5
.... its called refinancing. I'm glad to see you finally agree with me.
|
|