Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[Geeto67]

I think there are a lot of people here who believe there actually is an over complicated set of processes to dole out money that we don't have towards a number of programs and a lot of pet projects. Overall the system needs to be made super simple and involve far less people and gov't than we currently have.

 

maybe, but at what cost? Bureaucracy isn't always a negative, sometimes it is a control against abuse or rash decisions. People don't usually trust bureaucracy because it is difficult to understand, but more often than not it has the effect of keeping people honest than creating an obfuscating environment for corruption because of the sheer number of players involved.

 

As for money we don't have? well....government works on budget/deficit accounting no matter what because the majority of cash intake happens on a rolling basis without enough time to be processed and applied. So the money for the federal operating costs are borrowed as per the federal budget, and that loan is paid off and restarted when taxes are taken in by the government. The "deficit" people worry about is the shortfall of the government's income to cover the loan (a balanced budget), so it gets rolled over and we pay interest on it. The US at one time did pay off the national debt and transitioned to a "spend what you earn" style system and it actually wasn't that great for the country (here is another PM podcast discussing this: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/07/158376579/episode-273-when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt). Debt is a saleable instrument, Debt sometimes is leverage in foreign negotiations, national debt isn't always a bad thing. Having a balanced budget is not always the same thing as having no national debt.

 

Frankly put, it's shortsighted to declare things like bureaucracy and national debt as inherently and always evil and they need to be eliminated. It is equally shortsighted to look at the government as a whole and declare it inefficient or too big without taking it on a case by case basis. The inefficiencies of National Defense are not the inefficiencies of farming subsidies or education spending or social welfare. And the cost of discontinuing the spending in some of these areas is pretty significant and not always seen on it's face. As the podcast with the shrimp points out spending on some things like seem like frivolous research can lead to things that fundamentally change the landscape of the world, and keep the US as an established leader in agriculture, military, and technology.

 

I sometimes feel like this is a knowledge problem. That people that just declare the government needs to get "simpler" on the whole want the knowledge to come to them instead of them seeking out the knowledge and proposing real solutions to inefficiency in a particular area. Nobody is able to know every single thing about the US government, and that's not necessarily a bad thing - it creates experts in specific fields and keeps the damage by those who don't know to a minimum. Even if you don't have faith in the people in the system, you can still have some faith that it's very difficult to get a lot of people to intentionally collude to do something unethical all at once inside of a bureaucratic system.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Geeto67

[TTQ B4U]

maybe, but at what cost? Bureaucracy isn't always a negative, sometimes it is a control against abuse or rash decisions.

 

it's been out of control and needs reigned in and I think the majority of people see that.

 

As for money we don't have? well....government works on budget/deficit accounting no matter what because the majority of cash intake happens on a rolling basis without enough time to be processed and applied.....

 

I know how it works, but at the end of the day, here too, things are out of control. I do feel they need to balance the budget and without a doubt work on the debt. That is far far out of control.

Frankly put, it's shortsighted to declare things like bureaucracy and national debt as inherently and always evil and they need to be eliminated.

 

No one said eliminated; it needs to be brought down to minimal. We don't need the metric ton of bureaucracy to function.

 

It is equally shortsighted to look at the government as a whole and declare it inefficient or too big without taking it on a case by case basis.

 

I can appreciate the points you try and make but like the gov't, you seem to enjoy making things too deep and difficult. It's not. This shit is out of control and needs brought down in size plain and simple. The knowledge problem is gov't likes to function complex BS because they can hide and play with the money when they do that. Running a well oil society doesn't need to be this messy.

 

Even if you don't have faith in the people in the system, you can still have some faith that it's very difficult to get a lot of people to intentionally collude to do something unethical all at once inside of a bureaucratic system.

 

It's not that complicated. Has little to do with collusion and a lot more to do with keeping things pretty basic and people being held accountable. We don't need huge studies and thousand page reports to make decision on whether something is effective or not.

[BStowers023]

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt325/BStowers023/C7076B1B-C665-4F9E-B3EB-2CCE5C2116A0_zpswbra000z.jpg

 

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt325/BStowers023/709D3719-D23F-4BB9-B061-532596A14189_zpsq10olvgj.jpg

 

http://i624.photobucket.com/albums/tt325/BStowers023/80822BC8-2DC8-4063-90E8-1A304FDB1169_zpsaxijyduk.jpg

[Geeto67]

it's been out of control and needs reigned in and I think the majority of people see that.

 

I think a very vocal minority but that's neither here nor there. Even traditional republicans embrace some pretty onerous bureaucracy, esp those around military spending when it suits their needs.

 

 

I know how it works, but at the end of the day, here too, things are out of control. I do feel they need to balance the budget and without a doubt work on the debt. That is far far out of control.

 

I don't even think it is the highest it has been history when you adjust the past for inflation. Plus financing is cheap at the moment, we are making less interest payments that we have in the past, and the debt isn't growing but shrinking - albeit it slowly. The sky isn't falling, it isn't "out of control", and while the recovery from the financial crisis is responsible from doubling the debt which was already high following Bush's wars - some minor course corrections would get it on track even more than it already is. If you want to talk about out of control, it's defense spending which is America's single most expensive expenditure and actually eclipses the national debt. There is no sign of decreasing defense spending under the current administration, FYI.

 

 

No one said eliminated; it needs to be brought down to minimal. We don't need the metric ton of bureaucracy to function.

I don't even think minimal, or rather what you probably think is minimal is far less than the actual minimal that is needed to maintain a controls environment. Where the government can really benefit from bureaucracy reduction isn't in reducing the number of layers things that pass through but rather eliminating processes that have outlived their usefulness or have solved their problem to the point where it is a diminished return and another process to maintain could take it's place. Socialization and oversight are essential to regulatory interpretation and enforcement, but enforcing new laws written on top of old antiquated laws (very little is ever removed, they mostly just add new to the old till it sorta makes sense) isn't efficient. The other thing that could stand to be eliminated is siloing among agencies. Sometimes enforcement happens over two agencies and they don't talk to each other as well as they should so sometimes you end up with an enforcement arm, like the DOJ, trying to enforce a regulation without any interpretation or guidance because another department in the same agency, like the DOJ policy arm, isn't finished interpreting the law yet.

 

I can appreciate the points you try and make but like the gov't, you seem to enjoy making things too deep and difficult. It's not.

 

It's more complex than you give it credit, and def more than the average American realizes. You are kidding yourself if you think it is "simple" because it's built complex for a reason. What it isn't is beyond human comprehension because humans created it. But it takes time to study it and learn the details and they don't teach it to people in high school at all and barely graze the surface in college or most grad schools (including law school). And each department operated differently within the shared framework. There is no way to make it simple without losing years of problem solving and exceptions.

 

This shit is out of control and needs brought down in size plain and simple.

you are just alarmist. It's the same as it always was, and it's actually been getting slightly better over time in some areas. Stop listening to bozo's like Alex Jones and other nut job pundits whose only job is to work you into a chicken little like froth and exploit your lack of knowledge and anger about it.

 

 

The knowledge problem is gov't likes to function complex BS because they can hide and play with the money when they do that. Running a well oil society doesn't need to be this messy.

 

The knowledge problem is most Americans are ignorant about how their government works in practice and has no desire to learn. Ignorant isn't a lack of intelligence, just a lack of knowledge, most Americans could probably grasp some of the more complex finer points if they put the time in to learn. There also isn't great access to the knowledge because while most of what you need is publicly available you have to have a pretty good education (top portion of your high school) to understand a lot of it. and it takes a ton of time.

 

 

This statement about hide and play with money is conspiracy nonsense. There are so many eyes on things that corruption based on hiding money is difficult to hide and usually spotted pretty easily when it happens. A lot of that is based on the modern financial technologies of the last 30 years that makes accounting clearer and more accessible. In the days before electronic spreadsheets maybe there was some truth, but not now - and mostly because of bureaucracy. It doesn't mean people don't try to beat the system, just very few get away with it. Even departments that operate covert operations have to submit expense reports.

 

The corruption you have to worry about is the influence of private sector money on politicians. That isn't government money, that's lobbyists spending to buy political position post election. That's right out in the open too...if you are looking for it.

 

as far as how messy it is? yes it is this messy because people are messy. We are not homogeneous, what works for you doesn't work for everyone. It evolved this way over time through problem solving, to regress to a "simpler" model just basically fucks over everyone whose problems were partially solved through policy adjustment. It's always going to evolve this way.

 

It's not that complicated. Has little to do with collusion and a lot more to do with keeping things pretty basic and people being held accountable. We don't need huge studies and thousand page reports to make decision on whether something is effective or not.

 

People are held accountable in government all the time. you just may not see it because it involves non-partisan employees and day to day operations. If you mean politicians to campaign promises, well that's a tiny part of accountability and honestly you're never going to get that - it's a fools dream and the only reason integrity is still important in politics.

 

As far as reports and research - history has proven that not only is it necessary, but it works well in how the government makes decisions. We evolved to this point out of a need to make informed decisions in the public's best interest. things are not always what they seem but it's harder to argue with empirical data. Shooting from the hip usually means you shoot yourself in the foot.

[BStowers023]

IMO the Government is responsible for 3 things...

 

-Keeping us safe from foreign threat (Military and Defense)

-Enforcing law (particularly just violent crimes or crimes that endanger other citizens)

-Protect the constitutional rights of US Citizens

 

 

What else should the Government be responsible for, honestly? We should pay a tax to be protected but other than that, stay the fuck out of my life.

[BigOxley]

IMO the Government is responsible for 3 things...

 

-Keeping us safe from foreign threat (Military and Defense)

-Enforcing law (particularly just violent crimes or crimes that endanger other citizens)

-Protect the constitutional rights of US Citizens

 

 

What else should the Government be responsible for, honestly? We should pay a tax to be protected but other than that, stay the fuck out of my life.

 

 

 

I like interstates and national parks

[BStowers023]

I like interstates and national parks

 

 

Who said the Government needs to pay for those?

 

Car company's can't sell cars without roads.

Private organizations can maintain parks.

[Mallard]

IMO the Government is responsible for 3 things...

 

-Keeping us safe from foreign threat (Military and Defense)

-Enforcing law (particularly just violent crimes or crimes that endanger other citizens)

-Protect the constitutional rights of US Citizens

 

 

What else should the Government be responsible for, honestly? We should pay a tax to be protected but other than that, stay the fuck out of my life.

Infrastructure, energy, heath, education, environment, national security, defence, IMHO.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Geeto67]

IMO the Government is responsible for 3 things...

 

-Keeping us safe from foreign threat (Military and Defense)

-Enforcing law (particularly just violent crimes or crimes that endanger other citizens)

-Protect the constitutional rights of US Citizens

 

You understand that there are multiple governments acting mostly independently in furtherance of these goals, right? or do you just advocate abolishing the state governments and letting the federal government take over?

 

Also the last one is nonsense. The constitution is the framework for the government - any government action that runs against it is invalid (based upon a historical and shared jurisprudence through enforcement, policy, and legislation and not any one person's interpretation).

 

 

Who said the Government needs to pay for those?

 

The bad behavior of those who have had control of those things in the past (see medieval system of road tolls for an example). Remember, the majority of roads used to cross private land - without the government system of easements and access we wouldn't have a public system of roads. These days the majority of the highways and major infrastructure is under the stewardship and the responsibility of the local and state government, but it wasn't always that way and it needed a government taking control of the public interest to travel unrestricted and building out the infrastructure.

 

 

Car company's can't sell cars without roads.

Private organizations can maintain parks.

 

You cannot rely on all people being altruistic. Car Companies grew out of public access to roads in this country, if we adhered to the old European concepts of road tolls and restricted passage and access the car companies would not have become as big as they are now, but they would be very profitable in controlling both the vehicle and the access to the road. You know the Porsche business model of high profit margins and low volume? yeah no imagine everybody in the market is Porsche. They could eliminate the second hand car market because it isn't profitable to them and dilutes their product further pushing their products upmarket.

 

Generally you want the government to oversee things that are the greater public interest as a whole where a for profit approach would cause harm to the general public. If you really think about it, that's a lot of services. A great example of the conflict between profit and non-profit motivations is when General Motors was allowed to buy up all the public transportation trolley services and then phased them out to sell buses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy).

[BStowers023]

Infrastructure, energy, heath, education, environment, national security, defence, IMHO.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

Healthcare will get worse if the Government provides it, I promise.

 

Public Education is a failure. No explanation needed.

[C-Mart]

Healthcare will get worse if the Government provides it, I promise.

 

Public Education is a failure. No explanation needed.

 

It is amazing that this is not universally accepted as truth.

[TTQ B4U]

It is amazing that this is not universally accepted as truth.

 

it's because the masses who want gov't involved would rather lower the bar and cover more people. I say no thanks to that.

[Mallard]

Healthcare will get worse if the Government provides it, I promise.

 

Public Education is a failure. No explanation needed.

Public health is much more than just health care.

 

Charter schools are a disaster and are hurting our public education system. There are lots of places where public schools are very good, and the solution is not blowing up the system and turning it over to for-profit industry.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

Public health is much more than just health care.

 

Charter schools are a disaster and are hurting our public education system. There are lots of places where public schools are very good, and the solution is not blowing up the system and turning it over to for-profit industry.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

Dude, the Government is a for profit industry

[greg1647545532]

Who said the Government needs to pay for those?

 

Car company's can't sell cars without roads.

Private organizations can maintain parks.

 

You want the government to defend you from foreign threats, correct? That requires weaponry. Weaponry requires raw materials and skilled labor. Raw materials need to be produced and transported to areas with skilled labor, then transported to military installations for troops to be trained on its use, then deployed to ports so that it can be deployed effectively. The Eisenhower Interstate system is an integral part of the US national defense infrastructure. Eisenhower himself saw the German highway system and thought, "Goddamn, that's way more efficient than a hodgepodge of state/local/private roads!"

 

I like the idea of libertarianism, I really do, even called myself a libertarian for a number of years, but where it frustrates me is when people stubbornly adhere to an ideal rather than accept the fact that some things just work better when the government gets involved.

 

Not everything works better with government, that much is true. Lots of people having cars was really good for economy in the 50s and 60s, but if the government had stepped in and built a bunch of cars for everyone we'd all be driving around in crap-ass trabants, dying in droves and polluting ourselves to death. Competition was good for the car industry and the government could have stayed out of the way even more, if you ask me.

 

Public housing is another one, everyone having a house is a good thing for the economy but when the government gets involved it tends to go to shit, because the free market can just do it better.

 

The value of roads is hard for single company to realize since the up front costs are so massive, and competition becomes a challenge. The free market doesn't do so well there. Same with parks, some parks might attract a lot of tourists and therefore be profitable, but other parks might be worth saving (IMHO) but no private company could make a profit doing so.

 

At the end of the day, results matter, not ideology. I'd rather live in a country that works better than one that doesn't, even if it means compromising on free market ideals every once in a while.

[Geeto67]

Healthcare will get worse if the Government provides it, I promise.

 

Public Education is a failure. No explanation needed.

 

bullshit.

 

It is amazing that this is not universally accepted as truth.

 

probably because it isn't true.

 

 

Dude, the Government is a for profit industry

 

you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

 

 

let's start with the basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization

A nonprofit organization (also known as a non-business entity[1]) is an organization that has been formed by a group of people in order "to pursue a common not-for-profit goal", that is, to pursue a stated goal without the intention of distributing excess revenue to members or leaders.[2] A nonprofit organization is often dedicated to furthering a particular social cause or advocating for a particular point of view. In economic terms, a nonprofit organization uses its surplus revenues to further achieve its purpose or mission, rather than distributing its surplus income to the organization's shareholders (or equivalents) as profit or dividends. This is known as the non-distribution constraint.[3] The decision to adopt a nonprofit legal structure is one that will often have taxation implications, particularly where the nonprofit seeks income tax exemption or charitable status.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

A for-profit corporation is an organization which aims to earn profit through its operations and is concerned with its own interests, unlike those of the publi...

 

...A for-profit corporation is usually an organization operating in the private sector which sets aims that eventually help the organization itself. This kind of a company makes shares of ownership available to the general public. The purchasers of those shares then become the company's shareholders; shareholders have bought a portion of ownership of the corporation by giving away certain amount of money (differentiating from company to company) or assets of a particular value. Such organizations are usually not aided by the government as they are working for private financial gains, unlike a non-profit organisation, which exists to serve a mission. The nature of a for-profit corporation is such that it is required to pay applicable taxes and register with the state. Any donation which they receive will also be subject to the tax policies of the concerned country.[2] As these organizations are all corporations and have a separate identity from their owners the owners are not in their personal capacity required to satisfy any debts which the company might owe to anyone

 

by saying the government is a for profit enterprise you are saying it has no public interest and serves only to make the president, congress, and the judiciary richer. If that were really the case we wouldn't have lawsuits being filed regarding our current president and the emoluments clause.

 

what you are is just cynical. cynicism isn't fact.

 

 

 

Charter schools are a disaster and are hurting our public education system. There are lots of places where public schools are very good, and the solution is not blowing up the system and turning it over to for-profit industry.

 

 

Agree. One of the biggest problems with education right now is the quality of it is tied to the wealth of the people paying into the tax pool. If you have money, you live in a nice area, you pay higher taxes, you get better education. Eisenhower proved that the quality of education responds to money when he instituted federal programs to drive education in the sciences and engineering in this country and catapulted the US to the number 1 country in education in the 1960's. Reagan also proved this by cutting federal educational funding by record amounts and crippling skilled labor and vocational training as a result in the 1980's (lingering until the 2000s).

 

There is a lot of misconception and false equivalency surrounding this because of the way education responds. If you cut funding the effect is immediate. People just instantly stop learning what they were being taught. But if you spend to institute programs it can take 4-8 years to start to see the full tangible effect. That's a lot of time because knowledge takes time and work to acquire. A lot of people think that the results of more money in education should be instant because the results of cutting funding is, but it just doesn't work that way. Also it takes a lot of money to reduce the influence of state and local funding on the quality of the education, and it's sometimes hard to see the returns on each dollar.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Geeto67

[BStowers023]

You want the government to defend you from foreign threats, correct? That requires weaponry. Weaponry requires raw materials and skilled labor. Raw materials need to be produced and transported to areas with skilled labor, then transported to military installations for troops to be trained on its use, then deployed to ports so that it can be deployed effectively. The Eisenhower Interstate system is an integral part of the US national defense infrastructure. Eisenhower himself saw the German highway system and thought, "Goddamn, that's way more efficient than a hodgepodge of state/local/private roads!"

 

I like the idea of libertarianism, I really do, even called myself a libertarian for a number of years, but where it frustrates me is when people stubbornly adhere to an ideal rather than accept the fact that some things just work better when the government gets involved.

 

Not everything works better with government, that much is true. Lots of people having cars was really good for economy in the 50s and 60s, but if the government had stepped in and built a bunch of cars for everyone we'd all be driving around in crap-ass trabants, dying in droves and polluting ourselves to death. Competition was good for the car industry and the government could have stayed out of the way even more, if you ask me.

 

Public housing is another one, everyone having a house is a good thing for the economy but when the government gets involved it tends to go to shit, because the free market can just do it better.

 

The value of roads is hard for single company to realize since the up front costs are so massive, and competition becomes a challenge. The free market doesn't do so well there. Same with parks, some parks might attract a lot of tourists and therefore be profitable, but other parks might be worth saving (IMHO) but no private company could make a profit doing so.

 

At the end of the day, results matter, not ideology. I'd rather live in a country that works better than one that doesn't, even if it means compromising on free market ideals every once in a while.

 

 

I can level with you there.

[BStowers023]

bullshit.

 

 

 

probably because it isn't true.

 

 

 

 

you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

 

 

let's start with the basics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For-profit_corporation

 

 

by saying the government is a for profit enterprise you are saying it has no public interest and serves only to make the president, congress, and the judiciary richer. If that were really the case we wouldn't have lawsuits being filed regarding our current president and the emoluments clause.

 

what you are is just cynical. cynicism isn't fact.

 

 

 

 

 

Agree. One of the biggest problems with education right now is the quality of it is tied to the wealth of the people paying into the tax pool. If you have money, you live in a nice area, you pay higher taxes, you get better education. Eisenhower proved that the quality of education responds to money when he instituted federal programs to drive education in the sciences and engineering in this country and catapulted the US to the number 1 country in education in the 1960's. Reagan also proved this by cutting federal educational funding by record amounts and crippling skilled labor and vocational training as a result in the 1980's (lingering until the 2000s).

 

There is a lot of misconception and false equivalency surrounding this because of the way education responds. If you cut funding the effect is immediate. People just instantly stop learning what they were being taught. But if you spend to institute programs it can take 4-8 years to start to see the full tangible effect. That's a lot of time because knowledge takes time and work to acquire. A lot of people think that the results of more money in education should be instant because the results of cutting funding is, but it just doesn't work that way. Also it takes a lot of money to reduce the influence of state and local funding on the quality of the education, and it's sometimes hard to see the returns on each dollar.

 

 

If the Govt isn't for profit, can you explain how Hillary has become worth tens of millions of dollars while in office?

[Geeto67]

If the Govt isn't for profit, can you explain how Hillary has become worth tens of millions of dollars while in office?

 

Sure....I thought you were going to ask me a tough question.

 

Just because a politician gets wealthy in office doesn't mean they got wealthy because of the office.

 

The clintons are both graduates of Yale law school and worked for white shoe firms out of law school. This equates to a six figure salary (inflation adjusted) right out of school for both of them who are best described as hard chargers being top of their class.

 

By the early 1980s their investments and her high salary as a partner in a prestigious AK law firm had netted them a small fortune. By the time bill was staging to be president their collective small fortune was no longer small and Hilary was at one point on the board of directors at Walmart (a 7 figure salary).

 

The funny thing about wealth is when you have it it generates more wealth. Even though the clintons divested themselves of their business holdings during clintons presidency the money didn't just hangout static - it grew managed by the people managing the trust. By the time they left the whitehouse they were wealthier than before but not because of their position, because of those they designated to manage their money.

 

Once they are no longer in office, every president makes money off their appearances and speaking engagements, as any celebrity would. But they are no longer in office so they aren't profiting at the expense of the taxpayers.

 

Nearly Everyone who has held high office in the country is rich before they start, and taking public office doesn't slow that at all. As long as they are not profiteering personally while in office it is perfectly acceptable. In office they are accountable to the people, out of office they are not and can make money in the private sector.

[Mallard]

If the Govt isn't for profit, can you explain how Hillary has become worth tens of millions of dollars while in office?

They all do, on both sides of the isle. Check out Mitch McConnell's income. Just because politicians can be bought and work for their own profit doesn't mean the government itself is.

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[10phone2]

rut roh cnn:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jq54r/cnns_about_to_be_in_trouble_bigly/

[RedRocket1647545505]

LOL. Engage shit storm.

[TTQ B4U]

rut roh cnn:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6jq54r/cnns_about_to_be_in_trouble_bigly/

 

 

In case that one gets pulled down.

 

 

Like anyone didn't already know this though. Really, CNN.....LOL.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Went to CNNs homepage. Could not find the word 'Russia' even once. Lol. What's the matter, guys? I thought this Russia shit was "BREAKING NEWS"?

[wagner]

Went to CNNs homepage. Could not find the word 'Russia' even once. Lol. What's the matter, guys? I thought this Russia shit was "BREAKING NEWS"?

 

My wife has been watching and listening to CNN since the election started and she gets mad when I laugh at it. People actually believe the garbage that they, the Huff Po, Fox, and others put out, blows my mind.

 

 

 

Oh, here's the full video. Yes, Trump's an idiot, but is he any bigger than those who keep eating this stuff up?