magley64 Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I thought I addressed that in the latter portion of my answer.Fundamentally, there's a cost/benefit issue, and you want to be the lowest on that reverse bell curve as possible, which doesn't mean ZERO fraud. It just means that the amount of money spent policing the fraud becomes >> the amount of fraud it would protect against.kinda like Florida's drug testing policy... spending way more tax dollars in tests than it saves in paying drug abusers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Socialist, Marxist, Democrats, Liberals, etc are never gonna be on the same page as Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. One side depends on offering more to the recipients so they get their vote! Funny you mention that... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-mapsWonder what would happen if we left all those "red" states to fend for themselves without the supplements from the "blue" ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Funny you mention that... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-mapsWonder what would happen if we left all those "red" states to fend for themselves without the supplements from the "blue" ones?How about all states fend for themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 How about all states fend for themselves? can i get a yeehaw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I thought I addressed that in the latter portion of my answer.Fundamentally, there's a cost/benefit issue, and you want to be the lowest on that reverse bell curve as possible, which doesn't mean ZERO fraud. It just means that the amount of money spent policing the fraud becomes >> the amount of fraud it would protect against.You're a small business owner, so you can appreciate this. Let's say you manufacture ammunition. Are all your bullets with 0 defects? Are all your quality metrics currently at 0 ppm? No? Well, you should spend whatever amount necessary to ensure no defective bullets leave your facility. If that means multimillion dollars worth of robots, then so be it... you can then sell your ammo for $800/bullet because that's the required amount you'd need to charge to cover the overhead of 0 quality issues and turn a marginal profit.Or, you hire human workers at a much cheaper cost to do the best they can ensuring part quality. It won't mean 0ppm, but it'll mean you can sell $0.20/bullet that'll work 93% of the time once they leave your facility, with $500k of scrap costs each year for the defects that those human workers actually DID find before they left the factory.So, which process is inherently more wasteful?eww, i don't make bullets that work only 93% of the time. i own a business that manufactures parts in US, not china.are you trying to say that the current system is at or near the maximum level of efficiency, and to make further changes to make it more "efficient" at rooting out corruption/waste/abuse would cost more than it would save?even if you really thought that... you seriously for serial don't see a serious problem with that?even if you DO seriously for serial see a serious problem with that, doesn't the thought cross your mind that it might be worth changing the way the government goes about the way it handles changes? even if you have to think about it for more than 32 seconds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Funny you mention that... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-mapsWonder what would happen if we left all those "red" states to fend for themselves without the supplements from the "blue" ones?Why is it that I don't trust any link you post? Numbers can be made to look any which way want them to. Justin you are surely smart enough to know that, it all depends on the data you include or excluded. I have a very hard time believing California receives so little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 can i get a yeehaw?Thought you didn't judge? So because I think that one state shouldn't prop up bad state I am a redneck? Bubba? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 brb have to go get my new "used" ugly duckling but still awesome non-copper beginner bike titled over to my name so i can legally ride it on the streets. this may take more than 33 seconds, snobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 are you trying to say that the current system is at or near the maximum level of efficiency, and to make further changes to make it more "efficient" at rooting out corruption/waste/abuse would cost more than it would save.I'm saying that's a potential. I'm not IN the system so I don't pretend to think I have all the answers. I can research and get as familiar as I can based on the data given, but, and maybe it's naive, I'll defer to the people administering the "system" to know what reforms can/will be useful and what is/is not acceptable (kind of like how it's naive to defer to Krugman about economics). Furthermore, just like I don't need 3rd parties telling me how to do my job when they're not nuanced in the intricacies of it, I don't pretend to think I'm all of a sudden smarter and better versed at running the system than the people doing it daily. That's arrogant and hypocritical. For every solution I could suggest, there may be a legitimate reason why it can't be implemented. I don't know.That's why it's funny to me that so many people think they have the solutions, or they see one person using food stamps and holding an iPhone and all of a sudden the whole system is corrupt, wasteful, and needs reform. That's like seeing one Asian wreck an Aprilia and saying all motorcycles have to wreck. Or seeing one dead opossum on the side of the road and assuming they're all going to be roadkill. You see the abuses / failures, but you don't have regular contact with the people using welfare legitimately and getting on their feet. They don't sensationalize the successes, only the failures.even if you DO seriously for serial see a serious problem with that, doesn't the thought cross your mind that it might be worth changing the way the government goes about the way it handles changes? even if you have to think about it for more than 32 seconds?See above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Why is it that I don't trust any link you post? Numbers can be made to look any which way want them to. Justin you are surely smart enough to know that, it all depends on the data you include or excluded. I have a very hard time believing California receives so little.You don't have to trust THAT particular link, go ahead and research including the secondary and tertiary links it cites.Numbers ARE numbers... you can spin whatever information you want around them sometimes, but data is data, I don't know how to draw any other FACT from it. Red states, by and large, take in more federal dollars than they pay. You can't just dismiss that by saying "Well, I don't trust those numbers".Well, then find your own numbers to refute it along with their sources and data collection methods for me to investigate. Then I can see what was included or omitted and break it down further to have an intelligent debate about it. That's kinda how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 Thought you didn't judge? So because I think that one state shouldn't prop up bad state I am a redneck? Bubba?No I was saying "all the states should fend for themselves" sounded very "confederate" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm saying that's a potential. I'm not IN the system so I don't pretend to think I have all the answers. I can research and get as familiar as I can based on the data given, but, and maybe it's naive, I'll defer to the people administering the "system" to know what reforms can/will be useful and what is/is not acceptable (kind of like how it's naive to defer to Krugman about economics). Furthermore, just like I don't need 3rd parties telling me how to do my job when they're not nuanced in the intricacies of it, I don't pretend to think I'm all of a sudden smarter and better versed at running the system than the people doing it daily. That's arrogant and hypocritical. For every solution I could suggest, there may be a legitimate reason why it can't be implemented. I don't know.That's why it's funny to me that so many people think they have the solutions, or they see one person using food stamps and holding an iPhone and all of a sudden the whole system is corrupt, wasteful, and needs reform. That's like seeing one Asian wreck an Aprilia and saying all motorcycles have to wreck. Or seeing one dead opossum on the side of the road and assuming they're all going to be roadkill. You see the abuses / failures, but you don't have regular contact with the people using welfare legitimately and getting on their feet. They don't sensationalize the successes, only the failures.See above.lucky for us, i DO have all the answers. it's just too bad people born in korea and kenya can't be president. i would totally fix everything; hope and change would abound.am i right? am i right?...That's like seeing one Asian wreck an Aprilia and saying all motorcycles have to wreck.see? it's more fun this wayso, just to satiate my curiosity (due to my poor memory) did you eat peanut butter sandwiches exclusively for lunch for a long time? it was either you or another person i know or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 17, 2012 Report Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) No I was saying "all the states should fend for themselves" sounded very "confederate"Or Constitutional! You don't have to trust THAT particular link, go ahead and research including the secondary and tertiary links it cites.Numbers ARE numbers... you can spin whatever information you want around them sometimes, but data is data, I don't know how to draw any other FACT from it. Red states, by and large, take in more federal dollars than they pay. You can't just dismiss that by saying "Well, I don't trust those numbers".Well, then find your own numbers to refute it along with their sources and data collection methods for me to investigate. Then I can see what was included or omitted and break it down further to have an intelligent debate about it. That's kinda how it works.How do we know what funds hey are including or excluding? Where is the detailed break down? What exactly are the funds going for? For instance are they including the salaries of government workers? Military Personal? Etc. How much of the money is actually going for what the Federal Government is actually constitutionally supposed to do? Why don't we get a breakdown of what our tax dollars go for? I get a detailed receipt when I go to the grocery store. Furthermore, just because someone compiles data doesn't make it fact or true! Sorry now go finish your Koolaid!I am outta this thread, it was meant for entertainment you and Magz ruined it! Edited July 18, 2012 by crb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) so, just to satiate my curiosity (due to my poor memory) did you eat peanut butter sandwiches exclusively for lunch for a long time? it was either you or another person i know or both.I can't say 100%, but the vast majority of my lunches for the past 4 years have been a turkey sammich and a PB&J.How do we know what funds hey are including or excluding? Where is the detailed break down? What exactly are the funds going for?For instance are they including the salaries of government workers? Military Personal? Etc. How much of the money is actually going for what the Federal Government is actually constitutionally supposed to do? Why don't we get a breakdown of what our tax dollars go for? I get a detailed receipt when I go to the grocery store. It's in the link, you gotta dig for it, if you're not going to bother reading the breakdown to answer those questions yourself, we can't have an intelligent discussion about things since you're intellectually lazy. I'm not going to retype the spreadsheet and highlight things for you, I'm not your mom or teacher.Furthermore, just because someone compiles data doesn't make it fact or true! Sorry now go finish your Koolaid!And there's where you're wrong. Data is data, information can be extracted from data, and knowledge is gained from information... there's a whole hierarchy... I didn't think it required a graduate degree to understand that.Your blanket dismissal is ignorant, to say the least. You've basically just said that if a thermometer reads 78*F outside (a data point), it doesn't make it true. You're wrong. Edited July 18, 2012 by JRMMiii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crb Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 I can't say 100%, but the vast majority of my lunches for the past 4 years have been a turkey sammich and a PB&J.It's in the link, you gotta dig for it, if you're not going to bother reading the breakdown to answer those questions yourself, we can't have an intelligent discussion about things since you're intellectually lazy. I'm not going to retype the spreadsheet and highlight things for you, I'm not your mom or teacher.And there's where you're wrong. Data is data, information can be extracted from data, and knowledge is gained from information... there's a whole hierarchy... I didn't think it required a graduate degree to understand that.Your blanket dismissal is ignorant, to say the least. You've basically just said that if a thermometer reads 78*F outside (a data point), it doesn't make it true. You're wrong.Gee I guess I just can't read, because I don't see the detailed list of the spending. Where is the line by line of the data? How much of the spending is constitutional? Oh, that is right you believe the Constitution says what ever in the hell you wish it to say for the day. So we can't have a discussion on the matter because it isn't limited or defined. So whatever, you can troll someone else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh, that is right you believe the Constitution says what ever in the hell you wish it to say for the day. So we can't have a discussion on the matter because it isn't limited or defined. So whatever, you can troll someone else!Since we've been best friends since kindergarten, enlighten me to what else I believe? Continue to close-minded stereotype me without evidence some more plz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max power Posted July 18, 2012 Report Share Posted July 18, 2012 See what you did Gump? You dun made these bubbys go full retard. lucky for us, i DO have all the answers. it's just too bad people born in korea and kenya can't be president. i would totally fix everything; hope and change would abound..You were born in Kenya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.