...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.
+1
There are way too many government employees.
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.+1
There are way too many government employees.
Yes, the high unemployment rate is a huge problem, unless we're talking about increasing it by firing federal employees. Then it's great!
And of course Boehner doesn't care if federal employees lose their jobs, because few of us are his constituents.
(Yeah, this hits a little close to home for me. I'm a federal employee, and a resident of D.C., which means I have no voice in congress either, so I can't even effectively object to the asinine things Congress does.)
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.+1
There are way too many government employees.
Yes, the high unemployment rate is a huge problem, unless we're talking about increasing it by firing federal employees. Then it's great!
And of course Boehner doesn't care if federal employees lose their jobs, because few of us are his constituents.
(Yeah, this hits a little close to home for me. I'm a federal employee, and a resident of D.C., which means I have no voice in congress either, so I can't even effectively object to the asinine things Congress does.)
Should we try to lower the unemployment rate by going even deeper into debt and hiring more federal employees. Would more wars and a larger military solve the problem? Is there any limit to how much debt we should crush our grand kids with? Should we just raise taxes by $1,400,000,000,000 a year so we can maintain the current levels of government waste? I'm not saying you are advocating these positions, but we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama's budget request would raise that to over twenty trillion dollars in less than a decade. This doesn't even include unfunded obligations for medicare, medicaid, and social security. I think it's hubris for us to think that our sovereign debt can't destroy this nation.
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?
Should we try to lower the unemployment rate by going even deeper into debt and hiring more federal employees. Would more wars and a larger military solve the problem? Is there any limit to how much debt we should crush our grand kids with? Should we just raise taxes by $1,400,000,000,000 a year so we can maintain the current levels of government waste? I'm not saying you are advocating these positions, but we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama's budget request would raise that to over twenty trillion dollars in less than a decade. This doesn't even include unfunded obligations for medicare, medicaid, and social security. I think it's hubris for us to think that our sovereign debt can't destroy this nation.
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?
Last question first: D.C. is my home. Why should I have to relocate away from my home in order to get something that is supposed to be a right of citizenship of my country?
And back to the first question, reducing federal deficits is a fine goal. But even if ALL discretionary federal spending were eliminated, it wouldn't solve the debt crisis. Reducing spending and firing federal employees while leaving social security, Medicare, and defense spending intact really accomplishes very little to address the debt problem. Personally, I think that if Congress is serious about addressing deficits, they need to do it by addressing the biggest expenditures first.
Should we try to lower the unemployment rate by going even deeper into debt and hiring more federal employees. Would more wars and a larger military solve the problem? Is there any limit to how much debt we should crush our grand kids with? Should we just raise taxes by $1,400,000,000,000 a year so we can maintain the current levels of government waste? I'm not saying you are advocating these positions, but we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama's budget request would raise that to over twenty trillion dollars in less than a decade. This doesn't even include unfunded obligations for medicare, medicaid, and social security. I think it's hubris for us to think that our sovereign debt can't destroy this nation.
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?
Last question first: D.C. is my home. Why should I have to relocate away from my home in order to get something that is supposed to be a right of citizenship of my country?
And back to the first question, reducing federal deficits is a fine goal. But even if ALL discretionary federal spending were eliminated, it wouldn't solve the debt crisis. Reducing spending and firing federal employees while leaving social security, Medicare, and defense spending intact really accomplishes very little to address the debt problem. Personally, I think that if Congress is serious about addressing deficits, they need to do it by addressing the biggest expenditures first.
I would love to see the size and mission of our military reduced. I would like to see health care and retirement privatized, but I'm not optimistic. History would seem to suggest that the corrupt idiots in DC will keep prostituting our children's futures to the Chinese for as long as the Chinese will buy it. I have a hard time seeing virtually anyone in congress with the stones to address the massive failures of the entitlement state.
I would love to see the size and mission of our military reduced. I would like to see health care and retirement privatized, but I'm not optimistic. History would seem to suggest that the corrupt idiots in DC will keep prostituting our children's futures to the Chinese for as long as the Chinese will buy it. I have a hard time seeing virtually anyone in congress with the stones to address the massive failures of the entitlement state.Should we try to lower the unemployment rate by going even deeper into debt and hiring more federal employees. Would more wars and a larger military solve the problem? Is there any limit to how much debt we should crush our grand kids with? Should we just raise taxes by $1,400,000,000,000 a year so we can maintain the current levels of government waste? I'm not saying you are advocating these positions, but we are tens of trillions of dollars in debt, and Obama's budget request would raise that to over twenty trillion dollars in less than a decade. This doesn't even include unfunded obligations for medicare, medicaid, and social security. I think it's hubris for us to think that our sovereign debt can't destroy this nation.
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?
Last question first: D.C. is my home. Why should I have to relocate away from my home in order to get something that is supposed to be a right of citizenship of my country?
And back to the first question, reducing federal deficits is a fine goal. But even if ALL discretionary federal spending were eliminated, it wouldn't solve the debt crisis. Reducing spending and firing federal employees while leaving social security, Medicare, and defense spending intact really accomplishes very little to address the debt problem. Personally, I think that if Congress is serious about addressing deficits, they need to do it by addressing the biggest expenditures first.
I think I'm going to back away from this now. It's obvious that your experience and mine are so far apart as to make meaningful dialogue impossible on this issue. I, and the vast majority of federal employees that I work with and know on a personal level, are decent, hard-working human beings who do the jobs we do because we care about public service and believe we're providing a valuable service to our country. Obviously, if you believe everyone in D.C. are all 'corrupt idiots', you're not going to believe anything I say to begin with, so I might as well stop even trying to communicate.
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.+1
There are way too many government employees.
Yes, the high unemployment rate is a huge problem, unless we're talking about increasing it by firing federal employees. Then it's great!
And of course Boehner doesn't care if federal employees lose their jobs, because few of us are his constituents.
(Yeah, this hits a little close to home for me. I'm a federal employee, and a resident of D.C., which means I have no voice in congress either, so I can't even effectively object to the asinine things Congress does.)
I don't feel any joy in hearing that Fed employees may lose jobs. I would much rather see the employees all take a pay cut and keep their jobs than to fire some. Still, we should expect government to react to economic down turns just as everyone else does. Why should a Fed employee's job be safe when everyone else has a chance of being fired due to economic conditions. Fed employees are trustees of the public wealth, they serve the people, the people do not serve them.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Why should a Fed employee's job be safe when everyone else has a chance of being fired due to economic conditions. Fed employees are trustees of the public wealth, they serve the people, the people do not serve them.
Traditionally federal employees (and most government workers) are paid much less than their private sector counterparts. To make up for this, the traditional trade-off is better benefits and more job security. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but if you're going to take away job security, you should expect to have to pay more to get qualified people, unless you're willing to accept less qualified applicants to these positions.
Which given the traditional conservative mindset of wanting a government so small they can drown it in the tub, seems the point. Remove job security, get less qualified employees, watch what happens when they do a terrible job, then use that lack of performance as a reason to further cut their security, pay or numbers. Or all three. Unfortunately, I think the current financial market madness is a direct result of this mindset of less regulation, less oversight, less restriction. Which does not bode well for the future economy of the United States or the world.
If federal employees can be fired without anything getting worse, they would not have been needed in the first place. So firing them means that services will be reduced - say, less IRS agents. That would mean less people looking into taxes being paid regularly and fully, and thus, less money for the government to handle their tasks. While every taxpayer probably rejoices at first, less taxes mean more debt in the long run, as there are tasks the government has to handle, no matter what.
Yes, almost everything can be handled privately. But it does not get cheaper, contrary to common belief, and not necessarily better. In Germany, energy and water supply and waste disposal was handled by (semi-)public companies until about a decade or two ago, when these services were sold to private corporations. Guess what? The costs for these services are ever on the rise since then, and the reliability has taken a beating here and there. Same goes for public transport. Now, there is talk about buying these companies back into public ownership.
Private companies have to make a profit first, while public services have to provide service first. If it does not work like that in the US, probably the public services are in need of reforming to make them work more efficently in providing service. Just firing employees is nothing to make these services woking more efficently.
Stefan
P.S. Yes, I´m working in public service as well - city government.
I have to throw my two copper in with Lindisty on this one.
Reduceing the number of federal employees can be handled in a better manner.
Instead of fireing anyone simply don't hire new people to fill the roles of retirees, naturally promote from within but don't bring in new folks for say 5 years.
Until we reduce the amount of entitlement spending no amount of discretionary spending will amount to a hill o0f beans.
One of the most unpopular things I would love to see done is to get rid of the federal reserve. Congress should be the final arbitrator of our cash like the constitution set forth. Obviously the role of the federal reserve to prevent another crash like the 30's has failed so why keep it?
Then again I'm also in favor of radical government cuts as well such as totally dismantilling the ATF,the energy commision(there role was to reduce our dependance on foreign oil,they have failed) and to remove ALL restrictions on the dept of agriculture so that things like hemp and other money makeing crops can be grown plus get rid of ALL farm subsidies.
Doing things like this will balance the budget in good time with minimal impact on the public health and safety.
... plus get rid of ALL farm subsidies.
While I think this is basically a good idea, you are aware that this probably means rising prices for food?
Stefan
|
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?
This is a pet peeve of mine. If DC residents do not get representation in congress then they should not be taxed (the whole taxation without representation thing, ya know?). IIRC there are more DC residents than there are residents of some states (Wyoming comes to mind), yet those states have a voice and DC residents do not. Telling people to move is a piss poor excuse and one I would not have expected from you BT.
|
|
... plus get rid of ALL farm subsidies.While I think this is basically a good idea, you are aware that this probably means rising prices for food?
Stefan
The farm subsidies pays for foods that make everyone fat. Why do you think everything contains soy or corn products? That is what the gov't pays to subsidize so that's what farmers overgrow.
If you want represenation in DC, you just have to get the COnstitution changed. You know the drill about DC and Congress your whole life, so if you're unhappy you need to affect change. I am in favro of a little representation of DC in Congress, except that DC has too much influence in Congress already. Now, you can argue that none of that influence helps you, and I'd see your point, but I am not sure I agree. By and large, federal government employees make too much for what they do and have job security no one else has. This is not a coment on you, since I know know what you do or ow you get paid.
But one of the things we MUST do to get back on track financially is shrink government. If we're gonna shrink goverment, that means cutting government jobs. A huge danger in expanding the scope of government in the country is that you create a permanent voting block of government employees, such that you can't shrink its size without both perfectly reasonal AND duplicitous caterwaling.
Hey - I am quick to jump onto the paln to cut the big ticket items, and like most modern conservatives, I believe in looking at the military for a few of those cuts, too. I want a strong military that can impose our will on despots and economic cheats, but we'd be lying to ourselves if we didn't think that, as a branch og government, there wasn't some fat to trim jsut like everywhere else.
No, we have to do it all. We have to save SSI and MCR from their own weight by privatizing and improving our revenue base (which is not accomplished by tax increases, by by becoing a tax haven that builds businesses and attracts jobs), AND we have to reduce the voting bloc and unnecessary expenditures in the government sector. The reason to begin with government jobs, is that everyone can agree there are government departments out there wasting time and money, that the government should not be involved in. Healthcare panels, the Ad Council, the National Endowment for the Arts. Cut that stuff and get rid of those offices and employees. We don't want more people unemployed, but we can't create a climate that employs more people without that change.
Then, when improvement on the budget and deifict gains some momentum, go tackle SSI and MCR and the Fair Tax plan. You can't do those things right now, so don't give someone the chance to tell old people you hate them, or somesuch.
We are at a point that every choice we make is hard, and everything we do is gonna hurt someone before it helps the rest of us. So, I say we begin with government fat, and with the IRS. We cancel stimulus talk and embrace austerity. Our muscles will be sore from a few lsot jobs in themorning, we won't like the taste of broccolli (and dudes, no one hates broccolli more than me), but in a few months, we'll start to like what we see in the mirror and get the motivation to keep working at it.
The hardest part of being healthy is getting started.
I have nothing against government employees. I have no illusions about them being lazy. I also have a broader view of the appropriate role of government than many others.
But the reality is that the United States is drowning in debt. We simply CANNOT continue as we are. And the problem is so bad that we're all going to have to suffer in order to fix it. Let me write that again: We're all going to have to suffer. We've been living beyond our means. Prices will go up. Wages will go down. It's a bitter pill, but if we swallow it eventually things will start to get better. Truly better. Unfortunately, we've already procrastinated long enough that it's going to *hurt*.
But if we continue to procrastinate -- which seems to be the way *both* parties are going -- we will eventually experience a catastrophic collapse of the currency. Hyper-inflation. Chaos. It's happened before, and it *will* happen here if we don't take (painful) steps to prevent it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have nothing against government employees. I have no illusions about them being lazy. I also have a broader view of the appropriate role of government than many others.
But the reality is that the United States is drowning in debt. We simply CANNOT continue as we are. And the problem is so bad that we're all going to have to suffer in order to fix it. Let me write that again: We're all going to have to suffer. We've been living beyond our means. Prices will go up. Wages will go down. It's a bitter pill, but if we swallow it eventually things will start to get better. Truly better. Unfortunately, we've already procrastinated long enough that it's going to *hurt*.
But if we continue to procrastinate -- which seems to be the way *both* parties are going -- we will eventually experience a catastrophic collapse of the currency. Hyper-inflation. Chaos. It's happened before, and it *will* happen here if we don't take (painful) steps to prevent it.
Buggly, would you stop making hell freeze over by posting stuff we agree with?
I joke I can make anyone a small government conservative in two weeks. Just take Fed calls.
Yes, we're at the point where things are going to suck for everyone. Private businesses are laying off. They're past the point of 'culling the dead wood' and starting to have to let go workers who are 'good' but not 'good enough'. The State and Federal governments are going to have to start cutting back services and staff to try to make ends meet. I'm trying to pay off all my debt (and trying to keep some luxeries, like my subscriptions) to brace for impact.
Reihan Salam's research disagrees that government employees are underpaid.
It's going to get tougher. Brace for impact.
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.+1
There are way too many government employees.
No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
If you really want a voting representative why not just move out of DC?This is a pet peeve of mine. If DC residents do not get representation in congress then they should not be taxed (the whole taxation without representation thing, ya know?). IIRC there are more DC residents than there are residents of some states (Wyoming comes to mind), yet those states have a voice and DC residents do not. Telling people to move is a piss poor excuse and one I would not have expected from you BT.
If you want to amend the constitution to give DC, territories, or what have you some or all of the rights of states I accept that as a reasonable argument.
On the other hand I would point out that quite a few folks in DC moved there for a job. I find it hard to imagine that they were surprised to learn that DC isn't a state, and that DC doesn't have all of the rights and powers of a state.
Asking why someone doesn't move if they don't like how the constitution set up DC's representation is not some cheap shot, and I'm not telling anyone to move. DC is less than 70 square miles, as I understand people commute there from Maryland and Virginia. If I had to work in DC, I can't imagine that I would want to move to and live in DC.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit.
That statement would be factually incorrect.
It's the entitlements that will kill us, but to say that no one is looking at the military would be incorrect.
...and I say good for him. It's not much, but it's a step in the right direction, and better than arguing about the size of the thimble we should be using to bail on the freakin' Titanic.+1
There are way too many government employees.
No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
I don't think the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I think we have far too many federal employees and far too many contractors. I think the mission of our armed forces is far too expansive. In short I think every aspect of government is far too large and intrusive.
Military costs have certainly contributed to the debt, and I wish we had done things differently, but surely you can see that military spending isn't the majority of the problem either.
Buggly, would you stop making hell freeze over by posting stuff we agree with?
Sorry, no can do -- I'm heavily invested in winter apparel manufacturers.
Edit: And who is "we?" Are you a king now? ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Buggly, would you stop making hell freeze over by posting stuff we agree with?Sorry, no can do -- I'm heavily invested in winter apparel manufacturers.
Edit: And who is "we?" Are you a king now? ;-)
Didn't even realized I typed 'we'. When I'm not feeling well, the voices in my head get louder and I slip up sometimes.
Didn't even realized I typed 'we'. When I'm not feeling well, the voices in my head get louder and I slip up sometimes.
Those damn voices. ;-)
Are you hitting PaizoCon this year? If so, perhaps we can disagree in person. :)
Well, several proposals of Rand Paul seem to have their merit AFAICT. I was wondering, though: If education is handed over to the states, from what money will they pay it? I have no idea how the states generate their budget, but I´d guess it comes from taxes as well. So, unless creating an education government in every state is cheaper than having a central education government, there will probably nothing saved. And judging from the educational system over here, with every federal state doing his own program, coordinating and setting comparable standards is a nightmare and takes time and effort.
Stefan
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Well, several proposals of Rand Paul seem to have their merit AFAICT. I was wondering, though: If education is handed over to the states, from what money will they pay it? I have no idea how the states generate their budget, but I´d guess it comes from taxes as well. So, unless creating an education government in every state is cheaper than having a central education government, there will probably nothing saved. And judging from the educational system over here, with every federal state doing his own program, coordinating and setting comparable standards is a nightmare and takes time and effort.
Stefan
As near as I can tell, in the US, education is local. It's governed by local standards with a local board of education adopting standards and very little federal oversight. Which is a big part of the problem. Standards vary to such a frightening degree that a high school education from a good school district and a poor one are hardly even comparable. The federal government gives grants to schools, but education is funded through property taxes mainly, with some state contribution.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Didn't even realized I typed 'we'. When I'm not feeling well, the voices in my head get louder and I slip up sometimes.Those damn voices. ;-)
Are you hitting PaizoCon this year? If so, perhaps we can disagree in person. :)
unfortuantely no, my Paizo-con budget went to helping friends with more immediate concerns.
The farm subsidies pays for foods that make everyone fat. Why do you think everything contains soy or corn products? That is what the gov't pays to subsidize so that's what farmers overgrow.... plus get rid of ALL farm subsidies.While I think this is basically a good idea, you are aware that this probably means rising prices for food?
Stefan
Well, without subsidizing, farmers will grow whatever earns the most money. If this will be healthy food is anyones guess. But subsidizing unhealthy food is indeed a waste of money, and nearly criminal.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
Erm...defense isn't even our largest budget item. And blaming our debt on a 10 year war....have you looked into our unfunded liabilities for domestic spending? They guarantee payments of money we don't have into perpetuity. They have to be changed.
I have a brother in law who sees some of this governemnt and military waste. As I said, you won't catch me protesting sensible cuts in that waste. But at least the military is a responsbility of the government. Stealing someone's pay and giving it back to them at a -1 to 1.5% rate of return is not. Confiscating money from an employer that already offers a 401k as SS tax is outside the scope of government, ineffective, and brutalizes the value of our currency.
We can't privatize war. We can privatize SS and Medicare to save them. We absolutely have to eliminate waste in the military as well as any part of government, but the blame for most of our spending goes on the domestic side, where these liabilities grow on their own and continue to make our problems worst.
As near as I can tell, in the US, education is local. It's governed by local standards with a local board of education adopting standards and very little federal oversight. Which is a big part of the problem. Standards vary to such a frightening degree that a high school education from a good school district and a poor one are hardly even comparable. The federal government gives grants to schools, but education is funded through property taxes mainly, with some state contribution.Well, several proposals of Rand Paul seem to have their merit AFAICT. I was wondering, though: If education is handed over to the states, from what money will they pay it? I have no idea how the states generate their budget, but I´d guess it comes from taxes as well. So, unless creating an education government in every state is cheaper than having a central education government, there will probably nothing saved. And judging from the educational system over here, with every federal state doing his own program, coordinating and setting comparable standards is a nightmare and takes time and effort.
Stefan
Hm. Why, then, is there even a big federal education government? What do they govern, if most is handled locally anyway? Federal standards would be a good thing IMO, as this should make the results comparable, but if not even that is reachable, why bother?
I´m beginning to understand why getting rid of that part of the government is on the list.Stefan
RE federal education and standards
The trouble with federal standards for education is that you can't enforce them without a giant controlling apparatus. If you aren't going to enforce standards with a DoE, then you might as not well waste tiem setting them. Hoever, when you do set them and try to enforce them, you create a unionized voting block, you waste money on bureaucracy, the system gets gamed so that kids are left out of the shuffle, everyone demogogues the system (which leads to growth, not efficiency), and you create unfunded mandates without being close to the educational process at all.
I wouldn't campaign on getting rid of public schools altogether, but putting states in charge of their own education without tying money to a federal agenda is a great first step.
Could you be more specific as to what aspects of the government you find intrusive?In short I think every aspect of government is far too large and intrusive.
It would probably be easier to list government functions that I don't find intrusive.
Even when the government performs a function I accept as valid, I tend to think they do it in an intrusive way. For example, I think national defense is a valid role of government, but I think using the military to impose our will in preemptive wars is intrusive. I think that governments need some means of enforcing laws, but I think the war on drugs is an intrusive abomination. The government needs revenue to function, but I find the income tax to be the most intrusive and offensive way to generate revenue.
Does that help?
No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
Erm...defense isn't even our largest budget item. And blaming our debt on a 10 year war....have you looked into our unfunded liabilities for domestic spending? They guarantee payments of money we don't have into perpetuity. They have to be changed.
I have a brother in law who sees some of this governemnt and military waste. As I said, you won't catch me protesting sensible cuts in that waste. But at least the military is a responsbility of the government. Stealing someone's pay and giving it back to them at a -1 to 1.5% rate of return is not. Confiscating money from an employer that already offers a 401k as SS tax is outside the scope of government, ineffective, and brutalizes the value of our currency.
We can't privatize war. We can privatize SS and Medicare to save them. We absolutely have to eliminate waste in the military as well as any part of government, but the blame for most of our spending goes on the domestic side, where these liabilities grow on their own and continue to make our problems worst.
I tend to agree, but I must disagree about privatizing war. Rumsfeld shifted a lot of logistics and support functions to private contractors from the military. While I'm a big fan of privatization I don't care for it in prisons and the military.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I tend to agree, but I must disagree about privatizing war. Rumsfeld shifted a lot of logistics and support functions to private contractors from the military. While I'm a big fan of privatization I don't care for it in prisons and the military.
I guess by that I mean we can't leave war up to the individual, like we can with retirement and long term care. I don't necessarily object to parceling out functions to the private sector, but I do see a few problems, like it becomes a lightning rod for opposition, or creates confusion about accountability. Specifically, I think it's wise to hire contractors when you embrace something the military has less experience with and can't realistically be more prepared for. So, guardnig a prison would probably be out, but I'd definitely look to someone else to clean up or restart an oil well that got bombed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
It would probably be easier to list government functions that I don't find intrusive.Even when the government performs a function I accept as valid, I tend to think they do it in an intrusive way. For example, I think national defense is a valid role of government, but I think using the military to impose our will in preemptive wars is intrusive. I think that governments need some means of enforcing laws, but I think the war on drugs is an intrusive abomination. The government needs revenue to function, but I find the income tax to be the most intrusive and offensive way to generate revenue.
Does that help?
It does, but I think it might be more helpful to step back and ask the necessary question: what in your opinion, is the proper role of government?
In my mind, government provides for the common good, doing things such as building roads, regulating markets to preserve life and liberty, maintaining a standing army for the defense of the nation, encouraging good relations with foreign powers, providing utilities to all to ensure a basic level of acceptable service and promoting equal opportunity for all. In modern years this has evolved to include regulating business to prevent corporations from running roughshod over those who cannot defend themselves and keeping the economy from experiencing any major economic distasters such as inflation, depressions, etc. I support social programs, such as social security, though I support it only for the poorest Americans and those undergoing catastrophic situations such as unemployment, death of a provider, etc. , and I support government provided healthcare because healthcare companies have grown to such a size that they are effectively monopolies. If government enters the market they suddenly have to compete for the first time in a long time, and will therefore most likely streamline and become more efficient.
I support government provided healthcare because healthcare companies have grown to such a size that they are effectively monopolies. If government enters the market they suddenly have to compete for the first time in a long time, and will therefore most likely streamline and become more efficient.
Why not just force the companies to break up like the government did to Ma Bell?
Beleive me, we don't collude with our competitors.
It's an oddball situation, because if one insurance company isn't working for you (like mine, which automatically rejects all claims as a matter of policy, unless appealed 15 times and I wear down the rep through sheer persistence), most people can't easily switch to another if their health care is offered through work. You've got insurance providers marketing to companies (which care only about what's cheapest), so that the quality of service is taken out of the equation, meaning that the free market isn't allowed to work. It's the worst of both worlds for the consumer -- free market license to gouge the customer if you can get away with it, but with a monopoly-like inability to switch providers because of it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'monopoly'
Beleive me, we don't collude with our competitors.
Matthew, unless you're a corporate VP or higher, (and if you are, what are you doing here? Don't you have important things to do?) then I don't think you can in all honesty say what your leadership is or isn't doing. I work for a University, and I cannot say with any certainty what my President is doing, and that's a public institution. If there was collusion, do you honestly expect that their employees would know? However, I am not saying with certainty that there is, however when you have 2-3 large corporations being the only players in a field where their lobbyists, their CEOs, their leadership move in the same social/political systems, it's all too easy to collude.
And why don't we just break them up? I'm not opposed to that idea, but as Jeremiziah pointed out, they've got a well funded and well organized lobby and they make LARGE donations to politicians of all stripes.
|
I tell you what...in this time of economic down sizing Government jobs should go to the lowest bid. So I agree to be the President of the United States of America for 20,000 dollars per year...of course I cant do anything with such little power...so I will also be the entire Senate for a thousand dollars for each senate seat...
That way I can rubberstamp decisions and the Millitary can stuff them down throats.
It would probably be easier to list government functions that I don't find intrusive.Even when the government performs a function I accept as valid, I tend to think they do it in an intrusive way. For example, I think national defense is a valid role of government, but I think using the military to impose our will in preemptive wars is intrusive. I think that governments need some means of enforcing laws, but I think the war on drugs is an intrusive abomination. The government needs revenue to function, but I find the income tax to be the most intrusive and offensive way to generate revenue.
Does that help?
It does, but I think it might be more helpful to step back and ask the necessary question: what in your opinion, is the proper role of government?
In my mind, government provides for the common good, doing things such as building roads, regulating markets to preserve life and liberty, maintaining a standing army for the defense of the nation, encouraging good relations with foreign powers, providing utilities to all to ensure a basic level of acceptable service and promoting equal opportunity for all. In modern years this has evolved to include regulating business to prevent corporations from running roughshod over those who cannot defend themselves and keeping the economy from experiencing any major economic distasters such as inflation, depressions, etc. I support social programs, such as social security, though I support it only for the poorest Americans and those undergoing catastrophic situations such as unemployment, death of a provider, etc. , and I support government provided healthcare because healthcare companies have grown to such a size that they are effectively monopolies. If government enters the market they suddenly have to compete for the first time in a long time, and will therefore most likely streamline and become more efficient.
I believe the proper role of the federal government is extremely limited. My position is basically libertarian, so our respective ideas of the proper role of government are pretty far apart.
Of course my position reflects a very small minority, so if the majority of Americans want to maintain or expand federal government services then they are going to have to figure out just how massive they want their tax increases to be, because taxing the rich alone isn't going to cover they multitrillion dollar gap between what many want and what is being paid for. I think people should also consider very carefully what freedoms and rights they want to surrender to the state for the perception of physical and economic "security".
I don't think we can survive borrowing or printing much more money. We may not agree about how much we can borrow and print, but I think we can agree that there is some limit.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I believe the proper role of the federal government is extremely limited....
I agree with the borrowing. We can't sustain a government without lowering costs, raising revenues or probably both.
How limited is your ideal government? Do they provide fire fighting services? Do they build and maintain public roads? Do they provide public education? Do they regulate markets and if so, how much?
Why not just force the companies to break up like the government did to Ma Bell?Because the Health Care industry has too many lobbyists to allow that to happen. In addition, they contribute too much to campaigns for it to happen. In addition, [crooked reasons X, Y, and Z].
A lot of that finger pointing is conjecture, I think. I recognize some insurance comapnies are no darlings, and every exceptional case is dire becase you can immediately make it a flagship for reform. But I've been an agent for two years and have never seen any insurance comany misstep or give someone a hard time. Other than a period of gross incompetence by one company, which just got bought and sold. So they can suck it.
Anyhoo...if we can get our hands on meaningful business reform, and if we can STOP making everything a federal priority, we can beat back some of the strength of lobbies, and we can lower healthcare costs by lowering the costs of doing business. We don't nee dot break up a company, we need to make it easier for smaller companies to get their foot in the door. Especially in the insurance world, they can try to compete on prices and build a client base state by state. Msaler coapnies gain momentum, and then get bought by or compete wth larger ones.
If we can cut costs on the business end of things, we can have a more stable market and slim down a government that doesn't need to get involved in everything from the ad council to steroid abuse.