Jump to content

Completely Irresponsible


Beavah

Recommended Posts

Shortridge; We pretty much have already started ignoring much of our infrastructure issues. Look at the numerous stories in the media about unsafe bridges and trestles, as well as the awful condition of most roads throughout the country. The really sad thing is that our "so called representatives" still do not understand that this need will generate jobs, both on the government level AND the in the public sector. Those jobs in turn of course will help improve the economy by increasing tax revenue and putting money into the local economies.

 

To me, that is the first place the Federal monies approved in 2009 should have been used.

 

But, whatever your views, it should be obvious that our elected representatives are not actually representing US. Recent polls, from a number of different slants indicate how low the congressional office holders approval has dropped. Even as bad as the president's rating is, they are almost 20% lower on average.

 

This may be the first election, 2012, where we might see fringe parties possibly winning seats. When you are continuously given choices of "the lesser of two evils", eventually you might find yourself looking beyond those to other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

shortridge,"OK. Let's stop inspecting nursing homes, making federal student loans, checking air quality, building and maintaining bridges and dams, managing water resources in the West and inspecting food quality."

 

Stop inspecting nursing homes, Nope just take it out of the governments responsibility, have independent contractors do the inspections using guidelines decided on by nursing home industry and paid for by the independent nursing homes.

 

Stop building and maintaining bridges and dams, keeping public infrastructure well maintained is one of the purposes of the government. Thats why we pay taxes, motor vehicle taxes, fuel taxes, ect.. However, does it need to be people on the government payroll do the inspections, and work with an overhead of equipment, or can we use independent contractors to do the inspections and work with an overhead of equipment.

 

Stop making federal student loans, Yes STOP shift this responsibility to lenders. The Federal Government has no buisness giving out loans of any kind. If you want a loan go to the bank.

 

Stop checking air quality, no just make it the companies responsibility to meet the industry standard using their own resources to purchase and pay for equipment and personal to do the testing.

 

Stop managing water resources in the West, it depend on what the resource is for. Why not make it the water users reprehensibility. For instance pass the cost off to the power customers, irrigation customers, recreationalists who use the water.

 

Stop inspecting food quality, don't stop just pass the responsibility and costs off to the industry and the end user instead of the government

 

In other words those who use pay the cost of the program and the programs are managed under the responsible industry with local government over site not federal over site.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow

Gary, that's very pause, Libertarian of you.

But sounds about right assuming one trusts industry to regulate itself more than the Government to regulate on our behalf.

The feedback loop works better when the customers have something tangible to rate versus the price of the product and can fiscally reward those who do things effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gunny2862,"Gary, that's very pause, Libertarian of you."

 

I think not.

 

Gunny2862, "But sounds about right assuming one trusts industry to regulate itself more than the Government to regulate on our behalf."

 

Who do you think makes the standards. I'll give you one guess its not the Government. The government don't know the whats good so they rely on input from within the industry when coming up with the standard. The only thing the government does is enforce the standard with government paid labor. I'm talking about industry paying for that enforcement instead of the government. For instance take nursing homes for example. The nursing home industry working with government comes up with the standard.

 

The individuals nursing homes pay for the inspection by using an certified inspector. The inspector in-turn submits their finding back to the government code enforcer who in-turn determine if the standard is met or not. Those buisness who don't met the standard are turned over to the judicial system for prosecution.

 

 

Gunny2862,"The feedback loop works better when the customers have something tangible to rate versus the price of the product and can fiscally reward those who do things effectively."

 

The industry inspection standard does just that give the consumer a guide on which to judge the service. The consumer then can make the decision on wither or not to use that service. Those service that don't met the standard will soon die due to the lack of customers.

 

I'm not talking about no government involvement just involvement at the lowest level of government and then only for setting and enforcing the standards using independent inspectors. Takes the government out of the personnel buisness, and provides competition.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Gunny, just think about how perfectly self-regulation worked for tobacco, seat belts, mine safety, air bags, leaded gasoline, lead paint, asbestos, pesticides in food, air quality, water quality, etc, etc. In each and every case industry took the lead in insuring the safety and health of all citizens even if it cost them profits. Government merely held back the progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How come no one ever mentions programs like Health and Welfare, Department of Education, Department of Environmental Quality, Army corps of engineers, Department of interior, Department of agriculture, and many other federal programs that suck money out of the system just to pay those working in the programs. Why not start the cuts in the personnel department.

 

 

Cause they aren't big enough to make a difference. It would be like eliminating a monthly trip to Dairy Queen for an ice cream cone because you cant make your mortgage payment. Sure, its a savings, but you still cant make the mortgage payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How come no one ever mentions programs like Health and Welfare, Department of Education, Department of Environmental Quality, Army corps of engineers, Department of interior, Department of agriculture, and many other federal programs that suck money out of the system just to pay those working in the programs. Why not start the cuts in the personnel department."

 

Not to mention that at least one of those would have to be created in the first place so we COULD cut it. Civics lesson please??? For that matter don't All federal programs suck money to pay their personnel? Well....duh!

What would be more constructive is for suggestions such as those quoted above be specific about the cuts. Just what programs of the DOI would you cut? Why not D of Energy as well? Are you sure you want to cut the above aspect of D of Defense and if so how? Be specific.

 

And I note also, that my concept of 'heaven' contains Dairy Queen, along with KFC and Krispy Kreme doughnuts, all with 'All You Can Eat' signs. So hands off that sacred cow!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I cannot speak for every industry, or any other state for that matter...right here in NC - specifically New Hanover County, idustry self regulation is not the answer nor is it the better way. Mater of fact, a few idustries are trying to circumvent and get around government standards for clean air and emmissions. The propposed Titan Cement company turned down building incentives in order to try and avoid govt inspections and permit quality controls because it's proposed plant would completel;y miss the minimal levels of mercury emmissions.

 

Builders ( not all mind you) try to run for every board, commissioner, and study group they can, in order to be the ones who set the standards of CAMA, erosion, and emmissions.

 

Again, cxan't speak for your area, but in my locale, if it wasn't for Government interferance and govt regulation...Cape Fear Council would be known as Toxic Soup Council

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look guys the point I'm trying to make is that there are other area besides Social Security, Medicare, Veterans, and Defense to cut. But everyone just looks at these because thats where the big money is at.

 

However I'm sure we all agree that Social Security, Medicare and Veterans are the only true entitlement programs.

 

If we make any income at all we pay into Social Security and Medicare therefore we are entitled to receive the benefits of the programs.

 

Veterans, through the sacrifice and the contract they have with the citizens of the country are entitled to receive the benefits of the programs.

 

Defense, if we want to remain living under the freedoms of the Constitution then we need a strong defense.

 

Are there things in these program that could be changed to save money? Yes there is.

 

Do other programs serve an important benefit? Yes they do.

 

Can cuts be made across the board and still allow all programs to function? Yes they can?

 

What we can't say is that the money saved from one program is just a small drop in the bucket so lets not do anything there. I heard this through out my military career its just nickels compared to the over all budget. Well over time those unneeded nickel programs become hundred, thousands and millions of dollars.

 

To fix the over all problem we need to be willing to cut spending no matter how small it is and no matter how many government jobs are done away with. There is savings in every cut.

 

What we should not be doing is taking entitlements away, or changing the program in mid stream for those who have really earned the entitlement. Just because the programs have been mismanaged by our elected officials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To help other people at all times"

That's why we pay into those programs. They are not some kind of bank account in which we rack up credit for our own benefit. We do this for others because we collectively choose to and WE are entitled to NOTHING...unless others freely choose to provide something to us AND in case we actually need that assistance. Some of us will 'get' far more from those programs than we paid in and some of us will 'get' far less. The 'accounts' we see on those idiotic SS statements merely show they're keeping tabs on what we paid in. There's no promise of paying it back to us and we sure don't deserve any such promise.

 

Those programs are nothing more than a glorified form of welfare and they should suffer the same fate that welfare programs suffer: cuts, means tests, elimination. Same for the military-industrialist complex. Eisenhower's speech was one of the most important speeches in the history of this country and we ignored it. Tough luck for us.

 

I can't get over how much so-called 'conservatives' like to invoke the unseen hand and the free market but they just can't seem to stomach the consequences of those things. The spoiled children want to have their cake and to eat it as well. Sorry, facts of life: you just can't have it both ways. The Darwinian approach to society is kind of rough. Go pout in the corner. At least the so-called 'liberals' are consistent - unrealistic but consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look guys the point I'm trying to make is that there are other area besides Social Security, Medicare, Veterans, and Defense to cut. But everyone just looks at these because thats where the big money is at.

 

Yah, hmmm...

 

Yeh do understand that we owe big money, right? That da deficit each year is big money?

 

Yeh could cut all da things you mention... no more Department of Interior fire fighters fighting forest fires out west, no Army Corps managing da Mississippi floods so that hundreds of thousands more people lose their homes and livelihoods and nationwide gas prices go up 70% due to refinery and port damage, no more Department of Education enforcing equal access to schools for scouting programs and all da rest. And then, to balance da budget with no additional revenue you would still have to obliterate Medicare and make real cuts to social security and/or veterans as well as defense. Or wipe out defense and make real cuts to Medicare and vets, or...

 

While we have a few other programs, da US government is essentially just an insurance company with an army. To eliminate da deficit yeh either have to cut insurance benefits and the army or increase premiums. No way around it if yeh want to pay your way.

 

A pledge of no tax increase is a pledge to utterly decimate the military and the entitlement programs. Either that, or it's a pledge to bankrupt the nation and sentence our grandchildren to riots and poverty. It's really that simple.

 

As for industry self-regulation, we just tried that, eh? Phil Graham got da Congress and President Clinton to sign off on dismantling GlassSteagal and da other depression-era financial regulation. Banks could self-regulate. Their shareholders would apply pressure. Insurers like AIG could do their own inspections. Customers would choose stronger institutions.

 

So within 10 years they trashed da global economy and cost da taxpayers and da Fed something like $4 trillion directly, plus lots more in collateral damage.

 

Yeh see, da average bank customer doesn't have the time, the expertise, or da access to be able to know that his bank is gambling his deposits in da derivatives market. Just as the average airline passenger doesn't have the time, expertise, or access to be able to tell that the airline is takin' maintenance shortcuts on that jet he's climbing aboard. Same with the food consumer not knowin' from whence his food comes and da risk of contamination. These all take time and expertise, eh? So it's reasonable for the people to pay experts to regulate and inspect.

 

If yeh don't, yeh get Latin America, eh? Weak governments and regulation, but lots of resources. How has that worked out? Free markets require stability and objectively enforced fairness. Yeh have to have confidence in da market to have liberty. That's the job of da people, not the industry.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A pledge of no tax increase is a pledge to utterly decimate the military and the entitlement programs. Either that, or it's a pledge to bankrupt the nation and sentence our grandchildren to riots and poverty. It's really that simple. "

 

Exactly. We've been overspending for over a generation. Our grandparents have never seen a shrinking federal budget. The idea we can get out of this by simply getting rid of waste, fraud and cuts to agencies that amount to less than 20% of the national budget is a myth and a lie. We've been using more government services than we've been willing to pay for, for a long, long time. It's time to pay up. Pay our fair share or as Beav notes, leave the mess for our children and grandchildren.

 

SA

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who would like to play with numbers, CATO (a Libertarian leaning think-tank) has published their various recommendations on how to reduce government spending:

 

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

 

I like the site, as it helps put a lot of the numbers in perspective. Our biggest areas are defense and entitlements.

 

Another good site (and where CATO gets many of their numbers) is the Congressional Budget Office. They had this to say:

 

Trends, 1950 to the Present

 

Spending by the federal government grew from approximately 3 percent of GDP in 1925 to 15.6 percent in 1950. Following the Depression, World War II abruptly boosted federal spending to approximately 42 percent of GDP, but afterward it dropped and resumed a less volatile trend. Notably, over the past 40 years, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have collectively become the largest component of the federal budget (see Figure 1 and Table 1). In 1962, with Social Security outlays representing only 2.5 percent of GDP and Medicare and Medicaid not yet created, spending for all other government activities accounted for 86 percent of noninterest federal outlays. The largest share was for national defense, which accounted for more than half of noninterest outlays and represented 9.2 percent of GDP. By 2000, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid equaled 7.6 percent of GDP, triple the 1962 level for Social Security alone. While still constituting less than half of all federal expenditures, the three programs combined accounted for the largest share of the government's total outlays. Defense spending had fallen to 3 percent of GDP, and all other noninterest spending stood at 5.4 percent. Interest expenditures, whose share of GDP rose steadily from 1.2 percent in 1962 to a high of 3.3 percent in 1991, stood at 2.3 percent in 2000.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3521&type=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>The 'accounts' we see on those idiotic SS statements merely show they're keeping tabs on what we paid in. There's no promise of paying it back to us and we sure don't deserve any such promise.

 

Those programs are nothing more than a glorified form of welfare and they should suffer the same fate that welfare programs suffer: cuts, means tests, elimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...