Guest Guest Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 That's the problem. Programs are often morph into something they were never menat to be. Are you saying that SS, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are working as best as possible? That's not the problem. We should expect programs to change. The problem is when they don't work well. There are many problems with the programs you mention. What would you do about them? Be specific, or else you're just complaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bern Posted December 15, 2008 Report Share Posted December 15, 2008 That's the problem. Programs are often morph into something they were never menat to be. Are you saying that SS, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are working as best as possible? They are working very well. Except for welfare, the administrative overhead of those programs average less than 3%. Compare that to private health insurance, where 30 to 40% of the money you or your employers pay in goes to the insurers instead of health services. If you don't feel that are working the best they can, tell us what you feel are the deficiencies and how we can overcome them. The "most important national issues now" thread may be the appropriate reply place. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php?showtopic=25954 Our conservative President and real war hero Eisenhower knew that the programs are neccessary. So necessary, that he wrote Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower, his brother (8 November 1954) Unfortunately, their number is no longer negligible. The dumbing down of America is succeeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 That's the problem. Programs are often morph into something they were never menat to be. Are you saying that SS, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare are working as best as possible? I'm not saying that, and have not written anything that suggests that. However, I do agree with Bern that these programs are necessary. So I ask the same question I ask everyone who complains about how things are: What do you propose to fix it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 I'm not saying that, and have not written anything that suggests that. However, I do agree with Bern that these programs are necessary. So I ask the same question I ask everyone who complains about how things are: What do you propose to fix it? You still haven't named one government program that works efficiently and effectively. SS and Medicare are failing and running out of money. Most of these government agencies are just paycheck factories for civil servants. Have you been to the Social Security or DMV offices lately? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 You still haven't named one government program that works efficiently and effectively. SS and Medicare are failing and running out of money. Most of these government agencies are just paycheck factories for civil servants. Have you been to the Social Security or DMV offices lately? Actually, he did. Unlike you, he answers questions. Now you answer: QUOTE (Paul @ Dec 15 2008, 07:14 PM) I'm not saying that, and have not written anything that suggests that. However, I do agree with Bern that these programs are necessary. So I ask the same question I ask everyone who complains about how things are: What do you propose to fix it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 You still haven't named one government program that works efficiently and effectively. SS and Medicare are failing and running out of money. Most of these government agencies are just paycheck factories for civil servants. Have you been to the Social Security or DMV offices lately? If no government programs work "efficiently and effectively" by your standards, then what? Let's say the military is inefficient and only half as effective as it should be. Should we eliminate the defense department and discontinue a military defense? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Let's say that the highway programs in the 1950s were corrupt. (Maybe they were.) Should we not have built the highways? We all know that the schools waste money. Should we close the schools? We know Congress is inefficient and corrupt. So should we disband it? Of the last several presidents, LBJ lied about the war, Nixon was a crook, Carter was ineffective, Reagan did exactly the opposite of what he said he would do by expanding the deficit, Bush I raised taxes after promising he wouldn't, Clinton lied about his sexual conduct and Bush II has lied about nearly everything. So let's do away with the presidency. So then we can leave it to you to tell us how to run the country. Problem is, you don't have any answers. You keep proving that by dodging the most basic question. What do you propose to do? You don't answer because you have no idea what to do. Well guess what, these are hard problems. If anyone really knew how to solve them, they would have been solved long ago. Think, man, think! Your stubbornness isn't helping anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 You still haven't named one government program that works efficiently and effectively. SS and Medicare are failing and running out of money. Most of these government agencies are just paycheck factories for civil servants. Have you been to the Social Security or DMV offices lately? I don't believe you've ever asked me to do that. However, I have made it clear that I believe many government programs are necessary. I have asked you what you propose to do to improve things, and you refuse to answer. The reason is obvious. You have no answer. Since you asked the question, I'll answer it now. It's a poor question, but I'm going to answer it anyway, after I improve on it. To make your question meaningful, you must ask two things. These two points are the essence of everything that we can productively discuss about government programs. Millions of questions and points could be discussed around these two things. 1. Is a particular program "efficient and effective" . . . compared to what? This is another way of asking whether we can improve the program. If you have suggestions, then stop the whining, bitching, moaning and complaining, and the dodging, and make a productive suggestion for improvement. 2. Is a particular program "efficient and effective" . . . as opposed to what? This is another way of asking whether there is an alternative to the program. Are you saying we should eliminate Social Security? If so, what would you replace it with, if anything? You must be specific, or else you're just whining and complaining to no productive end. There are many government programs that we need. Among them are the military, Social Security and Medicare, NASA, highways, CIA, FBI, FEMA, HUD, SEC, FCC. It's a very long list. On the state and local level, we have the schools, the roads, sewers, water . . . come on, give me a break. Whining and complaining about government is popular sport but it's irresponsible. SS and Medicare are having problems because the population is aging and people don't want to pay higher taxes. That doesn't mean the programs aren't needed or even that they're not run well. Social Security Disability takes a long time these days, but that is because Bush deliberately understaffed the agency. As with anything else, we get what we pay for. We need these programs. So to take one of your examples, the last time I was at a DMV office was to renew my driver's license. The office was clean and well-run and I completed my business in approximately fifteen minutes. This wasn't always true. I can remember when DMV offices in New Jersey were horror shows. People could wait all day to transact their business. So what was the answer? Clean up the offices, hire more staff, insist on better performance - all kinds of things, maybe. But you have to be specific. I guarantee you they didn't improve those offices by whining. I spend much of my time in another government program of a kind, the court system. Some courts are models of efficiency, others are horrid. Judges run the gamut from the exceptionally good to the pitifully bad, with arrogance, abusiveness and indifference matched against kindness, generosity, competence and compassion. If you have a suggestion for improving the court system, then let's hear it. When I was on the legislative committee of the New York State Trial Lawyers' Association, I wrote a memorandum that was instrumental in eliminating medical malpractice panels that weren't working. So I have had an impact on at least one government program. You can do the same thing with or without an organization behind you. Come up with a good idea, contact your elected officials and make a difference. That's what democracy is all about. So it all comes back to the same question I keep asking over and over, and you refuse to answer. You're doing a lot of complaining. What do you propose to do to improve the situation? I'm not interested in anything that doesn't get at that question. What can we do to improve things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 If no government programs work "efficiently and effectively" by your standards, then what? Let's say the military is inefficient and only half as effective as it should be. Should we eliminate the defense department and discontinue a military defense? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Let's say that the highway programs in the 1950s were corrupt. (Maybe they were.) Should we not have built the highways? We all know that the schools waste money. Should we close the schools? We know Congress is inefficient and corrupt. So should we disband it? Of the last several presidents, LBJ lied about the war, Nixon was a crook, Carter was ineffective, Reagan did exactly the opposite of what he said he would do by expanding the deficit, Bush I raised taxes after promising he wouldn't, Clinton lied about his sexual conduct and Bush II has lied about nearly everything. So let's do away with the presidency. So then we can leave it to you to tell us how to run the country. Problem is, you don't have any answers. You keep proving that by dodging the most basic question. What do you propose to do? You don't answer because you have no idea what to do. Well guess what, these are hard problems. If anyone really knew how to solve them, they would have been solved long ago. Think, man, think! Your stubbornness isn't helping anyone. Did I say scrap all of the programs? I merely asked Paul to point out some programs that work properly and are not wasting resources. These really are not difficult problems however the solutions require difficult and unpopular actions. Look at some non-government entities like the car companies. The solutions to the problem are obvious; disolve or reorganize the unions, cut most of middle management, remove corporate officers that are not performing, and design cars that people want to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Actually, he did. Unlike you, he answers questions. Now you answer:QUOTE (Paul @ Dec 15 2008, 07:14 PM) I'm not saying that, and have not written anything that suggests that. However, I do agree with Bern that these programs are necessary. So I ask the same question I ask everyone who complains about how things are: What do you propose to fix it? You say that I'm complaining because you have no answer. I am pointing to a problem; most government agencies from the local to the federal level are wasteful. Should SS be scrapped? No. Is it working properly as Bern and Paul claim? No. What needs to be done to fix it? To start, a massive reorganization of its work force from the bottom to the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 You say that I'm complaining because you have no answer. I am pointing to a problem; most government agencies from the local to the federal level are wasteful. Should SS be scrapped? No. Is it working properly as Bern and Paul claim? No. What needs to be done to fix it? To start, a massive reorganization of its work force from the bottom to the top. You're not really saying anything, even though you may think you are. What reorganization? How? You have to be specific. Do you want more managers? We don't know because you don't say. Do you want more low-level workers? We don't know. Do you want pay to be based on performance? If so, how do you propose to make that happen in a federal agency without making the situation worse than it is now? What do you mean by "reorganization?" We don't know, and I don't think you do either. How do we know that what you call reorganization won't make it worse? We don't. How do we even know what you have in mind? We don't. How do we even know that you have anything specific in mind? We don't. And the reason we don't know is that you're not really saying anything. It's like saying let's cut government waste. Yeah, great, everybody agrees until you get to the details. Then you realize that people don't agree and never had the same idea in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 17, 2008 Report Share Posted December 17, 2008 Did I say scrap all of the programs? I merely asked Paul to point out some programs that work properly and are not wasting resources. These really are not difficult problems however the solutions require difficult and unpopular actions. Look at some non-government entities like the car companies. The solutions to the problem are obvious; disolve or reorganize the unions, cut most of middle management, remove corporate officers that are not performing, and design cars that people want to buy. That's not what you asked. You keep changing the issue. Now you want to know about "programs that work properly and are not wasting resources." They probably all waste resources, just like all private companies do. Do they work properly? Well, the defense department runs the military, which does a good job defending the country. So I'd have to say yes, it works properly. Social Security and Medicare deliver resources to millions of people who need them. So yes, they work properly but somewhat inefficiently. FEMA used to work properly until Bush put Brownie in charge. The SEC used to work properly until the Republicans deregulated everything. The FCC used to work properly until this right-wing hack Martin took over and allowed one company to own all the media outlets. Same could be said for most agencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Did I say scrap all of the programs? I merely asked Paul to point out some programs that work properly and are not wasting resources. These really are not difficult problems however the solutions require difficult and unpopular actions. Look at some non-government entities like the car companies. The solutions to the problem are obvious; disolve or reorganize the unions, cut most of middle management, remove corporate officers that are not performing, and design cars that people want to buy. They're probably all wasting resources. So are all businesses, all schools, all churches and every one of us individually. When you set the standard there, you're just betraying your own biases, not saying anything useful. As for programs that work, I agree with the post from 1:18 today. All those programs are working. Let's stop asking questions that don't mean anything and starting asking questions that do mean something, like how these programs can be improved; or in some cases whether they should be discontinued and/or replaced. The car companies: big-three auto workers can't continue to make nearly double what a Toyota worker makes, and we need the companies to make cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. Those are not the cars people wanted to buy, but it's what the country needs. I'd be interested in reading your ideas about middle management, but I do not see that as an obvious solution, or even know quite what you mean by it. More competent management: great idea, and so is having better doctors and more honest politicians. That doesn't really say anything unless you have some way of making it happen. I do think, though, that if we taxpayers bail out the big three, we should recoup our investment plus a profit if they succeed. If these weren't tax dollars, the party that rescues the company financially owns it. We need to do some serious thinking as a nation about the balance between capitalism and socialism. It's not a simple question at all, and these difficult times prove that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 That's not what you asked. You keep changing the issue. Now you want to know about "programs that work properly and are not wasting resources." They probably all waste resources, just like all private companies do. Do they work properly? Well, the defense department runs the military, which does a good job defending the country. So I'd have to say yes, it works properly. Social Security and Medicare deliver resources to millions of people who need them. So yes, they work properly but somewhat inefficiently. FEMA used to work properly until Bush put Brownie in charge. The SEC used to work properly until the Republicans deregulated everything. The FCC used to work properly until this right-wing hack Martin took over and allowed one company to own all the media outlets. Same could be said for most agencies. In a move foreshadowing what could happen across the nation Gov. Paterson is proposing taxes on one hundred + items to close the state budget gap. I guess this isn't specific enough proof of government waste and inefficiency for you. Basically Gov. Paterson is blaming the taxpayer for the situation the state finds itself in, instead of looking at the wasteful spending of politicians. Hey Keith, smoke 'em while they're relatively cheap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 That's not what you asked. You keep changing the issue. Now you want to know about "programs that work properly and are not wasting resources." They probably all waste resources, just like all private companies do. Do they work properly? Well, the defense department runs the military, which does a good job defending the country. So I'd have to say yes, it works properly. Social Security and Medicare deliver resources to millions of people who need them. So yes, they work properly but somewhat inefficiently. FEMA used to work properly until Bush put Brownie in charge. The SEC used to work properly until the Republicans deregulated everything. The FCC used to work properly until this right-wing hack Martin took over and allowed one company to own all the media outlets. Same could be said for most agencies. Sorry, you're right. All of the agencies that you've mentioned are models of effective government programs. Thanks for getting me sorted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Extinguisher Posted December 18, 2008 Report Share Posted December 18, 2008 Sorry, you're right. All of the agencies that you've mentioned are models of effective government programs. Thanks for getting me sorted out. Really?? Since you're on a sarcasm kick, what's an effective model in your book? Would it be the "investment bank model" of creating artificial profits, enriching yourself with extraordinary bonuses, and then sharing losses with the taxpayer? Is that the one? Or is it the AIG model? Or how about the Madoff ponzi model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 In a move foreshadowing what could happen across the nation Gov. Paterson is proposing taxes on one hundred + items to close the state budget gap. I guess this isn't specific enough proof of government waste and inefficiency for you. Basically Gov. Paterson is blaming the taxpayer for the situation the state finds itself in, instead of looking at the wasteful spending of politicians. Hey Keith, smoke 'em while they're relatively cheap. Paterson isn't blaming taxpayers. That's just a dumb argument on your part. What supposedly wasteful spending should he cut? Be specific. (And of course you can't.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 In a move foreshadowing what could happen across the nation Gov. Paterson is proposing taxes on one hundred + items to close the state budget gap. I guess this isn't specific enough proof of government waste and inefficiency for you. Basically Gov. Paterson is blaming the taxpayer for the situation the state finds itself in, instead of looking at the wasteful spending of politicians. Hey Keith, smoke 'em while they're relatively cheap. A governor raising taxes doesn't prove that government is wasteful or inefficient. Maybe the government just needed to raise more revenue. And I'm not aware of Paterson blaming taxpayers for it. See, that's the problem. Too many people just react to things they don't like, such as tax hikes. They don't think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 Sorry, you're right. All of the agencies that you've mentioned are models of effective government programs. Thanks for getting me sorted out. You claim there's a huge problem. Maybe the problem is that there are things that need to be done, and no private company can do them or wants to do them, so government has to do them. You have to remember, government takes on the problems that can't be addressed any other way. But let's assume you're right. We all know governments have problems. OK, now what? Complaining isn't a solution. Being sarcastic isn't a solution. Acting like you know everything when you obviously don't know much of anything isn't a solution. What is your solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2008 Report Share Posted December 19, 2008 They're probably all wasting resources. So are all businesses, all schools, all churches and every one of us individually. When you set the standard there, you're just betraying your own biases, not saying anything useful. As for programs that work, I agree with the post from 1:18 today. All those programs are working. Let's stop asking questions that don't mean anything and starting asking questions that do mean something, like how these programs can be improved; or in some cases whether they should be discontinued and/or replaced. The car companies: big-three auto workers can't continue to make nearly double what a Toyota worker makes, and we need the companies to make cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars. Those are not the cars people wanted to buy, but it's what the country needs. I'd be interested in reading your ideas about middle management, but I do not see that as an obvious solution, or even know quite what you mean by it. More competent management: great idea, and so is having better doctors and more honest politicians. That doesn't really say anything unless you have some way of making it happen. I do think, though, that if we taxpayers bail out the big three, we should recoup our investment plus a profit if they succeed. If these weren't tax dollars, the party that rescues the company financially owns it. We need to do some serious thinking as a nation about the balance between capitalism and socialism. It's not a simple question at all, and these difficult times prove that. If you want to call those programs "working" that's fine with me. If printing checks every month is working then I guess SS is doing great. I'm hoping that Obama will put people in place that will take a serious look at how these agencies do business but my gut feeling is he will go the route of Gov. Paterson, tax us more and throw money at the problems. And lighten up on looking for specific ideas. We're just having a general discussion here. I don't think any of us is in a position to change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paul Posted December 20, 2008 Report Share Posted December 20, 2008 If you want to call those programs "working" that's fine with me. If printing checks every month is working then I guess SS is doing great.I'm hoping that Obama will put people in place that will take a serious look at how these agencies do business but my gut feeling is he will go the route of Gov. Paterson, tax us more and throw money at the problems. And lighten up on looking for specific ideas. We're just having a general discussion here. I don't think any of us is in a position to change anything. That's an interesting response. You're telling me not to take this seriously. If it's not important enough to take seriously, then why be put out that I do? I do take it seriously, because how citizens think and talk about politics matters. We elect the people who make the policies, and you and I seem to agree that there's too much irresponsibility in government; we're largely responsible for that in my opinion because we accept it, expect it and keep voting for politicians who divert the public from real issues and/or take irresponsible positions. Obama said he would be different and we should insist that he keep that promise, but we're also going to have to be a more responsible public in my opinion. We're going to have to pay attention and stay involved, because real change isn't going to come easy. If the most powerful interest groups favored it, it would have happened long ago. I agree that all programs should be periodically reviewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 A governor raising taxes doesn't prove that government is wasteful or inefficient. Maybe the government just needed to raise more revenue. And I'm not aware of Paterson blaming taxpayers for it. See, that's the problem. Too many people just react to things they don't like, such as tax hikes. They don't think. Oh, so now the government just needed to raise more revenue. More revenue for what exactly? To replace the revenue they're already pissing away? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 22, 2008 Report Share Posted December 22, 2008 Really?? Since you're on a sarcasm kick, what's an effective model in your book? Would it be the "investment bank model" of creating artificial profits, enriching yourself with extraordinary bonuses, and then sharing losses with the taxpayer? Is that the one? Or is it the AIG model? Or how about the Madoff ponzi model? There's really no comparison between private/public companies that people decided to invest with and government run agencies. But what business model does SS, Medicare, etc. use. The model where you piss away more money than you take in and then raise taxes to make up the difference? The model where you pay five people to do the work of one? I don't get it, do you guys really love being raped by the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 Oh, so now the government just needed to raise more revenue. More revenue for what exactly? To replace the revenue they're already pissing away? What do you mean, "Oh, so now. . ."? That's the reason. You don't want to accept reality. All you seem to know is that you don't like taxes, so if you or anyone else has to pay them, you assume it must be the fault of some incompetent boob in government. If someone points out to you that there are good reasons for taxes going up, you get angry. We all know that everyone is struggling right now, including governments. You're not solving anything by picking the easiest scapegoat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bern Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 There's really no comparison between private/public companies that people decided to invest with and government run agencies. But what business model does SS, Medicare, etc. use. The model where you piss away more money than you take in and then raise taxes to make up the difference? The model where you pay five people to do the work of one? I don't get it, do you guys really love being raped by the government. Where did you get that that it takes five people to do the work of one? From the Limbaugh school of knowledge? The facts do not support your assertion. As I stated previously, the administrative overhead of SS and Medicare is about 3%. Very efficient compared to the 30 to 40% overhead of private insurance. And we don't have thousands of SS and medicare executives making in the millions. If anything, you're being screwed by our private insurers. Yes, at times our governmental programs spend more money than they take in. Its because they are obligated to pay out, no matter how much was paid in. Private insurers don't have that issue because they are constantly raising their rates. We've all seen health insurance rates double over the last 10 years. We could solve funding issues by doing what private insurers do. Do you want the social security tax rate doubled? What is your solution? Do you want to turn this over to private industry? Then expect a 40% social security and Medicare tax hike just to care of "administrative overhead." Expect aothe rvery large increase to tkae care of shortfalls. Do you want them to put our Social Security trust fund in the market, as Bush did? We would have lost 40% of our trust fund in the last four years. So besides complaining and decrying governmental programs, tell us your solutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 23, 2008 Report Share Posted December 23, 2008 There's really no comparison between private/public companies that people decided to invest with and government run agencies. But what business model does SS, Medicare, etc. use. The model where you piss away more money than you take in and then raise taxes to make up the difference? The model where you pay five people to do the work of one? I don't get it, do you guys really love being raped by the government. What model of reasoning do you use? Apparently, the model where you make things up and pretend they are facts. Where is your evidence that in SS and Medicare, five people are paid to do the work of one? If you want to compare that to private companies, just look at corporate CEO's making tens of millions of dollars a year for running their companies into the ground. How many middle class workers would have been supported by those exorbitant salaries? The corporations are taking your money and using it to line executives' pockets and ship your jobs overseas by the millions. Unlike you, I have evidence for what I'm saying. I don't get it, do you guys really love being raped by giant corporations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.