DescentBB

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

amazing that we even have an interstate system which delivers goods to the nation, huh?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

amazing that we even have an interstate system which delivers goods to the nation, huh?

Get real slick. The roads are built by private road building contractors. At least here in Michigan they are.

Didn't we already give Obama hundreds of billions of dollars for those projects he told us they were ready to start, he just needed the money, and then he came back with his tail between his legs telling us they weren't as shovel ready as he had promised. Funny though because he kept the money and has been using hundreds of millions out of it to pay back his campaign donors with ...

So there is good reason to be wary of government road builders too.

All roads lead to Rome.

Huh, I don't know where to hell that came from.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

amazing that we even have an interstate system which delivers goods to the nation, huh?

Get real slick. The roads are built by private road building contractors. At least here in Michigan they are.

apparently slick doesn't pay that much attention to how our Government handles road systems. Road systems are built almost exclusively by private contractors across the nation. roads are maintained by the Government.

its probably the same amount of attention that he pays to the rest of the Governments dealing.

Spidey wrote:All roads lead to Rome.

Huh, I don't know where to hell that came from.

I thought it was all roads lead to the final 4

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

amazing that we even have an interstate system which delivers goods to the nation, huh?

Get real slick. The roads are built by private road building contractors. At least here in Michigan they are.

and paid for by whom?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Ferno wrote:Would you trust a corporation with the shepherding of roads, rail, or power without a flawless track record?

apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

amazing that we even have an interstate system which delivers goods to the nation, huh?

Get real slick. The roads are built by private road building contractors. At least here in Michigan they are.

and paid for by whom?

And like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.

what you all either don't understand, or(and I suspect this is it) wish to dance around is this; It will take Federal Money to finance large scale road and other projects, and while those of course are used to hire private contractors, NO private company will pay to do the project planning or other details itself. As for prior stimulus cash, most all economists said the 2009 package was less than 1/3 the size it needed to be, both to build the proper level of modern infrastructure and to properly stimulate the job market. Also, that bill got watered down further because the GOP demanded that 1/4 of the money be in the form of tax reduction, which does NOTHING to stimulate the economy comparatively.

callmeslick wrote:what you all either don't understand, or(and I suspect this is it) wish to dance around is this; It will take Federal Money to finance large scale road and other projects, and while those of course are used to hire private contractors, NO private company will pay to do the project planning or other details itself. As for prior stimulus cash, most all economists said the 2009 package was less than 1/3 the size it needed to be, both to build the proper level of modern infrastructure and to properly stimulate the job market. Also, that bill got watered down further because the GOP demanded that 1/4 of the money be in the form of tax reduction, which does NOTHING to stimulate the economy comparatively.

I think what you are missing is the most recent comments here were directed to the question of who do you trust to build it? Gov or corp.
As to the 1/4 of stimulus money being in the form of a tax cut....where is it?

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:what you all either don't understand, or(and I suspect this is it) wish to dance around is this; It will take Federal Money to finance large scale road and other projects, and while those of course are used to hire private contractors, NO private company will pay to do the project planning or other details itself. As for prior stimulus cash, most all economists said the 2009 package was less than 1/3 the size it needed to be, both to build the proper level of modern infrastructure and to properly stimulate the job market. Also, that bill got watered down further because the GOP demanded that 1/4 of the money be in the form of tax reduction, which does NOTHING to stimulate the economy comparatively.

I think what you are missing is the most recent comments here were directed to the question of who do you trust to build it? Gov or corp.
As to the 1/4 of stimulus money being in the form of a tax cut....where is it?

it was in the form of a payroll tax credit and a bunch of small business tax breaks, which, as I stated, did very little to stimulate anything. As to discussing whether you want government to build roads, when the heck did that become an option? Everything from Hoover Dam to the Interstate system was built by private contractors, so who even suggested government was to 'trusted' with anything beyond paying the bill?

These conversations are always fun to watch.

In my opinion, Reagan was the beginning of the demise of the Republican party. Most GOP Presidents before him understood that government investment in the country was a good and necessary thing. Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate System, Nixon, even with all his faults, started the EPA, Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park System, Hoover was instrumental in the construction of the Hoover dam, all good things that we Americans enjoy collectively. Reagan made it seem as though any government besides military spending is terrible and now you have all backed into that same corner.

Private companies build the road, but they are through government contracts. There is NO private company that goes out and funds / builds roads, bridges, or dams. The same thing happens now with oil companies. We give them money so that they will go out and explore for more resources. They find those resources with the money the taxpayers give them, then they reap all the profits. And you guys defend those subsidies. Republicans used to be reasonable; they used to know that taxes had to be raised in order to fund projects. Republicans once knew there was a good balance between govt and private enterprise, but now you guys see anything related to government and you think it is just the worst thing in the world.

I truly hope the GOP stays on its current mission because they are only headed for complete and utter irrelevancy. And that day cannot come soon enough for the majority of Americans that understand that govt does play an important role in this society.

CobGobbler wrote:These conversations are always fun to watch.

In my opinion, Reagan was the beginning of the demise of the Republican party. Most GOP Presidents before him understood that government investment in the country was a good and necessary thing. Eisenhower pushed for the Interstate System, Nixon, even with all his faults, started the EPA, Teddy Roosevelt created the National Park System, Hoover was instrumental in the construction of the Hoover dam, all good things that we Americans enjoy collectively. Reagan made it seem as though any government besides military spending is terrible and now you have all backed into that same corner.

bingo!! We have a winner. The single most destructive idea that has run through the US population in my lifetime is the notion that government is bad.
What that idea leaves us with is far too many people who will refuse to accept that we have a collective responsibility to our nation and our society which can only be managed by good government. So long as they are out there, fighting every attempt made to allow the Federal Government to do the things which pay societal dividends down the road, our nation's long-term economic status is very questionable.

Private companies build the road, but they are through government contracts. There is NO private company that goes out and funds / builds roads, bridges, or dams. The same thing happens now with oil companies. We give them money so that they will go out and explore for more resources. They find those resources with the money the taxpayers give them, then they reap all the profits. And you guys defend those subsidies. Republicans used to be reasonable; they used to know that taxes had to be raised in order to fund projects. Republicans once knew there was a good balance between govt and private enterprise, but now you guys see anything related to government and you think it is just the worst thing in the world.

I truly hope the GOP stays on its current mission because they are only headed for complete and utter irrelevancy. And that day cannot come soon enough for the majority of Americans that understand that govt does play an important role in this society.

well put, and it's a relief to realize I'm not the only one in this nuthouse who gets that.

But... what about insolvency?

It's all well and good when people keep lending us more money and we can do all of these projects... but won't a day come eventually when they will stop, and there won't be any money to be had to pay for all of these nice projects?

George Washington wrote:"There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power:
1. An indissoluble union of the states under one federal head.
2. A sacred regard to public justice.
3. The adoption of a proper peace establishment.
4. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition among the people of the United States which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community."

I don't see many people, on either side, making much of an attempt at #4 these days. From my perspective, the government is busy trying to "manage" society while justice on a day-to-day basis is neglected.

snoopy wrote:But... what about insolvency?

It's all well and good when people keep lending us more money and we can do all of these projects... but won't a day come eventually when they will stop, and there won't be any money to be had to pay for all of these nice projects?

certainly, it isn't going to happen in the near term, which is why you borrow when the payback is cheap. Getting a stronger longterm economy makes the payback capability down the road far superior, and then, you might actually get the ducks in a row so that we don't have deficit spending.

George Washington wrote:"There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power:
1. An indissoluble union of the states under one federal head.
2. A sacred regard to public justice.
3. The adoption of a proper peace establishment.
4. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition among the people of the United States which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the community."

I don't see many people, on either side, making much of an attempt at #4 these days. From my perspective, the government is busy trying to "manage" society while justice on a day-to-day basis is neglected.

I don't see much respect for any of the four among much of the public. Too many people wish to keep the US disunited, unjust for many, on constant war footing and completely unwilling to foster sacrifice for the common good. Good quote, BTW.

I’m sure there are people that believe all government is bad, but JFTR my stance is and always has been…too much government is bad.

So let’s not go and paint everyone with one big brush…because that seems to be the mantra of the left these days.

Spidey wrote:I’m sure there are people that believe all government is bad, but JFTR my stance is and always has been…too much government is bad.

So let’s not go and paint everyone with one big brush…because that seems to be the mantra of the left these days.

I wasn't, for the record, speaking of you, I was speaking of the populace as a whole. That whole government is bad thing has far too much traction within the general pubic. Your position, stated above, is reasonable, but the definition of 'too much' can be problematic.

Have you noticed that the government suddenly isn't "too much" when some disaster or another happens, like hurricane Sandy, or the sanctity of SS and Medicare is threatened for the people using it right now. People can be choosy about what is "too much" depending on if it affects them directly.

In other words, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

callmeslick wrote:certainly, it isn't going to happen in the near term, which is why you borrow when the payback is cheap. Getting a stronger longterm economy makes the payback capability down the road far superior, and then, you might actually get the ducks in a row so that we don't have deficit spending.

How long do I have to hear about that while the debt grows at a increasing rate? What indication do I have that the trend really will ever change? The Clinton years were arguably the best we've had, ever, and we hardly took a bite out of the debt.

Time will tell.... but I just don't buy the logic.... our human greed will always come up with more things to pay for than we have have money to pay.

tunnelcat wrote:Have you noticed that the government suddenly isn't "too much" when some disaster or another happens, like hurricane Sandy, or the sanctity of SS and Medicare is threatened for the people using it right now. People can be choosy about what is "too much" depending on if it affects them directly.

See... there's #4 for you.

I think that in the long run the nation would benefit from getting rid of SS and medicare. I'm enough of a believer that I'd be willing to say "drop my SS and Medicare - related taxes, don't give me anything, and I'll call it fair."

I'm not letting you get away with that Spidey, the mantra of the RIGHT is that all Democrats want people to be on the government dole and that no one should work for anything. There is nothing further than the truth. I'm tired of watching the vast majority of this country work themselves to death for a pity sum while those with the keys take the entire pot and leave us all dangling.

The idea that govt is why people are hurting is only perpetuated by the GOP. They are somehow able to convince so many people to vote against their interests. There is no reason why anyone that makes under a million dollars a year should vote for them. The problem isn't too much govt, it's not enough effective govt. Many of the Democrats and the entire Republican party cater to the wealthy and the working class gets no protection.

And instead of moving forward, people continue to vote for guys like Ted Cruz--someone who will do nothing to move this country forward. But hey, at least Allen West is out of Congress. Good riddance.

CUDA wrote:apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

apparently you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Let me make it clear so you can't misunderstand what i'm saying. I know private companies build roads. But they don't have something like the Department of Transportation. So again, would you have a corporation supplant the role of the DOT? Stay focused, or don't answer at all.

Yea snoopy, and I’m not buying into the idea that the government should stock up on debt now because it’s really cheap, because the government always has the availability of low interest rates.

And if we have all of this cheap credit, why do the Chinese hold so much of America’s debt.

It’s very poor economics, you don’t just buy something because it’s cheap…you have to be able to afford it…and it’s not the interest on debt that’s the problem…like I said before…

“It’s the debt stupid”.

The debt!

I don’t know how anybody, whatever your politics are, can look at borrowing forty something cents on every dollar spent, and a debt in double digit trillions and not see a problem, let alone advocate even more spending. It’s a freaking sickness.

That’s “Trillions” with a “T”.

It’s like snoopy says…there is no sign of it changing, anytime soon. (and that is the true problem…isn’t it)

Let's cut the defense budget in half and the entire debt should be cleared in roughly 20 years. Done.

Don't have to raise taxes or anything. Pensions should be wiped out just like the private industry has done. No guaranteed health care. And yet we'd still spend more on defense than any nation on earth.

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

apparently you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Let me make it clear so you can't misunderstand what i'm saying. I know private companies build roads. But they don't have something like the Department of Transportation. So again, would you have a corporation supplant the role of the DOT? Stay focused, or don't answer at all.

Well, in light of Long Island Power and their piss poor performance after Sandy:

"ALBANY - A special investigative panel formed by Gov. Cuomo after Hurricane Sandy wants to turn off the lights on the beleaguered Long Island Power Authority.

In a blistering report Monday, the panel branded LIPA broken beyond repair and recommended that it be replaced by a private, investor-owned utility like Con Ed."

snoopy wrote:I think that in the long run the nation would benefit from getting rid of SS and medicare. I'm enough of a believer that I'd be willing to say "drop my SS and Medicare - related taxes, don't give me anything, and I'll call it fair."

actually, that is a far better example of #4, than the example you tried to cite.

Spidey wrote:Yea snoopy, and I’m not buying into the idea that the government should stock up on debt now because it’s really cheap, because the government always has the availability of low interest rates.

And if we have all of this cheap credit, why do the Chinese hold so much of America’s debt.

actually, American citizens hold a lot of the debt. I am holding quite a bit of it and always have, and I am far from alone. It's a safe haven for cash.

I don’t know how anybody, whatever your politics are, can look at borrowing forty something cents on every dollar spent, and a debt in double digit trillions and not see a problem, let alone advocate even more spending. It’s a freaking sickness.

That’s “Trillions” with a “T”.

It’s like snoopy says…there is no sign of it changing, anytime soon. (and that is the true problem…isn’t it)

it can be changed, in a very short matter of time. It wasn't so long ago(13 years, to be exact) that we had a surplus. We can easily get back to that within
a decade, and in doing so, be paying down the cheaply borrowed debt(as that would be part of the budget that was in surplus).
This isn't rocket science, people.

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:apparently you've never seen a Government road crew in action. not exactly a model of efficiency there.

apparently you don't know how to answer a simple question.

Let me make it clear so you can't misunderstand what i'm saying. I know private companies build roads. But they don't have something like the Department of Transportation. So again, would you have a corporation supplant the role of the DOT? Stay focused, or don't answer at all.

Amtrak
US Postal service
DMV
Social Security
The IRS
Medicaid
Medicare
VA

all model examples of government efficiency. and the DOT is every bit as bad.

so lets help you stay focused Ferno. and to directly answer your question. YES in a heart beat because there is nothing that the Government runs that works efficiently. NOTHING.
and we just added Obama care to that cluster that you seem so proud of. so try and stay focused. I know how tough it is for you to formulate a thought over a single sentence long.

CUDA wrote:Amtrak
US Postal service
DMV
Social Security
The IRS
Medicaid
Medicare
VA

all model examples of government efficiency. and the DOT is every bit as bad.

actually, in the cases of Amtrak, USPS, they provide vital services to the nation that no private company would consider providing.
In the case of DMV(at least in Delaware), Social Security, Medicaid, they provide very good service at decent efficiency despite a constant battle for funding. The IRS is among the most efficient tax collection agencies in the world, compared to virtually all other developed nations. Medicare provides insurance for a high-risk pool at an efficiency level that is 10 times that of the nearest private sector insurance company. The VA, to be sure, has issues,
but how much of them are due to inefficient bureaucracy, and how many are due to underfunded mandate?

so lets help you stay focused Ferno. and to directly answer your question. YES in a heart beat because there is nothing that the Government runs that works efficiently. NOTHING.

I wrote the above as a precursor to this statement: the assertion you make above is beyond wrong, it's delusional

and we just added Obama care to that cluster that you seem so proud of. so try and stay focused. I know how tough it is for you to formulate a thought over a single sentence long.

while I will congratulate you on your sentence and paragraph structure, it would help if you could formulate thoughts which are based in reality. Instead, what you are providing is a salient example of the stupidity that has gripped the right. Government is NOT bad, government in fact is the only hope to provide certain services and benefits for the society as a whole. You provided, unknowingly, several examples of such services. Private entities cannot compete to do those things because they have to wring profit for stockholders and upper management from those activities. So long as folks like yourself stubbornly cling to the bizarre notion that government should not be involved, our nation will continue the decline it has seen. Conversely, as folks seem to get an ever-better grip on the concept of the positive role of government, the GOP rightwingers will continue(to use my thread title) the March to Self-Destruction.

Yet the surplus wasn't used to pay down the debt which was also increased from $4.145 trillion to $5.95 trillion an increase of $1.805 trillion or 44 percent when Clinton left office.

Heretic wrote:Yet the surplus wasn't used to pay down the debt which was also increased from $4.145 trillion to $5.95 trillion an increase of $1.805 trillion or 44 percent when Clinton left office.

they only ran a surplus for two years of the eight total. The debt did go down during those two years(it would have to, in order to run a surplus). Then, Bush, with the wisdom he is known for, decided that a surplus was a bad thing, and gave to money needed to pay down the debt back to (largely) the wealthy in the nation. Then, he doubled down on abject stupidity by running two wars that were not budgeted for. Throw in a massive financial system collapse that sucked revenue from the government, coupled with the need for the Federal system to spend just to keep from having ZERO liquidity and a complete financial meltdown, and you have what you currently have. It can be reversed, but not by slashing spending all at once. The intelligent approach, and in fact the only approach that has a chance of working, is to build the economic strength for the long term, and address the budget imbalance on the long-term. The fact that our current interest rate is so low is a gift. Use that gift, or live to regret it.

CobGobbler wrote:Let's cut the defense budget in half and the entire debt should be cleared in roughly 20 years. Done.

Don't have to raise taxes or anything. Pensions should be wiped out just like the private industry has done. No guaranteed health care. And yet we'd still spend more on defense than any nation on earth.

I'd agree that there is a lot of money there that could be put to better use to solve the current fiscal problems BUT...
The reason the defense budget is so high relative to the value of the equipment it purchases is the same reason everything else the government spends our money on is a bad value! They are corrupt and terribly wasteful in their 'business practice'.

So go ahead and siphon off the funds from defense, we can weather that adjustment for a while but for the long term you have to adjust the managers of the procurement process so that they start buying from a pool of competitors instead of a list of cronies. And of course I'd insist you make the same adjustments to the road building and agriculture and pharmaceuticals and energy and insurance and banking, etc. etc. You can't just stand back and look for the biggest section of the budget to cut as a solution to over spending! Eventually you will have nothing to cut and the problem will have grown even worse in the meantime!

If you 'adjust' the relationship our government has with all those industries that provide our government with over priced service and products. Likewise with all those industries that get corporate welfare and/or government regulation assistance to protect their profit margins and guarantee their market share doesn't dwindle away thus driving the citizens cost through the roof....well then you will have cured the fiscal disease instead of deciding which appendages the patient can live without!

To leave the current corrupt and terminally wasteful process in place and letting the politicians use tax hikes and reshuffling of the existing revenues to buy themselves time to get to their next reelection cycle or two is just flat out denial. Like the junkie who says she'll kick tomorrow. Jane is dead. She died thinking she'd kick tomorrow.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Amtrak
US Postal service
DMV
Social Security
The IRS
Medicaid
Medicare
VA

all model examples of government efficiency. and the DOT is every bit as bad.

actually, in the cases of Amtrak, USPS, they provide vital services to the nation that no private company would consider providing.

bull★■◆●
there are already private companies that do the postal services job for one. and much more efficiently.

In the case of DMV(at least in Delaware), Social Security, Medicaid, they provide very good service at decent efficiency despite a constant battle for funding. The IRS is among the most efficient tax collection agencies in the world, compared to virtually all other developed nations. Medicare provides insurance for a high-risk pool at an efficiency level that is 10 times that of the nearest private sector insurance company. The VA, to be sure, has issues,
but how much of them are due to inefficient bureaucracy, and how many are due to underfunded mandate?

you keep running away from the topic. are you afraid to address it?? or do you think that is you keep spewing your bull★■◆● eventually we are going to swallow it. LISTEN CAREFUL the subject is in efficient. Government is INEFFICIENT. always. private business is always more efficient. ALWAYS. because if they are not they cease to be a business. if any business was run as our Government was run they be bankrupt. OH WAIT we are Bankrupt. imagine that.

so lets help you stay focused Ferno. and to directly answer your question. YES in a heart beat because there is nothing that the Government runs that works efficiently. NOTHING.

I wrote the above as a precursor to this statement: the assertion you make above is beyond wrong, it's delusional

and we just added Obama care to that cluster that you seem so proud of. so try and stay focused. I know how tough it is for you to formulate a thought over a single sentence long.

while I will congratulate you on your sentence and paragraph structure, it would help if you could formulate thoughts which are based in reality. Instead, what you are providing is a salient example of the stupidity that has gripped the right. Government is NOT bad, government in fact is the only hope to provide certain services and benefits for the society as a whole. You provided, unknowingly, several examples of such services. Private entities cannot compete to do those things because they have to wring profit for stockholders and upper management from those activities. So long as folks like yourself stubbornly cling to the bizarre notion that government should not be involved, our nation will continue the decline it has seen. Conversely, as folks seem to get an ever-better grip on the concept of the positive role of government, the GOP rightwingers will continue(to use my thread title) the March to Self-Destruction.

riddle me this Batman. is there ANY Government agency that is run more efficiently then a Private company? ANY name me one. you cant!!! and you know it. because they don't exist. so stop lying to yourself and to us by spouting off the leftwing BS when you say the Government is a Positive for our nation. the Government however is necessary. A necessary evil.
it is not efficient.
it is run by lobbyists,
if is full of sleazeballs that will do anything and everything to stay in power.
it is full of miss-management
it is full of HUGE waste.
it is full of people that hand out payoffs for their re-election support.
it is full of shady behind the scene deals for votes.
it is full of corruption.
it is full of pandering.
it's full of people lining their pocket for personal gain


shall I go on????

there is little good in Government. but it is necessary. so stop lying to us when you say Government is great. it's not. you know it. the facts prove it.

CUDA wrote:there are already private companies that do the postal services job for one. and much more efficiently.

name one that will, for less than 50 cents, deliver letters to any place in the US, 6 days per week.

LISTEN CAREFUL the subject is in efficient. Government is INEFFICIENT. always. private business is always more efficient. ALWAYS. because if they are not they cease to be a business. if any business was run as our Government was run they be bankrupt. OH WAIT we are Bankrupt. imagine that.

utter nonsense in two regards. First and foremost, GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS A BUSINESS!!!!!! Business fills certain niche markets for profit, government provides broad benefit to everyone without regard for profit margin. Second, I showed examples above, notably Medicare, where government runs insurance at 10 times the efficiency of any private insurer. You choose to ignore reality, which is sadly becoming more typical for you.
Oh, and futher proof of your irrational, emo-driven argument is when you start sentences with 'Listen careful'. You have better grammar than that.

]riddle me this Batman. is there ANY Government agency that is run more efficiently then a Private company? ANY name me one.

I already named Medicare at least 3 times in this one thread, and to you, personally, over 20 times at least. It is very, very well documented that the overhead is 1/10 that of any private insurer.

you cant!!! and you know it.

um, I just did. You seem unwilling to accept it.

.....shall I go on????

I don't really see the point. You've long ago disqualified yourself as a source of anything on the subject except knee-jerk hatred of your own government, and made-up statements with no basis in fact. I doubt that will stop you from continuing.....

right Cuda, because Enron, Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff, and countless others that I could google and find didn't engage in corruption and everything else you have listed. Cuda is exactly the type I'm talking about. He's backed into the corner where any bit of govt is bad and he's willing to overlook the nefarious actions of the private industry because he can't go on record as saying govt can exist to provide protection and balance because that would undermine everything Glenn Beck has told him to believe.

Is our govt perfect? Hell no! But if you're asking me if I trust Bernie Sanders or Lindsay Graham over Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfeld (sp?), then yes, yes I do.

Yes the government runs the Medicare program so efficiently that they are running deficits and full of IOUs

Heretic wrote:Yes the government runs the Medicare program so efficiently that they are running deficits and full of IOUs

when insufficient funds are budgeted, that's what you get. Comparing business to government is futile for a lot of reasons, that being one of them. If you compare service delivered, versus cost of delivery, Medicare whomps the crap out of ANY insurer on the planet. Of course, no private insurer would dare offer coverage without government guarantee to the elderly, but, apples and oranges again. Get serious with the comparisons, people, some of this crap is getting boring.

CUDA wrote: I know how tough it is for you to formulate a thought over a single sentence long.

says the guy who I had to corner like a rabbit to get a clear answer. But since you did answer, which corporation would you have take over the role of the DOT?

there is nothing that the Government runs that works efficiently

how's your publicly funded water and electricity working out for you?

Will Robinson wrote:

CobGobbler wrote:Let's cut the defense budget in half and the entire debt should be cleared in roughly 20 years. Done.

Don't have to raise taxes or anything. Pensions should be wiped out just like the private industry has done. No guaranteed health care. And yet we'd still spend more on defense than any nation on earth.

I'd agree that there is a lot of money there that could be put to better use to solve the current fiscal problems BUT...
The reason the defense budget is so high relative to the value of the equipment it purchases is the same reason everything else the government spends our money on is a bad value! They are corrupt and terribly wasteful in their 'business practice'.

So go ahead and siphon off the funds from defense, we can weather that adjustment for a while but for the long term you have to adjust the managers of the procurement process so that they start buying from a pool of competitors instead of a list of cronies. And of course I'd insist you make the same adjustments to the road building and agriculture and pharmaceuticals and energy and insurance and banking, etc. etc. You can't just stand back and look for the biggest section of the budget to cut as a solution to over spending! Eventually you will have nothing to cut and the problem will have grown even worse in the meantime!

If you 'adjust' the relationship our government has with all those industries that provide our government with over priced service and products. Likewise with all those industries that get corporate welfare and/or government regulation assistance to protect their profit margins and guarantee their market share doesn't dwindle away thus driving the citizens cost through the roof....well then you will have cured the fiscal disease instead of deciding which appendages the patient can live without!

To leave the current corrupt and terminally wasteful process in place and letting the politicians use tax hikes and reshuffling of the existing revenues to buy themselves time to get to their next reelection cycle or two is just flat out denial. Like the junkie who says she'll kick tomorrow. Jane is dead. She died thinking she'd kick tomorrow.

Very well said/written. Good points.