Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Who is signing up for ObamaCare (aka ACA) on Tuesday?
Display Avatars Sort By:
jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:31:25 MDT Print View

"And even if one is/was opposed to the Affordable Care Act....why the desire for it to fail?"

Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power...

Katharina ....
(Kat_P) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Coast
Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:35:20 MDT Print View

"Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power..."


And that is what we have to deal with, on both sides. Sad, yet we are ok with it as long as it is our own party doing it.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 09:49:15 MDT Print View

But I think there's a difference between the two parties.

Any politician that speaks too loudly in opposition to money in politics will find the money going to his opponent in the next election so he won't be around long. Therefore, both parties are corrupted by money.

On the right, anyone that isn't crazy right will be primaried in the next election. The Grover Norquist organization will fund a more extreme candidate. There's no equivalent organization on the left. There are a lot more moderates.

etc.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 10:03:39 MDT Print View

"And even if one is/was opposed to the Affordable Care Act....why the desire for it to fail?"

Because more important than the good of the country, is to win an argument, get more political power so you can financially reward yourself and your supporters so you can get even more power...

And Jerry, once again with your pass fail list, you have proven you don't care much for the details or accuracy.
Anyhoo Kat, believe it or not, there are people that want this deal to fail because they believe if it gets any traction, it will further damage the country. I personally don't care who came up with it, it doesn't pass my smell test based on logic and experience. I also don't believe it's constitutional, as presented to the public. I view people as dilusional who think the Federal Government can solve our problems or make our lives better. The facts just don't seem to support it. It seems to be the opposite in my view, in almost all cases. Given the financial health of the country, it probably isn't worth worrying about anyway.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 10:13:15 MDT Print View

Jerry's examples of favorable government expenditures or programs are one sided. They may have been effective but very rarely are they efficient.

Take the military, effective as any in the world, God bless'm.

A short story: I attended a Supply Chain conference right after the Desert Storm War. The speakers roster was filled with military personnel talking about the great logistical feats to supply the fast moving troops. Statistics about tonnage, cubic volume, rapid transportation were shared with relish. Cargo containers were littered across the desert, a huge undertaking.

A young buck from Dell computer raised his hand and challenged the Lt Coronel.

"Yeah, but you left all the containers in Kuwait and Iraq deserts. No one in my industry could afford to do that"

Government has no "governor", elections are won by the most effective negative ads. Unlike people here, most voters could care less and know more about the slate on American Idol than the people who supposedly represent them.

All the more reason from a limited, smaller Federal government.

And before someone uses the old Michael Moore Medicare cost per transaction example, Medicare sends out millions of dollars to dead people, fraudulent claims and the like.

When a private sector company screws up, except maybe those favored by politicians, the market punishes them. GM was bailed out the tune of $40B to save the UAW's pensions.

With the current ACA debacle, all will be forgiven and forgotten. They will all get their pensions, some will move to K street as consultants, some put on administrative leave with pay and some promoted to even greater roles. That's the way large organizations work.

Problem with government is they're using my money.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Opposing on 10/24/2013 10:37:11 MDT Print View

so, Fred, you want it to fail because if they let it be implemented it'll be successful which will further damage the country

that makes no sense


"And Jerry, once again with your pass fail list, you have proven you don't care much for the details or accuracy."

You keep saying that but don't give any examples of where I've lied or been incorrect. Sure, no one is correct all the time but I'm pretty objective.

Now I'll twist your words like the above, but that's just my feeble attempt to make a joke

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 10:48:58 MDT Print View

"Jerry's examples of favorable government expenditures or programs are one sided. They may have been effective but very rarely are they efficient."

If you have humans envolved, they're going to be inefficient.

If you have a big bureaucracy, it's going to be even more inefficient, but some problems require big bureacracies.

Take the $1000(?) toilet seat that 60 Minutes (?) pointed out. When you have some ship in war, you want everything military spec'd so it doesn't fail in wartime. If they had more sense, they'de select cheaper toilet seats, but the procurement chain isn't set up that way.

We need skeptics reviewing things to improve efficiency, but #1 priority for a war ship is to be effective.


"All the more reason from a limited, smaller Federal government"

Ahhh... you've been listening to the "ask an anarchist" guy : )

That only works if you can shrink the government to nothing.

If you acknowledge that some government is a good thing, then you have to root out corruption and inefficiency.


The most important cause underneath all of our government problems is that we allow unlimited payments to politicians and until we fix that, we're inefficiently solving all those other problems.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 11:13:34 MDT Print View

...

Edited by BFThorp on 10/24/2013 11:38:35 MDT.

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
Again a limited view on 10/24/2013 11:21:42 MDT Print View

The politicians really aren't the root cause, it's the bureaucracy.

I can't remember the exact number, but the quantity of elected, appointed or otherwise "serve at the leisure of" federal government employees is in the hundreds, maybe the thousands. Who knows how many people work for the feds, 2,000,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 maybe more. They know that who ever is elected, "this too will pass"
They also know that between the civil service protections, union rules, or laws there's no way they'll be fired.

The lady at the IRS giving out confidential information and using her authority for political purposes, plead the fifth, administrative leave with pay, retire with pension, on to K street. And yeah, Bush probably did it too!

At one time the involuntary turnover % for federal employees was < 1%. A federal HR person was asked why the ratio was so low compared to private sector companies.

His reply was the federal hiring practices were so robust that they always had high performance people in government jobs.

Sure, that's why so many private sector companies are lined up around the corner to benchmark their hiring practices.

NOT!

BTW, limited, small government doesn't mean none. There are certain thing that the feds need to accomplish including providing a safety net for people. Government that is closer to the people is more effective and efficient. Once inside the Beltway, you've enter a new dimension in space and time.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Re: Re: Effectiveness & Efficencies on 10/24/2013 11:25:17 MDT Print View

Let's say you reduced the government by half.

Then you'de reduce the corruption and inefficiency by half, but that's not good enough to me

You need to eliminate the paying money to politicians so they "can get re-elected"

60 Minutes piece the other day talked about the "leadership PACs". Lobbyists contribute to them. The politician can spend it on golf trips or whatever. Hire their relatives. Of course citizens don't want to contribute to "leadership PACs" so the politicians can take golf trips, just the lobbyists. Do you suppose the lobbyists just give the money to be nice?


If you could reduce the government by 90% or 99% then maybe your logic would work

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: Again a limited view on 10/24/2013 11:52:40 MDT Print View

2,000,000,000 or 3,000,000,000 - about one third of the humans on the earth are patronage jobs with U.S. federal government? Ha, ha, ha,...


"BTW, limited, small government doesn't mean none. There are certain thing that the feds need to accomplish including providing a safety net for people. Government that is closer to the people is more effective and efficient. Once inside the Beltway, you've enter a new dimension in space and time."

One of those dilemmas

If you leave things local, then locals will compete with each other. Like if one local has a poor safety net, then all the poor people will leave, so yeah, they don't have to pay so much, but some other local will.

If you do things federal, it can be less efficient. But there is plenty of local corruption too so not clear.

Or if each local defines their own education sequence, then maybe one state will teach geometry freshman year and algebra sophmore year and another state vice versa so if someone moves between years they're screwed. Or another state will decide geometry violates their religious beliefs so they'll teach religion instead.

You should try to use best judgement on each case. Try to stick with what works and fix what doesn't.

Don't be afraid of government spending if it does something useful.

We have to quit allowing unlimited financial political "contributions"

Ken Miller
(Powderpiggy)

Locale: Colorado
I'll bite on 10/24/2013 12:06:02 MDT Print View

Logic is contorted, but I'll play.

If the corruption is reduced by 50%, still not to your standard, it would still have an impact on behaviors. Certainly changes the atmosphere and expectations.

Using your logic, it is the growth of government that has increased corruption. And yes I know Citizen's United is the worst thing since three wheeled ATV's, but the bottom line is that there was plenty of money and corruption before the SCOTUS ruling.

Today, the feds take money from the states and re-allocate it based on their priorities. Well placed politicians get first dip at the trough. Who was that republican senate minority leader that got a couple of billion for ending the dreaded government shut down.

Colorado pays in taxes and gets less back on virtually everything. Our two senators spend most of their time raising money. They both voted against the republican's bill to eliminate the medical device tax even though a large portion on Colorado's manufacturing is medical devices.

I guess they were afraid Harry Reid would take away the offices with a view of the Potomac.

Politicians closer to the people would make better decisions.

jerry adams
(retiredjerry) - MLife

Locale: Oregon and Washington
Re: I'll bite on 10/24/2013 13:00:50 MDT Print View

"If the corruption is reduced by 50%, still not to your standard, it would still have an impact on behaviors. Certainly changes the atmosphere and expectations."

Maybe I'n naive, but maybe corruption can be reduced 90%. At least we could eliminate political "contributions" (bribes)


"Using your logic, it is the growth of government that has increased corruption."

The unlimited political "contributions" has just sort of evolved over time. One thing the "contributors" want in return for their "contibutions" is to loosen regulations which makes it worse.

I think other countries aren't nearly as bad and are kind of scratching their heads wondering why we put up with it.


"Who was that republican senate minority leader that got a couple of billion for ending the dreaded government shut down."

I wondered that but heard it was some other Kentucky politician, but doesn't change your point.

I don't particularly like those projects stuck onto other bills, but if that's the only way to get something approved and it's a good project, maybe it's okay. It's not right that more powerful politicians get more spending in their district but that's always the way it's been. There must be some way to minimize that.

I wonder if other countries are any better at that and if there's something we can copy?

Matthew Perry
(bigfoot2) - F

Locale: Oregon
Obamacare Operator Fired After Taking Call From Hannity; Hannity To Give Her A Year's Salary on 10/26/2013 00:05:55 MDT Print View

I can't stand Sean Hannity, but what he's doing for this poor woman who was fired just for talking to him on air, is truly amazing.





http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Kathy Syllabarius on 10/30/2013 15:09:44 MDT Print View

"Web site has not crashed"

Whatever. (Borrowed from her)

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Kathy Syllabarius on 10/30/2013 15:17:58 MDT Print View

Now you're just being a hater.

I'll admit to not having watched her testimony - I find political theater tedious, unimaginative and exceptionally depressing, but from what I've read, at least she didn't try to move blame to someone else, she didn't try to throw others (especially those junior to her) under the bus, she took responsibility for the mess. More than I can say for any politician doing the questioning (from either side). So if what I read is correct, then I respect her for having more integrity than any of her questioners.

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 15:50:46 MDT Print View

I guess I just hate liars.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 17:35:51 MDT Print View

"I guess I just hate liars."

Whatever (borrowed from you).

I guess you hate everybody then, because I don't know a single person who has never lied.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 17:37:49 MDT Print View

"I don't know a single person who has never lied."

George Washington?

Fred Thorp
(BFThorp) - F
Re: Re: Kathy syllabus on 10/30/2013 18:16:02 MDT Print View

"I guess I just hate liars."

Whatever (borrowed from you).

I guess you hate everybody then, because I don't know a single person who has never lied.

> raised right hand, promised to tell truth, before the oversight committee, on live television... and says the website hasn't crashed? Does this not bother you? If she was going to lie, she could have picked more important, better questions, to do it.