Texsox

Take the absolute cost of something. The government tacks on waste from too many regulations and inefficiencies. Private industry tacks on profit. Either way money is diverted from the end purpose and hurts the tax payer. We demand the government buy American, that increases prices. We demand the government write specs that allows the most companies to compete, that invites waste. If we could eliminate the waste without spending it on profits, we all win. Imagine calling the IRS and getting a call center in Malaysia. A private company needs to buy a desk. They go to the store, find one they like and seems like a good price, and buy it. Later if they see one for $20 less, no big deal, the saved $20 in time and effort. We demand that the government write up specifications for a desk and have companies bid. Someone has to write the specs and evaluate the specs. Why don't we allow the government to act like a private business? Instead we demand the waste then complain about it. We demand they spend $2 to save $1 Using NSS example in the BIA, when it is reported that the private company is sending more money to the Native Americans than before and the owner just bought a $10,000,000 ranch in Idaho, we should call it an American success. But wouldn't the taxpayer now demand the company send even more to the Native Americans? Would we really be happy knowing he bought that ranch with our tax dollars? I believe we should carefully look at some programs and have private not for profits run the programs with clear benchmarks. Allow them to be more nimble.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) I am not quite sure if you understand what government spending really is or not. Pretty much the vast majority of it is the US government paying people to do work at a much higher rate than anyone else would do it for. If you want to cut spending, you are pretty much going to cut government jobs and move them into the private sector. Plus there isn't an absolute rule that makes ineffeciencies the profit margin. I don't know where that came from, but isn't a rule, and it doesn't have to be even an actual occurence. The simple thing would be to make it a rule that a certian percentage of savings are given back to the taxpayers. Also doesn't surprise me that the reports that agree with privatization, you would label as "biased". I guess you borrowed from our evil conservative playbook by dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your point of view as biased. Funny, I want the government to borrow less and that makes me an enemy of conservative values I didn't dismiss any links because you didn't show any. When some company produces a report on how they can save the country millions and provide a better service, I dismiss it. But conservatives take it hook line and sinker? I don't think so. At least not any conservatives I know. It's something different and we need to proceed carefully. But being cautious with change must now be a liberal attribute. The reports I have read are either by pro-government groups or industry groups looking to move in. Plus, much is theory and predicting the future. I asked for a link where the public received more for less. Let's build on those successes. I am certain their are some programs that could be privatized, but not all. If you only answer one question, where will the profits come from? The government has inefficiencies. Private companies are motivated by profit, the more the better. Either category does not directly help the tax payer. You've always preached that higher wages are better for our economy. So which is better, higher paying government jobs (Inefficiencies) or lower paying private jobs and profit? I think a better solution is looking at where we are demanding waste in the form of excessive requirements, getting benefits more in line with private industry (less days off for one), and focusing on the desired results, not the justification. I also fear corruption in private industry. The Enron Department of Energy? QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) In the case of BIA and other agencies that are so far gone (if I recall, their last director quit and said there was no fixing it), I think you literally abolish it. It's actually not doing ANY good for ANYONE, including the Indians. They get a small sliver of the money they were intended to get, and then get all kinds of buearacracy, corruption and administrative B.S. to deal with just to get that. What I would do - take an amount of money equal to about 3 years' of the BIA's budget. Allocate it to the various tribal authorities on a per capita basis, and tell them to do whatever they see fit. Further, give all the Indians on the reservations the option to either own their land on it outright, or join their tribe's community if that's what they desire. Either way, they get some sort of land equity, and a chunk of cash. Then abolish the reservation system, and they are now part of society. The transition may be harsh, but it would be far better than the current nightmare they live in. Some of the BIA money may also have to go to the States and localities to deal with the burst influx on services, then veil it down over a number of years until it's nothing. I agree with your ideas, the current BIA system isn't working. I assume that once we gave them the money, "they" could distribute it anyway they want via whatever system they desired? That way we wouldn't have to follow up and have any agency expenses seeing if the money was used. This is how the inefficiency creeps in. Taxpayers demand that the government isn't just giving away the money and having it wasted. Someone discovers that tribal elders built themselves a retirement home for themselves and didn't spend it on the poorest residents. So we demand independent accountability and studies and etc. So the tribes are now creating a system to track their expenses and reporting to who?" Some government agency who has now sprung up to be certain the tribes are being fair and honest with *our* money. The system is screwed.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) The Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take an extreme example, is so inefficient that only about 10% of its funds actually make it to the people they supposedly serve. It would actually be far more effective at this point to just send each tribe a head-count check and call it a day. At least then SOME of the money would be put to good use. 10 freakin' percent?! Great example. You are the private company taking over. Should the government have any oversight on how you spend the money? Or do we just hand over the tax dollars and trust you? The public has demanded more and more accountability on how our money is spent. We demand multiple bids on all purchases. We demand meticulous record keeping from these agencies. If we turn this over to a private contractor, should we also drop those requirements? The level of record keeping we demand of our government is beyond what private industry requires. Perhaps we need to put in place policies and procedures more in line with private industry. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) Tex, what kind of profit do most companies make? I'd be that for most corporations, they are happy with making, say, 10% or 20%, depending on the industry. Some more, some less, some none at all. How many make 90%? Not too many I'd guess. How about charities even? Charities that only get 10% of the money to the target audience are usually considered substandard and can't get certified or approved by their various watchdog groups. Earlier someone mentioned 10% waste, if that is the same profit a private company wants, which is fair, we evened out. IIRC Indian Affairs has seen their budget cut while the demands for record keeping etc. have stayed the same. Doing all the paperwork, etc, is required, sending them aid is not. Perhaps that is the problem. The legal requirements cost $X and those have to be funded first. I agree that there are inefficiencies in out government, but there are also inefficiencies in private businesses. How many people in this conversation are working for private companies and getting paid to post?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) How many links do you want? The US government is the most ineffecient business entity in the United States. Google "government inefficiency" and tell me how many links you come up with. inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service. I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection. So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc. If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) IF the government were ran like a real business, it would have shut down years ago. Of course we'd see benefits - it's been proven time and time again. links?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) I am for lower spending, but that is a completely different story. There are times when spending is need though... Heck I would be in favor of closing entire governmental agencies, and privatizing many others. Having the government run anything is collosal waste of funds in almost any case. The duplicity and other ineffeciency of the US government has been estimated to be as high as 10% of spending. If done in the private sector with a profit motive, those are cost savings that would be realized, because the incentive is there to realize them. I'm not convinved that we would net a benefit. Is government waste less than or greater than the profit that a private business would feel is justified? I think we have expanded the government beyond what should be funded and perhaps those areas would be privitized, but agfain, I'm not convinced we would see a savings at the same benefit level.

I was thinking about Jordan and Pippen and how their defense was amazing night after night. Someone asked MJ if he could have stopped himself. All he could do was laugh.

Forget who owns the debt, it's a problem no matter what. My biggest worry is we have lost sight of why we pay taxes. We have broken the link between expenses and income. The public is beginning to believe the only way we have a healthy economy is to borrow money. We believe that someone else is going to pay the debt and the interest. I am all for lower taxes, but lower the spending as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) Tex, why do you keep saying things that 1) has no relevance at all to what SS is saying, and 2) saying that the deficits are growing when in actuality they are starting to shrink back again? It's interesting, really, that almost all of us that are "fiscal conservatives" are madder then hell at how our government has handled spending, and you keep running around in the hyperbole world of "wooo hoo free stuff" when none of us are advocating that and furthermore hate the thoughts of it. It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy. Let's just print more money to cover this stuff - that works - oh wait a minute, that's called introducing a great depression - something that the Democrats would like to see because it means that the evil capitalisic society can implement more government controls! WOOT! It's becoming obvious that this is all about straw man's arguments for you and not truths. The reason that our deficits are high is 100% the overspending, not the tax cuts. It's also a bad problem that foreign countries hold our money - but it's not about the tax cuts, it's about trade imbalances. I would argue they would hold even more of our money if it weren't for the stimulation that our economy has had as a result of the early 00's tax cuts. It's the gap between spending and income that I object to. If Bush wants to cut taxes, fine, cut spending. Fact is we are borrowing money from foreign countries and giving it to the citizens in the form of tax cuts. If that is the only way to support our economy we are screwed when banks stop loaning us money. Sorry if my posts go beyond what SS posts. In the future I will confine my comments to SS posts only. If I can keep up the pace, damn he posts a lot. Kap, As far as the hyperbole,.how many times have you posted IT"S BUSH"S FAULT IMPEACH IMPEACH!!!!!!!!

Six years later, the deficits continue to grow, with no end in sight, because it's the way to stay in power. Eventually *we* have to pay the bills, with interest. We avoided one problem and a far worse problem is looming on the horizon. When the world stops loaning us money, and that will happen, we will be in a dire situation. We are building a country that we can not afford. We are looting our treasury and voting ourselves these gifts with no plan to pay it back. We are not maintaining any relationship between collections and expenses. We have split those two things in our minds. We have become a debtor nation. What makes you more prosperous, paying interest or collecting interest? Whoo Whoo Freee Stuff!! But keep laughing if it makes you feel better, it is basically like whistling through a cemetery. Isn't it ironic that it's a Dem that thinks we need to come closer to balancing the budget and a Rep who thinks we need to borrow trillions from foreign banks.

I'm ripping up some Rock and Roll cards. I hope you were practicing some line.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:16 PM) LMAO. The irony is tax receipts are at an all time high. If he doesn't cut taxes, we might still be in the Depression from thinking that only rate cuts would have solved the potential crisis that was the Clinton recession plus the biggest terror attack this country has ever known. With the bubble that developed after the irrational exuberance stock market, there was no telling how far things could have fallen without restoring confidence in the economy. And silly me, I don't believe you restore confidence by taking more money from people who are already shaken to the core. If you think you could have balanced the budget after 9-11, you are kidding yourself. I wish I could laugh, but I'm not buying the GOP koolaid. Spending is even higher. If the only way to maintain our economy is by borrowing money from China, God help us all. Nope, you restore confidence by buying people stuff. We pay taxes to stimulate our economy, not to pay for our government. Right Drunk sailors in the White House Weeeeeeeeeeeee!! Free stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Act a little sad and they will give you stuff. Don't worry out kids will be paying for all this, plus interest. In case you didn't notice, the USSR collapsed under their debt. I guess I forgot what fiscal conservative means anymore. It use to mean not spending a bunch of money. Now it doesn't matter how much we spend as long as there is a deficit.

fourth with one small caveat, if you are also using Vista and like CNN videos, it aint working.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) GWB CERTAINLY is not a fiscal conservative, and that's hugely why we are in the problems today that we are... Iraq War notwithstanding. I believe all the professional GOPers have abandoned conservative fiscal policies in favor of giving the American public what they want, a free lunch. We demand that they borrow money and give it to us. I don't blame them, it's the way to get elected. And I give him a partial pass because of the Iraq war. I just wish he had come on tv and said, hey, we're in a war and this is not a great time to be cutting taxes.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) hell no, he hates us. Emmit was plenty pissed at the Cowboys when they cut him loose. Things change, I hope it does for Frank after he hits 600.

And retire his number at the same time. BTW, I wonder at the end of his career if he will sign a one day contract to retire as a Sox player?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 02:33 PM) Which is why they are trying to find a big name guy to step to the forefront. Once they get the attention they need, then they can establish their principles with the general public. First they need someone with a good reputation. That seems like the correct strategy. They have to avoid character issues and grab the values that the GOP has abandonded (fiscal conservatism) and avoid the special interest pandering that caused the Dems to lose their backbone, and we have a winner.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) And I think a third party may become viable, if as I said, its not starting at the top. It can't be a party about a person. That makes sense, but I can't reconcile that to America being a celebrity society where flash and appearance is more important than ideas and vision.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) It shouldn't. We are loading this on an older computer where it will run. We load it from the A:\ to the computer. After that the diskettes are put to the side and not used again. After that point, we run through the setup and then run the program. That is why this is so confusing to me - why will it run when we save the files directly from the diskettes and then run setup but not if we save the diskettes to a shared drive, copy them to our local drive and then try to run the setup file on them? It's been so long since I loaded a program from disks. Is this a DOS based program? Let me see if I understand the way this installs. All the disks are written to a directory and then you install? or is there an install shell which sequentially calls for them?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Can anyone think of a reason why a program will run if and only if it is loaded using floppy disks? We loaded all the diskettes onto a CD and tried that way (since my work computer doesn't have an A:\ drive). It will load up, but when you try to run the software you get an error saying the database is already open. The IT guy and I tried to solve this for a half a day before giving up. It is bugging me because it doesn't make sense. Why should the media the program is being loaded onto my PC from make any difference? At some point is the program trying to read the "A" drive? If the program makes a call to a non existent drive, it may shut down as an error. Try renaming the CD drive. Off the top of my head, it is the only thing I can think of. OK not the only thing. Could it be that when switching from one floppy to the other the install programs closes that database? perhaps putting them on separate cds and renaming the drive may work. OK, more than two. You have checked that the program and floppy disks are good? Isolate all variables so you are working with :known to be good" stuff. Why do I feel stupid telling this to an engineer who is far smarter than I?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe. I could see a third party wiping out the Dems or Reps, probably the Dems. At election time, both parties dive to the left and right, leaving the middle wide open for a viable upstart.

I wish it would happen that way. I see a small group that will be the swing vote on everything. Perhaps they will act differently than everyone else we send to Washington, but I'm thinking the new party will work harder at representing "their constituents" by pointing out the great projects (pork) they have brought to their district in hopes of getting more of their new party elected. It is pork grease that lubricated the wheels of congress. No matter what, two of the three will be needed to pass. The only time I see the DEMs and REPs getting together would be to figure out a way to eliminate the 3rd Party and bring things back to "normal". There will be even more pressure to keep the party votes in line or else a three way deal would be necessary, something even harder to do.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) I know what it's like. I hate having paparazzi following me everywhere thinking I'm the Pits. fixed

More and Pics here