Can Any Dem/lib Tell Us What Agency The Govt Has Run Efficiently?

[chikenwing]

"classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom"

Off topic,what does the above have to do with an off hand comment about Conservatives and military funding,it dosn't.

To be fair i did one bad using classical for today liberals they are not,what I meant was is classical for today's liberals to make such a stupid comment on military funding,got it know are you still running with what you think i know? Keep trying

 

[Redfish]

You guys keep ranting about turning all of medicine over to the government. What has the government ever run efficiently? the post office? DOD? Social security? medicare? welfare? border security? the budget?

Why would you want to turn more of our economy over to them?

What's inefficient about Social Security?

Anyone?

its going broke. it is paying out more than it is taking in.

 

[chikenwing]

You guys keep ranting about turning all of medicine over to the government. What has the government ever run efficiently? the post office? DOD? Social security? medicare? welfare? border security? the budget?

Why would you want to turn more of our economy over to them?

What's inefficient about Social Security?

Anyone?

its going broke. it is paying out more than it is taking in.

You would think as much bitch-en thats done about the VA they would think before mouth opens.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone?

Are you serious?



Besides the fact that the money comes from the general fund which has a massive deficit? Is that what you folks call efficiency?

The money doesn't come from the general fund the money comes from payroll tax revenues and interest earned on those revenues.

You have fallen victim to a myth.

There is no interest earned on worthless IOUs, moron. The taxes all go into the general fund, and the payments all come out of the general fund.

 

[Redfish]

Tens of thousands of babies in the 1950s-'60s were born with deformities like this from Thalidomide:​

Happened all over the world in over 40 countries. Didn't happen in the U.S.

Why not? Because the FDA put up a stop sign. And they were right.


This is Frances Kelsey of the FDA who put up that stop sign receiving the President's Award for Distinguished Citizen Service for doing that. She just turned 100 years old this summer.

​

I'm not sure what that has to do with "the economy" but there ya go.

Additionally?

The safety record of American Airliners are remarkable. That's not because the captains of industry wish Americans to safely travel by air. That's because the Government has rigorous regulations in regards to air travel.

another dem/lib that does not know what "efficient" means. Yes, american airlines are pretty safe compared to those of maylaysia and kenya. But is the FAA efficient in its regulation of airlines? Is TSA an efficiently run agency? How about the border patrol? are we getting efficient effective border security from that govt agency?

Apparently YOU DON'T know what it means.

Efficiency in regards to running a government agency MEANS provisioning the right amount of RESOURCES to EFFECTIVELY get the job done.

If you DO NOT do that. Then you are NOT efficient.

Idiot.

You really don't know what the word means do you.

efficient = capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.

Now, which goverment agency fits that definition?

Redfish says: "I'm going to move this over here...no over there...."

I have not moved, just asking a simple question. But you fools on the left kept ducking because you didn't know what the word "efficient" means. Its evident that many of you still don't know what it means.

But let me be more precise: Why would you turn the medical care of 330,000,000 people to the same government that gave us the USPS, the welfare system, the "war" on poverty, and the viet nam war? Why do you want to turn your health over to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Jackson-Lee, and Obama?

 

[bendog]

I apologize if I misunderstood chickenwing. I think net nanny is blocking something in the posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You guys keep ranting about turning all of medicine over to the government. What has the government ever run efficiently? the post office? DOD? Social security? medicare? welfare? border security? the budget?

Why would you want to turn more of our economy over to them?

What's inefficient about Social Security?

Anyone?

its going broke. it is paying out more than it is taking in.

That's not true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone?

Are you serious?



Besides the fact that the money comes from the general fund which has a massive deficit? Is that what you folks call efficiency?

The money doesn't come from the general fund the money comes from payroll tax revenues and interest earned on those revenues.

You have fallen victim to a myth.

There is no interest earned on worthless IOUs, moron. The taxes all go into the general fund, and the payments all come out of the general fund.

No they don't. Payroll taxes are dedicated funds. They cannot be used for general fund expenditures unless they are borrowed, and thus pay interest.

 

[bendog]

"I have not moved, just asking a simple question. But you fools on the left kept ducking because you didn't know what the word "efficient" means. Its evident that many of you still don't know what it means.

But let me be more precise: Why would you turn the medical care of 330,000,000 people to the same government that gave us the USPS, the welfare system, the "war" on poverty, and the viet nam war? Why do you want to turn your health over to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Jackson-Lee, and Obama?[/QUOTE]"

Fish, I'd change the question. Frankly, the Soviets probably did an efficient job in giving the proletariat "efficient" HC, in terms of extending the lifespan of people from 1930 to 1980, but who of us want steel teeth? For those of us with private insurance, we probably like our docs. Costs are an issue. But why would we want to give up our freedom.

 

[Redfish]

You guys keep ranting about turning all of medicine over to the government. What has the government ever run efficiently? the post office? DOD? Social security? medicare? welfare? border security? the budget?

Why would you want to turn more of our economy over to them?

What's inefficient about Social Security?

Anyone?

its going broke. it is paying out more than it is taking in.

That's not true.

Yeah, it is.

 

[Redfish]

"I have not moved, just asking a simple question. But you fools on the left kept ducking because you didn't know what the word "efficient" means. Its evident that many of you still don't know what it means.

But let me be more precise: Why would you turn the medical care of 330,000,000 people to the same government that gave us the USPS, the welfare system, the "war" on poverty, and the viet nam war? Why do you want to turn your health over to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Jackson-Lee, and Obama?

"

Fish, I'd change the question. Frankly, the Soviets probably did an efficient job in giving the proletariat "efficient" HC, in terms of extending the lifespan of people from 1930 to 1980, but who of us want steel teeth? For those of us with private insurance, we probably like our docs. Costs are an issue. But why would we want to give up our freedom.[/QUOTE]


OK, dems and libs, answer bendog. why do you want to give up your freedoms relative to your healthcare?

 

[bendog]

SS is projected to be in surplus again once us boomers are dead and the millineals working. Hopefully, they won't do something stupid, like cut taxes again.

 

[Redfish]

Anyone?

Are you serious?



Besides the fact that the money comes from the general fund which has a massive deficit? Is that what you folks call efficiency?

The money doesn't come from the general fund the money comes from payroll tax revenues and interest earned on those revenues.

You have fallen victim to a myth.

There is no interest earned on worthless IOUs, moron. The taxes all go into the general fund, and the payments all come out of the general fund.

No they don't. Payroll taxes are dedicated funds. They cannot be used for general fund expenditures unless they are borrowed, and thus pay interest.

wrong again.

 

[Redfish]

SS is projected to be in surplus again once us boomers are dead and the millineals working. Hopefully, they won't do something stupid, like cut taxes again.

thats one projection, others are not so rosey. A simple solution that would work would be to collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 106K.

we need to face the fact that we do not have individual SS savings accounts witht the government. SS is a tax, working people are paying for retired people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone?

Are you serious?



Besides the fact that the money comes from the general fund which has a massive deficit? Is that what you folks call efficiency?

The money doesn't come from the general fund the money comes from payroll tax revenues and interest earned on those revenues.

You have fallen victim to a myth.

There is no interest earned on worthless IOUs, moron. The taxes all go into the general fund, and the payments all come out of the general fund.

No they don't. Payroll taxes are dedicated funds. They cannot be used for general fund expenditures unless they are borrowed, and thus pay interest.

wrong again.

How is Social Security Financed?

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax.

Social Security Administration How is Social Security financed

Now go ahead and prove that the SSA isn't telling the truth.

 

[bendog]

"I have not moved, just asking a simple question. But you fools on the left kept ducking because you didn't know what the word "efficient" means. Its evident that many of you still don't know what it means.

But let me be more precise: Why would you turn the medical care of 330,000,000 people to the same government that gave us the USPS, the welfare system, the "war" on poverty, and the viet nam war? Why do you want to turn your health over to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, McCain, Jackson-Lee, and Obama?

"

Fish, I'd change the question. Frankly, the Soviets probably did an efficient job in giving the proletariat "efficient" HC, in terms of extending the lifespan of people from 1930 to 1980, but who of us want steel teeth? For those of us with private insurance, we probably like our docs. Costs are an issue. But why would we want to give up our freedom.

OK, dems and libs, answer bendog. why do you want to give up your freedoms relative to your healthcare?[/QUOTE]
I don't. I just don't think you're asking the right question, regardless of political outlook

If private industry can't do something, like have cops or a military, then there's no option. But at the same time, we could try cutting half the cops, cutting taxes, and letting the more affluent hire private guards. But for that choice, efficiency probably isn't the best criteria. I find it objectionable that private industry makes money for incarcerating people, too.

Likewise, even if one could prove that single payer is more efficient, that's not necessarily a reason to go that direction. And, I don't think the evidence from places like Sweden and Poland supports it is cheaper.

 

[rightwinger]

SS is projected to be in surplus again once us boomers are dead and the millineals working. Hopefully, they won't do something stupid, like cut taxes again.

thats one projection, others are not so rosey. A simple solution that would work would be to collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 106K.

we need to face the fact that we do not have individual SS savings accounts witht the government. SS is a tax, working people are paying for retired people.

We also need to raise the retirement age to 70

 

[bripat9643]

It's called voluntary vs. compulsory.

If you're suggesting that the private sector is even remotely as inefficient as government, you're in worse intellectual shape than I ever imagined.

What exactly is the private sector efficient at? I mean other than making one percent of the population, obscenely rich?

Which private organization did a moon landing?
Which private organization defeated the Nazis?
Which private organization built the Hoover Dam?
Which private organization built the interstate highways?

Private organizations are fine. They are part of our economic model, work okay in distributing goods and services and keep some of the population employed. They are also decent at innovation.

But private organizations have never run or started a country.

And you are welcome to try.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

Government could only do the above because it has the ability to use force against innocent people. The private sector isn't allowed to use compulsion.

That being said, here is a partial list of private sector accomplishments:

Telephone
Television
Radio
Cell phone
Flat screen TV
PC
tablet computers
smart phones
refrigeration
air conditioning
electric lights
internal combustion engine
Chemical rockets
repeating rifle
transistor
vacuum tube
CAT scanner machine
integrated circuit
fiber optic cable
automobile
flight
Plastics
washing machine
Dishwasher
cloths dryer
Refrigerator
Anesthesia
combine
tractor
diesel engine
Steam turbine
gas turbine
alternating current
transformer
plate glass
safety glass
concrete
steel
mass production
assembly line
laser
digital camera
photography
canning
pasteurization
synthetic fabrics
power looms
precision machining
Steam locomotive
Railroads
Diesel locomotive

 

[Redfish]

SS is projected to be in surplus again once us boomers are dead and the millineals working. Hopefully, they won't do something stupid, like cut taxes again.

thats one projection, others are not so rosey. A simple solution that would work would be to collect SS taxes on all income, not just the first 106K.

we need to face the fact that we do not have individual SS savings accounts witht the government. SS is a tax, working people are paying for retired people.

We also need to raise the retirement age to 70

OK. but don't make it effective on someone turning 65 this year. phase it in over several years. Although I think thats already being done.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone?

Are you serious?



Besides the fact that the money comes from the general fund which has a massive deficit? Is that what you folks call efficiency?

The money doesn't come from the general fund the money comes from payroll tax revenues and interest earned on those revenues.

You have fallen victim to a myth.

There is no interest earned on worthless IOUs, moron. The taxes all go into the general fund, and the payments all come out of the general fund.

No they don't. Payroll taxes are dedicated funds. They cannot be used for general fund expenditures unless they are borrowed, and thus pay interest.

Wrong again, nimrod. Furthermore, the government cannot pay interest to itself. I've already explained this to you at least a dozen times.