Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its funny because this thread is about liberals not being able to tell what govt runs efficiently but when you ask them who should run certain things they say private industry that also isnt efficient and dont answer to anyone.
When a private industry does not operate efficiently it goes out of business. Private industries are accountable to their owners or shareholders. Who is the government accountable to?
The voters. We do have elections every 2 years on the federal side of things.
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
with a big operation that is tough to do.....private or public....How are you defining efficiently? Is there a threshold in which you classify something as not efficient?
according to the dictionary. "capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.
Exactly, I spent a decent amount of time working construction, and looking at the process at which contractors bid for jobs and then how many actually stay within the budget they bid for...it is an unrealistic standard to hold private sector organizations to, and, as someone above posted, the government wasn't designed to be held accountable to free market standards.
operating within a budget is an unrealistic standard? WTF is wrong with you? Its your kind of thinking that caused this country to be 18 trillion in debt.
Its funny because this thread is about liberals not being able to tell what govt runs efficiently but when you ask them who should run certain things they say private industry that also isnt efficient and dont answer to anyone.
When a private industry does not operate efficiently it goes out of business. Private industries are accountable to their owners or shareholders. Who is the government accountable to?
The voters. We do have elections every 2 years on the federal side of things.
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
makling money for shareholders is the sole reason that corporations exist.
Thats why we have laws to prevent price fixing, illegal trusts, and ripping of the public. Thats why Madoff is in jail. thats why Enron was destroyed. Where are the examples in government similar to Madoff and Enron?
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.
the money that is withheld from your paycheck for SS goes into the general fund. It is not put in a "SS only" account. SSA administers the payments using money transferred to them from the general fund.
You are incorrect. The money DOES go into a trust fund,then the greed cock suckers in congress borrow it.
Many people, myself included, beleve that it is in fact empty, no surplus, but the monthly intake DOES go into a trust fund
I would however love to see prove that the government pays interest on intergovernmental debt, because I don't believe they do.
Borrow it? How.
The money is put into t-bills. Which get income.
You think t-bills don't get interest? You might want to let alot of seniors and other bond holders know that.
The government does not receive the interest you fricken idiot. The government PAYS the interest. Much of it to foreign governments.
Are you claiming that the general fund pays interest to the SS fund? Are you that stupid?
You really aren't that bright..are you?
But heck.
Fill me in on which American that retired and applied for SSI didn't get it because the fund has dried up.
Go!
with a big operation that is tough to do.....private or public....How are you defining efficiently? Is there a threshold in which you classify something as not efficient?
according to the dictionary. "capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.
Exactly, I spent a decent amount of time working construction, and looking at the process at which contractors bid for jobs and then how many actually stay within the budget they bid for...it is an unrealistic standard to hold private sector organizations to, and, as someone above posted, the government wasn't designed to be held accountable to free market standards.
People buy the products and services so they do care but not on the level of a wet nurse. You do, however, have the right to hire a wet nurse. She will nurture, coddle and care for you as long as your checks don't bounce.Bingo, they dont give a fuck about people
Its funny because this thread is about liberals not being able to tell what govt runs efficiently but when you ask them who should run certain things they say private industry that also isnt efficient and dont answer to anyone.
When a private industry does not operate efficiently it goes out of business. Private industries are accountable to their owners or shareholders. Who is the government accountable to?
The voters. We do have elections every 2 years on the federal side of things.
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
makling money for shareholders is the sole reason that corporations exist.
Bingo, they dont give a fuck about people
Thats why we have laws to prevent price fixing, illegal trusts, and ripping of the public. Thats why Madoff is in jail. thats why Enron was destroyed. Where are the examples in government similar to Madoff and Enron?
You're right all the bad guys are gone and everyone is an honest broker.
with a big operation that is tough to do.....private or public....How are you defining efficiently? Is there a threshold in which you classify something as not efficient?
according to the dictionary. "capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.
Exactly, I spent a decent amount of time working construction, and looking at the process at which contractors bid for jobs and then how many actually stay within the budget they bid for...it is an unrealistic standard to hold private sector organizations to, and, as someone above posted, the government wasn't designed to be held accountable to free market standards.
Budgets are good to have, but you also need to account for unanticipated costs, fluctuation in certain external factors that keep you from staying within a budget, etc. In construction (at least in hospital construction, which is what I was employed in) low-bidding was practically an industry norm. Going over budget by a certain percent was expected.
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
already answered. complete the job on or under budget= efficient.
When a private industry does not operate efficiently it goes out of business. Private industries are accountable to their owners or shareholders. Who is the government accountable to?
The voters. We do have elections every 2 years on the federal side of things.
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
makling money for shareholders is the sole reason that corporations exist.
Bingo, they dont give a fuck about people
Thats why we have laws to prevent price fixing, illegal trusts, and ripping of the public. Thats why Madoff is in jail. thats why Enron was destroyed. Where are the examples in government similar to Madoff and Enron?
You're right all the bad guys are gone and everyone is an honest broker.
Right, all corporations large and small don't give a fuck about people-------------you are an idiot.
I asked for some examples where a govt agency or civil servant has been prosecuted like Madoff and Enron. Can you give me any?
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
already answered. complete the job on or under budget= efficient.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08228.pdf
The voters. We do have elections every 2 years on the federal side of things.
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
makling money for shareholders is the sole reason that corporations exist.
Bingo, they dont give a fuck about people
Thats why we have laws to prevent price fixing, illegal trusts, and ripping of the public. Thats why Madoff is in jail. thats why Enron was destroyed. Where are the examples in government similar to Madoff and Enron?
You're right all the bad guys are gone and everyone is an honest broker.
Right, all corporations large and small don't give a fuck about people-------------you are an idiot.
I asked for some examples where a govt agency or civil servant has been prosecuted like Madoff and Enron. Can you give me any?
Enron was crushed but all the investors and employees who were dupped still got dupped. And Enron couldnt've done what they did without the help on ol GWB.
"Enron made a decision that they needed government to go their way and they put the money out to make sure that happened,"
Enron s Close Ties to Bush - ABC News
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
already answered. complete the job on or under budget= efficient.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08228.pdf
thanks for making my point. From your cite
"
efficiency of government spending has become one of the key issues in public finance. In
the advanced economies and many transition countries, higher efficiency of spending seems to
be the only way to avoid that public services are squeezed out between the opposing forces of
age-related expenditure and rising tax competition (Heller and Hauner, 2006). In low-income
countries, increased expenditure efficiency will have to complement increased social expenditure
if the Millennium Development Goals are to be reached. Emerging markets, in turn, may seem
under less pressure of this kind, given their rapid growth, but it is well-known that the demand
for public services tends to rapidly increase as countries become richer (the so-called Wagner
effect), and higher efficiency will be the only way to avoid a large increase in the tax burden.
Moreover, good government is also of more general concern, as it has been shown, for example
by Easterly and Levine (1997), that it is a crucial determinant of economic growth."
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
already answered. complete the job on or under budget= efficient.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08228.pdf
thanks for making my point. From your cite
"
efficiency of government spending has become one of the key issues in public finance. In
the advanced economies and many transition countries, higher efficiency of spending seems to
be the only way to avoid that public services are squeezed out between the opposing forces of
age-related expenditure and rising tax competition (Heller and Hauner, 2006). In low-income
countries, increased expenditure efficiency will have to complement increased social expenditure
if the Millennium Development Goals are to be reached. Emerging markets, in turn, may seem
under less pressure of this kind, given their rapid growth, but it is well-known that the demand
for public services tends to rapidly increase as countries become richer (the so-called Wagner
effect), and higher efficiency will be the only way to avoid a large increase in the tax burden.
Moreover, good government is also of more general concern, as it has been shown, for example
by Easterly and Levine (1997), that it is a crucial determinant of economic growth."
In no way was I ever disagreeing with you, I was just asking you to provide a legitimate conceptual standard that is used within policy circles rather than talking out of your ass like a moron, which is what you've done every time I've asked for a standard definition. I wanted citations, not some weak, "any time X goes a dollar over it's inefficient."
Redfish doesnt understand that being accoutable to Shareholders doesnt mean jack if they are making money. If the private business is ripping us off guess what? Redfish will complain about govt overreach when they move on the private business
makling money for shareholders is the sole reason that corporations exist.
Bingo, they dont give a fuck about people
Thats why we have laws to prevent price fixing, illegal trusts, and ripping of the public. Thats why Madoff is in jail. thats why Enron was destroyed. Where are the examples in government similar to Madoff and Enron?
You're right all the bad guys are gone and everyone is an honest broker.
Right, all corporations large and small don't give a fuck about people-------------you are an idiot.
I asked for some examples where a govt agency or civil servant has been prosecuted like Madoff and Enron. Can you give me any?
Enron was crushed but all the investors and employees who were dupped still got dupped. And Enron couldnt've done what they did without the help on ol GWB.
"Enron made a decision that they needed government to go their way and they put the money out to make sure that happened,"
Enron s Close Ties to Bush - ABC News
Ah, the old liberal answer to everything---------------------------Boooosh did it.
Yes, there is a risk when you buy stock in any corporation. Its legalized gambling.
Those people made a bad bet. No one forced them to buy Enron stock. But what was left was distributed to the shareholders, as it should have been.
with a big operation that is tough to do.....private or public....How are you defining efficiently? Is there a threshold in which you classify something as not efficient?
according to the dictionary. "capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.
Exactly, I spent a decent amount of time working construction, and looking at the process at which contractors bid for jobs and then how many actually stay within the budget they bid for...it is an unrealistic standard to hold private sector organizations to, and, as someone above posted, the government wasn't designed to be held accountable to free market standards.
and, as said before, the government and its agencies are not private businesses. very rarely are they doing things like a private company does.
which goes back to my original question, what should we be using as a standard for governmental agency's efficiency?
already answered. complete the job on or under budget= efficient.
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/wp08228.pdf
thanks for making my point. From your cite
"
efficiency of government spending has become one of the key issues in public finance. In
the advanced economies and many transition countries, higher efficiency of spending seems to
be the only way to avoid that public services are squeezed out between the opposing forces of
age-related expenditure and rising tax competition (Heller and Hauner, 2006). In low-income
countries, increased expenditure efficiency will have to complement increased social expenditure
if the Millennium Development Goals are to be reached. Emerging markets, in turn, may seem
under less pressure of this kind, given their rapid growth, but it is well-known that the demand
for public services tends to rapidly increase as countries become richer (the so-called Wagner
effect), and higher efficiency will be the only way to avoid a large increase in the tax burden.
Moreover, good government is also of more general concern, as it has been shown, for example
by Easterly and Levine (1997), that it is a crucial determinant of economic growth."
In no way was I ever disagreeing with you, I was just asking you to provide a legitimate conceptual standard that is used within policy circles rather than talking out of your ass like a moron, which is what you've done every time I've asked for a standard definition. I wanted citations, not some weak, "any time X goes a dollar over it's inefficient."
I gave you the dictionary definition of efficient. Then I further clarified that completing the job at or under budget is efficient.
I cannot help it if you disagree with those simple words, or don't understand them.
How are you defining efficiently? Is there a threshold in which you classify something as not efficient?
according to the dictionary. "capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.
Using that definition, isn't the concept of "waste" a value judgement? I recognize that there is lots of resources, time and energy being put into the EPA, but I agree with the EPA's overall mission as an agency so therefore I don't view any of it as "waste"
