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

[bripat9643]

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.

Great story, but off topic. Was the FDA efficient in banning that drug? "efficient" not "effective". DOD for the most part is effective, but it is never efficient.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw between effective and efficient.

You're saying Frances Kelsey spent too much money saying no to Thalidomide?

By the way -- about the nature of these things... Kelsey (who had been at FDA for a total of one month) put up that stop sign in 1960. What do you suppose would be the chances of such a stop sign getting put up in 2014?

Or in recent times at all -- Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame

This cockamamie portrait of Da Big Bad Gummint as the villain, studiously keeping one's eye off who's pulling its puppet strings, is exactly the dance those puppeteers want to see you doing.

Good puppet. Have a cookie.

I said that was a great story, and a real success. I don't know if the FDA was efficient in that effort or not, do you? Our wonderful government has put US 17 trillion dollars in debt. It has spent 17 trillion dollars more that it has collected. It borrowed much of that from our potential enemies. Is that your definition of efficient?

The FDA was just lucky. The fact that it is so inefficient and slow meant that the USA was the last government to evaluate thalidomide, so examples of the side effects had already started to trickle in to the knowledge base by the time they got around to looking at it.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Great story, but off topic. Was the FDA efficient in banning that drug? "efficient" not "effective". DOD for the most part is effective, but it is never efficient.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw between effective and efficient.

You're saying Frances Kelsey spent too much money saying no to Thalidomide?

By the way -- about the nature of these things... Kelsey (who had been at FDA for a total of one month) put up that stop sign in 1960. What do you suppose would be the chances of such a stop sign getting put up in 2014?

Or in recent times at all -- Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame

This cockamamie portrait of Da Big Bad Gummint as the villain, studiously keeping one's eye off who's pulling its puppet strings, is exactly the dance those puppeteers want to see you doing.

Good puppet. Have a Kochie cookie. And keep the blindfold on, sez the man behind the curtain.

The accurate portrait is of a huge blundering elephant in a china shop that is too slow and stupid to get anything done and that destroys everything it touches.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Right. The Post Office is in a business that is "fluid" and "always changing."

Who are you trying to kid?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Great story, but off topic. Was the FDA efficient in banning that drug? "efficient" not "effective". DOD for the most part is effective, but it is never efficient.

Not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to draw between effective and efficient.

You're saying Frances Kelsey spent too much money saying no to Thalidomide?

By the way -- about the nature of these things... Kelsey (who had been at FDA for a total of one month) put up that stop sign in 1960. What do you suppose would be the chances of such a stop sign getting put up in 2014?

Or in recent times at all -- Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame

This cockamamie portrait of Da Big Bad Gummint as the villain, studiously keeping one's eye off who's pulling its puppet strings, is exactly the dance those puppeteers want to see you doing.

Good puppet. Have a cookie.

I said that was a great story, and a real success. I don't know if the FDA was efficient in that effort or not, do you? Our wonderful government has put US 17 trillion dollars in debt. It has spent 17 trillion dollars more that it has collected. It borrowed much of that from our potential enemies. Is that your definition of efficient?

You're rambling all over the map, dood. "Yeah but" this, "yeah but" that...


Fallacy of Overwhelming Exception:

You're great at inventing logical fallacies that no one ever heard of.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

Ya know,...It is said that the average person cannot make it through the day without at least one real juicy rationalization. You just reached your quota for the day.
In your world we're supposed to watch as OUR money taken by federal bureaucrats is thrown down a rat hole and we're just supposed to shut up about it because in your words "the situation is fluid".....
Your definition of waste is " do not hold us accountable if we go over budget or our costs are too great".....Sorry that don't butter the biscuit.
Private enterprise can do this as they are spending THEIR money. Government CANNOT do this because government is NOT spending its own money.
There is a large difference.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This is the same FDA that held up a Prosciutto Toscano imported from for over 5 years so they could run testing? The same Prosciutto Toscano has produced in Tuscany for 350 years BEFORE AMERICAN WAS EVEN FOUNDED

It also held up numerous HIV drugs until they were proven "safe" even though thousands of people were dying from HIV every year. That sure is what I call "effective."

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Hey, you asked for an example, you got two --- now you want to "yeah but" cherrypick?

Poster please.

those are not examples of efficient operations. Success can be achieved in an inefficient operation. Our military is very effective, but I don't think anyone on earth would call DOD efficient. the USPS does a pretty good job delivering the mail, but it loses money every quarter----------efficient????

Again, you show you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

"Waste" isn't necessarily inefficient. Sometimes you have to bake in "waste" into your provisioning model. Why? Because in most cases, what you are doing is not stagnant or rote. Your work or business requires you to do things are fluid and always changing. And many times you have to make the best guess about what your resources should be. It's always "efficient" to have more than you need as opposed to not enough.

Because if you have "not enough"? You've failed.

classic liberal jiberish. in red. amazing and pathetic

Not "jiberish" at all.

Reality.

YOUR reality. You have become lazy and complacent. Just like all those slugs in DC who are "putting in their time" until they reach the number where they are fully vested in the federal pension plan.

 

[thereisnospoon]

We have the strongest military in the history of mankind, safe food and drugs, we went to the moon, we have made major strides in protecting our environment, government funded R&D in medicine, science and technology

I will take our government over any government on earth

Anyone want to argue with me?

I agree with you 100%. But we are 17 trillion dollars in debt. We have not achieved those things you mentioned with fiscal efficiency. Are you now, as a liberal, claiming that NASA and DOD have been run efficiently?

We are 17 trillion in debt because we are lazy and demand we get more services for less taxes

We are getting what we the people asked for

so we should just say WTF and continue the path to fiscal ruin???????????? is that your plan?

but you are dodging. I asked if you think NASA and DOD were run efficiently. care to answer?

NASA and DOD....absolutely

Given the uncharted R&D mission they have undertaken they are both efficient and effective

Haven't seen a better space program or defense

OMG, $200 dollar hammers. bridges to nowhere. weapons systems that the military does not want or need, NASA being used for muslim outreach.

what planet are you on?

We do not have. $200 hammers, bridges to nowhere do not come from NASA or DOD, they come from politicians in red states demanding pork

Weapons systems are the most complex on earth. If we can keep politics out of the process we could be more efficient

the $200 hammers were bought on a Navy contract. Last time I checked the Navy was part of DOD. When did California and New York become red states? more pork goes to them than many red states combined.

I spent my entire career in and around DOD and weapons systems. I have seen the waste first hand.

But you are trying to change the subject. The government has never done anything efficiently. Never, nothing. Good results do not mean they were achieved efficiently. Is our welfare and food stamp program run efficiently? of course not. Could the govt manage healthcare efficiently? ask the vets who died waiting for an appointment at the VA.

That $200 hammer contract was 30 years ago and was the result of an accounting method used on a huge defense contract. They never spent $200 on a hammer and they no longer uses that accounting method

No...The accounting methods used now are far worse.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Great story, but off topic. Was the FDA efficient in banning that drug? "efficient" not "effective". DOD for the most part is effective, but it is never efficient.

You see, again, you confuse efficiency for effectiveness.

If the right Wing had its way, Thalidomide would have been approved and they'd have made millions on it. That would be efficient, but not effective.

Thalidomide was approved by 40 other governments.

 

[bripat9643]

Dollar for dollar, America offers the most effective and efficient government on the planet, doing so for about 20 cents on the dollar nationally, 28 cents if you include state and local taxes.

The OP is parroting a talking point. If he isn't maybe he can prove the above WRONG and/or name another country that can match or best those figures.

What is this "20 cents on the dollar" based on? It's obviously just made-up crap. Even if the US government was the most efficient on the planet, that doesn't mean it comes within 10 miles of the average private corporation.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The Federal government operates very efficiently, that you perceive otherwise is subjective, partisan and wrong.


Indeed, when Federal departments and agencies experience difficulties, it's most often the consequence of budget cuts and staff reductions at the behest of republicans.


Prior to its privatization, for example, the Post Office operated extremely efficiently; which goes to the fact that there are certain services which are more appropriate for the government to address, such as delivering mail to every American regardless where he lives, public assistance and social services programs, National defense, education, and various regulatory responsibilities which have contributed to the success of private businesses and the health and safety of private citizens, including administering healthcare programs.


This ridiculous conservative paradigm of perceiving everything as simply being black or white, either/or, is one of many reasons why rightwing dogma fails, as the best approach is a pragmatic approach, where the private sector addresses that which it does well, and the public sector likewise addresses what it does well – a blend of public and private to the advantage of all the American people.


And one of the most efficient and successful Federal programs has been Medicare, where there already exists a proven process that can be expanded to all Americans, providing all Americans access to affordable healthcare:


“Despite competition and choice in the private insurance system, Medicare spending has grown more slowly than private insurance premiums for comparable coverage for more than 30 years.


From 1970 to 2009, Medicare spending per beneficiary grew by an average of 1 percentage point less each year than comparable private insurance premiums. Between 2000 and 2009, Medicare’s cost advantage was even larger—its spending per beneficiary grew at an average annual rate of 5.1 percent while per-capita premiums for private health insurance plans grew at 7.2 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. […]”



Medicare is still more cost-efficient than private insurance

Bullshit.

Private Insurance Is More Efficient than Medicare--By Far Cato Liberty

Is Government More Efficient?

Supporters of a new government program note that private insurers spend resources on a wide range of administrative costs that government programs do not. These include marketing, underwriting, reviewing claims for legitimacy, and profits. The fact that government avoids these expenditures, however, does not necessarily make it more efficient. Many of the administrative activities that private insurers undertake serve to increase the insurers’ efficiency. Avoiding those activities would therefore make a health plan less efficient. Existing government health programs also incur administrative costs that are purely wasteful. In the final analysis, private insurance is more efficient than government insurance.

Administrative Costs

Time magazine’s Joe Klein argues that “the profits made by insurance companies are a good part of what makes health care so expensive in the U.S.and that a public option is needed to keep the insurers honest.” All else being equal, the fact that a government program would not need to turn a profit suggests that it might enjoy a price advantage over for-profit insurers. If so, that price advantage would be slight. According to the Congressional Budget Office, profits account for less than 3 percent of private health insurance premiums. Furthermore, government’s lack of a profit motive may not be an advantage at all. Profits are an important market signal that increase efficiency by encouraging producers to find lower-cost ways of meeting consumers’ needs. The lack of a profit motive could lead a government program to be less efficient than private insurance, not more.

Moreover, all else is not equal. Government programs typically keep administrative expenditures low by avoiding activities like utilization or claims review. Yet avoiding those activities increases overall costs. The CBO writes, “The traditional fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach.”7 Similarly, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission writes:

[The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] estimates that about $9.8 billion in erroneous payments were made in the fee-for-service program in 2007, a figure more than double what CMS spent for claims processing and review activities. In Medicare Advantage, CMS estimates that erroneous payments equaled $6.8 billion in 2006, or approximately 10.6 percent of payments… . The significant size of Medicare’s erroneous payments suggests that the program’s low administrative costs may come at a price.

CMS further estimates that it made $10.4 billion in improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program in 2008.

Medicare keeps its measured administrative-cost ratio relatively low by avoiding important administrative activities (which shrinks the numerator) and tolerating vast amounts of wasteful and fraudulent claims (which inflates the denominator). That is a vice, yet advocates of a new government program praise it as a virtue.

Medicare also keeps its administrative expenditures down by conducting almost no quality-improvement activities. Journalist Shannon Brownlee and Obama adviser Ezekiel Emanuel write:

Some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it’s also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals.

According to the CBO, private insurers spend nearly 1 percent of premiums on “medical management.” The fact that Medicare keeps administrative expenditures low by avoiding such quality-improvement activities may likewise result in higher overall costs—in this case by suppressing the quality of care.

Supporters who praise Medicare’s apparently low administrative costs often fail to note that some of those costs are hidden costs that are borne by other federal agencies, and thus fail to appear in the standard 3-percent estimate. These include “parts of salaries for legislators, staff and others working on Medicare, building costs, marketing costs, collection of premiums and taxes, accounting including auditing and fraud issues, etc.”

Also, Medicare’s administrative costs should be understood to include the deadweight loss from the taxes that fund the program. Economists estimate that it can easily cost society $1.30 to raise just $1 in tax revenue, and it may sometimes cost as much as $2.36 That “excess burden” of taxation is a very real cost of administering (i.e., collecting the taxes for) compulsory health insurance programs like Medicare, even though it appears in no government budgets.

Comparing administrative expenditures in the traditional “fee-for-service” Medicare program to private Medicare Advantage plans can somewhat control for these factors. Hacker cites a CBO estimate that administrative costs are 2 percent of expenditures in traditional Medicare versus 11 percent for Medicare Advantage plans. He writes further: “A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006, Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to nonmedical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.”

Yet such comparisons still do not establish that government programs are more efficient than private insurers. The CBO writes of its own estimate: “The higher administrative costs of private plans do not imply that those plans are less efficient than the traditional FFS program. Some of the plans’ administrative expenses are for functions such as utilization management and quality improvement that are designed to increase the efficiency of care delivery.” Moreover, a portion of the Medicare Advantage plans’ administrative costs could reflect factors inherent to government programs rather than private insurance. For example, Congress uses price controls to determine how much to pay Medicare Advantage plans. If Congress sets those prices at supracompetitive levels, as many experts believe is the case, then that may boost Medicare Advantage plans’ profitability beyond what they would earn in a competitive market. Those supracompetitive profits would be a product of the forces that would guide a new government program—that is, Congress, the political system, and price controls—rather than any inherent feature of private insurance.

Economists who have tallied the full administrative burden of government health insurance programs conclude that administrative costs are far higher in government programs than in private insurance. In 1992,University of Pennsylvania economist Patricia Danzon estimated that total administrative costs were more than 45 percent of claims in Canada’s Medicare system, compared to less than 8 percent of claims for private insurance in the United States. Pacific Research Institute economist Ben Zycher writes that a “realistic assumption” about the size of the deadweight burden puts “the true cost of delivering Medicare benefits [at] about 52 percent of Medicare outlays, or between four and five times the net cost of private health insurance.”

Administrative costs can appear quite low if you only count some of them. Medicare hides its higher administrative costs from enrollees and taxpayers, and public-plan supporters rely on the hidden nature of those costs when they argue in favor of a new government program.

Cost Containment vs. Spending Containment

Advocates of a new government health care program also claim that government contains overall costs better than private insurance. Jacob Hacker writes, “public insurance has a better track record than private insurance when it comes to reining in costs while preserving access. By way of illustration, between 1997 and 2006, health spending per enrollee (for comparable benefits) grew at 4.6 percent a year under Medicare, compared with 7.3 percent a year under private health insurance.” In fact, looking at a broader period, from 1970 to 2006, shows that per-enrollee spending by private insurance grew just 1 percentage point faster per year than Medicare spending, rather than 2.7 percentage points. That still omits the 1966–1969 period, which saw rapid growth in Medicare spending.

More importantly, Hacker’s comparison commits the fallacy of conflating spending and costs. Even if government contains health care spending better than private insurance (which is not at all clear), it could still impose greater overall costs on enrollees and society than private insurance. For example, if a government program refused to pay for lifesaving medical procedures, it would incur considerable nonmonetary costs (i.e., needless suffering and death). Yet it would look better in Hacker’s comparison than a private health plan that saved lives by spending money on those services. Medicare’s inflexibility also imposes costs on enrollees. Medicare took 30 years longer than private insurance to incorporate prescription drug coverage into its basic benefits package. The taxes that finance Medicare impose costs on society in the range of 30 percent of Medicare spending. In contrast, there is no deadweight loss associated with the voluntary purchase of private health insurance.

Hacker nods in the direction of non-spending costs when he writes, “Medicare has maintained high levels of … patient access to care.” Yet there are many dimensions of quality other than access to care. It is in those areas that government programs impose their greatest hidden costs, on both publicly and privately insured patients.

 

[bripat9643]

We have the strongest military in the history of mankind, safe food and drugs, we went to the moon, we have made major strides in protecting our environment, government funded R&D in medicine, science and technology

I will take our government over any government on earth

Anyone want to argue with me?

All that thanks to the private sector, the research they do and the taxes they pay.

Bullshit.

Where does the money come from? Where do the weapons come from?

 

[bripat9643]

Most of them.

Most government agencies couldn't find their backsides with both hands in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

Oftentimes staffed by dull, unimaginative, self-seeking bureaucratic and calendar-watching pension-sniffers, bellying-up to the trough for their unfair share of budget dollars, territorial, secretive, self-promoting, self-preserving, overlapping and wasteful, many of those same departments need a thorough housecleaning, mission and charter review, new performance indicators and outcomes evaluation, new and more visible and transparent public accountability, and, in some cases, closure, consolidation or downsizing.

Uh-huh.

Unlike the Private Sector, which are run by the cream of the crop.

frankly, I've seen more incompetence in the private sector than I've ever seen in the government.

My experience has been pretty much the reverse.

As have the experiences of a great many others, else the stereotyping of government agencies would never have gained such traction.

Private companies have a bottom-line indicator of success... their bottom line.

Government agencies can operate inefficiently (sometimes, grotesquely inefficiently) for decades on end, without fear of closure, because of a guaranteed revenue stream.

And a highly politicized and pro forma Performance Review process.

You know as well as I do that these fundamental differences between the public and private sectors contribute-to and sustain the inefficiency of a great many government agencies.

This is not to say that there are not legions of dedicated public servants within that sector who are largely devoted to their country and service to their countrymen.

But to ignore the grotesque inefficiencies and problematic operations of so many of these agencies is to ignore the 10-ton elephant in the room.

And there in lies the difference between conservative and liberal thought.

For conservatives, wealth is the one and only goal. With wealth, for a conservative, comes power and the ability to exert one's will over others.

For liberals, it is the advancement of civilization, as a whole that is the goal. If a civilization is effective in providing safety, scholarship and is sustainable for the future, that's success.

It's a vastly different mindset.

Then the government won't be needing our wealth, right?

 

[bripat9643]

We have the strongest military in the history of mankind, safe food and drugs, we went to the moon, we have made major strides in protecting our environment, government funded R&D in medicine, science and technology

I will take our government over any government on earth

Anyone want to argue with me?

All that thanks to the private sector, the research they do and the taxes they pay.

Bullshit.

Seriously? OK, you tell me where the money comes from and who made these rockets and other goodies.

Which private sector?

Seriously?

Most of the private sector..or major corporations are like vampires.

They pay little or no taxes..and in fact make a GREAT DEAL of money at the behest of our government.

They do this through tax breaks/subsidies and contracts.

The greatest extraction of wealth in this country comes from private citizens and goes to the captains of industry.

And yet? That's not enough.

Only someone with brain damage would swallow your spiel, Swallow. What "subsidies" is apple receiving? What tax breaks is it receiving? How does a tax break help a corporation make money when taxes are paid on profits ( money they have made?"

Private citizens make all their money working for corporations. Where do you think their wealth comes from? Do they conjure it up out of thin air? How are cars, cell phones, computers and televisions made? What wealth in this country is produced without a corporation in the picture?

 

[bripat9643]

The USDA is another efficient Federal agency, given the size and scope of its regulatory responsibilities, the many challenges facing American agriculture, and its administrative duties concerning the SNAP program.


In essence the issue of the 'efficiency' of the Federal government is nothing more than a partisan game of bickering over whether the glass is half empty or half full.

The USDA is totally unnecessary, so how is it "efficient?" I once did some contract work for the FDA, and I can tell you from personal experience that there is nothing "efficient" about it.

 

[bripat9643]

We have the strongest military in the history of mankind, safe food and drugs, we went to the moon, we have made major strides in protecting our environment, government funded R&D in medicine, science and technology

I will take our government over any government on earth

Anyone want to argue with me?

All that thanks to the private sector, the research they do and the taxes they pay.

The government funds that research......it is what they do

Want to go to the moon? Private sector didn't pay for that

So the government is "efficient" at tasks that are of no benefit to anyone? BTW, the whole reason that companies like Space-X are having such great success in the launch business is the fact that government designed boosters are so damned expensive.

 

[bripat9643]

Dollar for dollar, America offers the most effective and efficient government on the planet, doing so for about 20 cents on the dollar nationally, 28 cents if you include state and local taxes.

The OP is parroting a talking point. If he isn't maybe he can prove the above WRONG and/or name another country that can match or best those figures.

Agree

I will take the efficiency and accomplishments of our government over any government on earth

No one is comparing the US government with other governments.

 

[bripat9643]

OK, I'll bite.

The government provides water to my house at a cost of less than $25 per month, which is safe to drink, always reliable, and has never run out or been disrupted for more than 8 hours in my entire life. Yet, I live only 30 miles from Mexico, where I can not safely drink the water, or even use their ice in a drink. But, while we are at it, I might add that the community water is threatened by a privately owned mine, one of the largest copper mines in America, which has been leaching acid into the ground near our aquifer for 70 years. The community water system has gotten laws passed that require that the "acid bloom" be monitored and controlled to keep it out of the aquifer. AND, while we are at it, the EPA has now forced the privately owned mine to spray water on the mine tailings that are loose, in order to keep blowing dust to a minimum, which carries a fungus that causes a respiratory disease referred to down here as Valley Fever.

While we are on the subject, the government also processes all the sewage in our community, and it costs me less than $30 per month. The environment is clean, and unlike most third world countries, there are no diseases that are spread in my community due to raw sewage.

The house my parents owned was originally supplied by a privately owned water company. The company wanted to pass a bond issue to buy the private company out. As an incentive, they promised they would improve the water pressure. It wasn't the best, but it was still adequate. My mother was so pissed because she voted for it, but after it passed the county tripled the monthly rate for water service.

Yeah, that's government "efficiency" for you - efficient at raping the taxpayers.

 

[bripat9643]

The post office will deliver a letter from my house in NJ to my brothers house in California for 49 cents

Let's see private industry match that

The government doesn't allow private companies to deliver first class mail Many people have wanted to get into the business, but Congress always shuts them down and maintains the Postal monopoly.

 

[bripat9643]

We have the strongest military in the history of mankind, safe food and drugs, we went to the moon, we have made major strides in protecting our environment, government funded R&D in medicine, science and technology

I will take our government over any government on earth

Anyone want to argue with me?

I agree with you 100%. But we are 17 trillion dollars in debt. We have not achieved those things you mentioned with fiscal efficiency. Are you now, as a liberal, claiming that NASA and DOD have been run efficiently?

We are 17 trillion in debt because we are lazy and demand we get more services for less taxes

We are getting what we the people asked for

Parasites like you demand these so-called "services." I don't consider getting fucked up the ass to be a service.