What Are Conservatives Trying to Conserve?

[KevinWestern]

Their salary was taken out of the economy and they didn't produce anything. How does that "contribute to the economy" exactly?

So, you are basically saying that when we pay a government employee to do something, they "aren't producing anything"?

Even when we pay soldiers - they don't "produce" anything with that money we're paying them?

I say when we pay a soldier, what we're getting back in return is defense which protects our country (and economy) from attack and subsequent collapse.

Usually when you pay a worker $$$, they give you something back something in return, otherwise there would be no need to pay that person.

I think more to the point is that government employees tend to be less productive as there is no profit motive. I have several state agencies as clients, I can tell you, they are not an overly motivated bunch yet on average, they have much more generous benefit packages than their privates sector counterparts.

I definitely understand that, but that sure doesn't sound like what Kaz was trying to say.

Also, I grasp the concept that public sector lacks the profit motive (and that makes private more efficient 99% of the time), however I do believe there are things the public sector can do better than the private. These are things like defense and various organizations that promote "the greater good" such as research/development, pollution reduction, ect.

(Very generally speaking) There's usually no good short term profit motive for a single company to devote part of its budget to cleaning up the environment (at least not a lot right now), but it's in everyone's best interest to do this in the long term...

...govermnent steps in.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If Contards like competition and capitalism why are they against the pubic option that was originally included in the health care bill? Still waiting.

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

So does that mean that the government can run health insurance more efficiently and better than private insurance companies?

No it means the idiots in government will mismanage it horribly like they do everything else and they don't give a shit because they can just take more money from us to cover the results of their malfeasance.

All you need to do is look at the history of government projects to know this is true.

For example the Big Dig went 700% over budget and an innocent woman was killed when a section of a tunnel collapsed. The only reason more people weren't killed was dumb luck as the collapse happened in the early morning hours.

And these are the fucking idiots you want in charge of your health care?

 

[kaz]

Their salary was taken out of the economy and they didn't produce anything. How does that "contribute to the economy" exactly?

So, you are basically saying that when we pay a government employee to do something, they "aren't producing anything"?

Even when we pay soldiers - they don't "produce" anything with that money we're paying them?

I say when we pay a soldier, what we're getting back in return is defense which protects our country (and economy) from attack and subsequent collapse.

Usually when you pay a worker $$$, they give you something back something in return, otherwise there would be no need to pay that person.

Good question. When I say "produce" anything, I'm referring to economic production. For example, a company hires workers, buys materials, ... and produces a product which it sells for a profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The company invests it in new projects, pays debtors, distributes it to shareholders, ...

A soldier doesn't "produce" economic value. He/she is basically "insurance" protecting what we have. Does your auto insurance make you richer? No, but it protects the money you have and limits your losses if there is an accident.

Government produces no economic value either. At it's best, it's insurance protecting us. But like your auto insurance comes out of your salary, government comes out of the economy. More typically unfortunately government overregulates, and so it takes money out of the economy and uses it to further stifle the economy.

 

[kaz]

Their salary was taken out of the economy and they didn't produce anything. How does that "contribute to the economy" exactly?

So, you are basically saying that when we pay a government employee to do something, they "aren't producing anything"?

Even when we pay soldiers - they don't "produce" anything with that money we're paying them?

I say when we pay a soldier, what we're getting back in return is defense which protects our country (and economy) from attack and subsequent collapse.

Usually when you pay a worker $$$, they give you something back something in return, otherwise there would be no need to pay that person.

I think more to the point is that government employees tend to be less productive as there is no profit motive. I have several state agencies as clients, I can tell you, they are not an overly motivated bunch yet on average, they have much more generous benefit packages than their privates sector counterparts.

Kevin is right, this isn't what I was saying. I do agree with you though. But I'm not talking about how hard employees work. I'm talking about growing the economy. Only profitable enterprises do that. Government spends, it doesn't create so it destroys value.

 

[Flaylo]

If Contards like competition and capitalism why are they against the pubic option that was originally included in the health care bill? Still waiting.

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

 

[Flaylo]

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

So does that mean that the government can run health insurance more efficiently and better than private insurance companies?

No it means the idiots in government will mismanage it horribly like they do everything else and they don't give a shit because they can just take more money from us to cover the results of their malfeasance.

All you need to do is look at the history of government projects to know this is true.

For example the Big Dig went 700% over budget and an innocent woman was killed when a section of a tunnel collapsed. The only reason more people weren't killed was dumb luck as the collapse happened in the early morning hours.

And these are the fucking idiots you want in charge of your health care?

What facking ever, the private companies are the ones facking up right now, damn you're facking dense.

 

[kaz]

If Contards like competition and capitalism why are they against the pubic option that was originally included in the health care bill? Still waiting.

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Private companies can't compete because government can charge whatever they want to taxpayers and send people out with guns to get the money for them. Private companies have to compete by only charging their customers and they can't use guns to collect anything.

 

[KevinWestern]

Their salary was taken out of the economy and they didn't produce anything. How does that "contribute to the economy" exactly?

So, you are basically saying that when we pay a government employee to do something, they "aren't producing anything"?

Even when we pay soldiers - they don't "produce" anything with that money we're paying them?

I say when we pay a soldier, what we're getting back in return is defense which protects our country (and economy) from attack and subsequent collapse.

Usually when you pay a worker $$$, they give you something back something in return, otherwise there would be no need to pay that person.

Good question. When I say "produce" anything, I'm referring to economic production. For example, a company hires workers, buys materials, ... and produces a product which it sells for a profit. That profit is what grows the economy. The company invests it in new projects, pays debtors, distributes it to shareholders, ...

A soldier doesn't "produce" economic value. He/she is basically "insurance" protecting what we have. Does your auto insurance make you richer? No, but it protects the money you have and limits your losses if there is an accident.

Government produces no economic value either. At it's best, it's insurance protecting us. But like your auto insurance comes out of your salary, government comes out of the economy. More typically unfortunately government overregulates, and so it takes money out of the economy and uses it to further stifle the economy.

I see what you mean, but personally, I most certainly think that soldiers produce economic value. For instance, would you be more willing to invest in a country with a good powerful defense network, or one that can't defend itself and is constantly being attacked and thrown into turmoil? Part of the reason businesses build in America is because they know it's a safe place, and this is because we spend so many tax dollars protecting ourselves.

Also, what about the government office that researches ways to clean up the environment? No private sector company would devote dollars to preserving "the commons", but government might and this could be of huge economic benefit; destroying our environment means destroying our resources (in the long term), and the potential $$'s we can be making from those resources.

The private sector, although very efficient in their respective industries/services, often operate too much with an eye for the short term only, and without regard to negative externalities which do not concern them.

Doesn't the government have a role in protecting people against negative externalities?

 

[Flaylo]

TRICARE is government ran health care NumbSkull Pilot, if it was so facked up why is the military using it? Still waiting for answers.

 

[Flaylo]

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Private companies can't compete because government can charge whatever they want to taxpayers and send people out with guns to get the money for them. Private companies have to compete by only charging their customers and they can't use guns to collect anything.

That's the biggest bunch of paranoid shat I ever heard.

 

[KevinWestern]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Are you so sure that the government will always be acting in your best interests?

You do know that lawmakers have to get re-elected every 2-6 years, and campaigning requires a lot of money, which means the majority of politicians are in debt - to some degree - to a number of special interest groups.

When it comes time for the government to make a decision on how to run something, will it be looking to your interests, or the interests of the donors?

 

[KevinWestern]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Private companies can't compete because government can charge whatever they want to taxpayers and send people out with guns to get the money for them. Private companies have to compete by only charging their customers and they can't use guns to collect anything.

That's the biggest bunch of paranoid shat I ever heard.

Flaylo - Kaz has a point here, he's not being paranoid.

When the government runs something – for example – it doesn’t have to worry about efficiency in the same way a private sector company does. Nor does it have to worry about costs in the same way the private sector counterpart would. Heck, the public run company can artificially make the price of it’s good $4 when it really costs $6 to produce because all the losses will be footed by the taxpayer.

A private sector company wouldn’t be able to provide the good for $4, they’d have to do $6 just to break even, and they simply wouldn’t be able to compete because of the artificial market conditions created by the public sector company.

Competition is GOOD. It drives efficiency within companies, reduces waste in our economy, makes everyone better off.

 

[Flaylo]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Are you so sure that the government will always be acting in your best interests?

You do know that lawmakers have to get re-elected every 2-6 years, and campaigning requires a lot of money, which means the majority of politicians are in debt - to some degree - to a number of special interest groups.

When it comes time for the government to make a decision on how to run something, will it be looking to your interests, or the interests of the donors?

I see your point and I never said govt is perfect but its just that when it comes to certain things I trust govt over for profit companies.

 

[Ropey]

The Republic for which the US stands...

 

[Vidi]

Because it's impossible to compete with the government. The fucking government doesn't have to make a profit and has an unlimited supply of funds it can take from the taxpayers.

So does that mean that the government can run health insurance more efficiently and better than private insurance companies?

Of course not you nitwit... it means the state can print money and tax people into oblivion. Private companies are constrained by competition and markets. See the U.S.P.S. and FedEx... which one makes money and which one loses billions... yet they are both in business... why is that?

Good grief...

While I agree the government can do what you say. You're USPS vs FedEx comparison is off. USPS showed a profit until 2007 when it was mandated to begin funding pensions 75 years out. This not only ate their profits, but caused them to go into the red.

Additionally, both FedEx and UPS deliver to local post offices in many areas and it is USPS that makes the final delivery. This reduces the private shippers overall cost as they don't need daily routes through entire areas for just a few packages. USPS does receive payment for this service as well, so it is an equitable exchange.

 

[skookerasbil]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Private companies can't compete because government can charge whatever they want to taxpayers and send people out with guns to get the money for them. Private companies have to compete by only charging their customers and they can't use guns to collect anything.

That's the biggest bunch of paranoid shat I ever heard.

Yo Flayo...........recent posts seem to indicate you're getting a bit angst!!! All the misery and anger? Whats up with that s0n?


Is it anything to do with the fact that you and your k00k ilk are....................


L O S I N G!!!!!




oh.........ps.............on DRUDGE right now......................


Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law


Individual mandate picked apart...
Admin. tries rebranding...
'Personal responsibility clause'...
Supremes ask how to dismantle law...
'Plane-wreck' for administration...


PRAVDA endorses Obama...

Bernanke: Gas prices likely to go up through at least July...

POLL: 68% of Americans angry at Obama...

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[KevinWestern]

How hypocritical as thing is coming from the shathead who wants the government to contract everything out to the private sector, the private compnies can't compete because they know the government isn't going to pull the fraudulent bullshit private companies pull such as picking and choosing what costs they will cover.

Are you so sure that the government will always be acting in your best interests?

You do know that lawmakers have to get re-elected every 2-6 years, and campaigning requires a lot of money, which means the majority of politicians are in debt - to some degree - to a number of special interest groups.

When it comes time for the government to make a decision on how to run something, will it be looking to your interests, or the interests of the donors?

I see your point and I never said govt is perfect but its just that when it comes to certain things I trust govt over for profit companies.

Fair enough, that's your view. I happen to trust gov't less.

 

[KevinWestern]

So does that mean that the government can run health insurance more efficiently and better than private insurance companies?

Of course not you nitwit... it means the state can print money and tax people into oblivion. Private companies are constrained by competition and markets. See the U.S.P.S. and FedEx... which one makes money and which one loses billions... yet they are both in business... why is that?

Good grief...

While I agree the government can do what you say. You're USPS vs FedEx comparison is off. USPS showed a profit until 2007 when it was mandated to begin funding pensions 75 years out. This not only ate their profits, but caused them to go into the red.

Additionally, both FedEx and UPS deliver to local post offices in many areas and it is USPS that makes the final delivery. This reduces the private shippers overall cost as they don't need daily routes through entire areas for just a few packages. USPS does receive payment for this service as well, so it is an equitable exchange.

Definitely an interesting point regarding pensions, but I still think the USPS is worlds behind UPS when it comes to efficiency.

I would go out on a limb and say that anything the USPS can do, one of the private companies can do more quickly, with less employees.

But the main point is, I just don't see a need for the US Post Office to exist in today's day and age. It's a waste of money, in my opinion.

What value does a government run postal system bring to America, that a private one cannot?

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes the private sector is more facking corrupt than the feds you asshat, do you kno how much money KBR and Lockheed screw the government out of? I saw it with my own eyes. Private sector has no allegiance to the country they do whats best for making their companies richer, even if it means being corrupt and defaruding the government.

Companies that are corrupt go out of businesses. Business men who are corrupt eventually lose money and go to prison. The quest for profit contains and inherent motivation to not be corrupt because corruption is not how you make money, providing goods and services for others is.

Politicians/governments/bureaucracies who are corrupt however end lives. They eliminate liberty. They produce misery.