I throw water on Ron Paul supporters and they melt.
Then I click my heels together and I go to some barren wasteland where everything is black and white and smells like horses. Have to wait for a tornado to bring me back.
Sucks.
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
Anyway, he's right - that's what's destroyed the middle class. That's the reason couples (gay and straight) have to both work in middle class families, whereas they didn't (in greater numbers) years ago.
This place is such a joke.
yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.
What services have been provided by the government but then handed over to the private sector only to see the company fail at executing it?
I can't think of one. I can think of a service that was primarily provided my government, but then handed over to the private sector (in a small form) - shipping bulk mail. Fed Ex, etc. They are relatively efficient. Much more so than the bankrupt postal service.
Look at food stamps. Administrative costs are kept low, where do you identify inefficiency in how it's run?
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!
Ha ha. Have you ever heard of a Wawa? Probably not. Basically it's a 7/11 with food inside. Subs, Chips, Sodas, Coffee, etc. Now, when you go up to swipe to pay your food. There's an option there - "EBT Cash". EBT = foodstamp card. So, apparently, not only can they buy hoagies and tastycakes and soda... you can also get STRAIGHT CASH! 1 in 7 people have these f'ing cards. That's 46 million people. Moreover aren't we trying to get people to eat healthy? lol.
My friend, who's not political at all joked about getting an EBT card - he's well off. He looked into it when he was laid off, although he was quite comfortable financially and found out what you can get. Totally efficient, bro.
When you made the statement "providing checks", maybe you're referring to people who receive TANF, or cash welfare. The expectations of the recipient vary from state to state, but things were tightened up in the 90's and state's are raising the bar with expectations of the recipient. There are exemptions, but there is a work requirement when receiving tanf (again will vary state to state). Caseworkers also make home visits to follow up on what's being reported with the expectation. Remember that any program to develop skills and also trying to stop fraud is expensive in itself.
One can donate, but often the conservative argument relies on the notion that if taxes that went to public assistance was somehow given back to the individual, that an equal contribution to charitable organizations would occur. This doesn't play out in reality. When people get a tax kicker or 'stimulus' or whatever, they spend it on paying down some personal debt, saving some of it, and also buying crap made in China.
Thanks for providing us permission to donate. :fp: This is exactly the issue. Why can't we decide how or if we want to "donate"? Why does the US government, that is horribly inefficient enough to have more debt than our entire economy, get to tell us how they plan to solve this issue? I don't trust them... get it through your head. I agree this is an issue, but they won't EVER solve it.
On your point - When people get a "stimulus" the economy is most likely hurting. Lots of people focus on themselves in those times, because their own personal family is hurting. Like I've said in other threads, it's the economy - stupid. That's the problem.
I don't care what the "conservative" pom-pom waving argument is, nor do I care how you interpret it with your liberal pom-poms waving as being wrong. Both sides are sheep and can't think independently.
I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:
Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?
Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.
yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.
It is a much bigger problem then you think.
At its goal, I believe the fed shoots for 2% inflation, that is considered a success I believe... it is like an annual tax increase that no one talks about except in passing. Its affects are very real. if every dollar you make is worth 2% less the next year in purchasing power...who does that hurt more, the rich or the poor?
It is why there is never enough tax money... It is why cereal boxes are smaller than ever and cost more...Are there other things that could help...absolutely...but inflation is a real issue that affects everyone...rich and poor
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
Anyway, he's right - that's what's destroyed the middle class. That's the reason couples (gay and straight) have to both work in middle class families, whereas they didn't (in greater numbers) years ago.
This place is such a joke.
yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.
Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
This place is such a joke.
Did you read his line that "taxation is theft?"
The same people who complain that they have to pay taxes and hiw it's "theft" are often the same ones complaining about how long it takes the police to arrive and how dirty the public parks are.
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
Anyway, he's right - that's what's destroyed the middle class. That's the reason couples (gay and straight) have to both work in middle class families, whereas they didn't (in greater numbers) years ago.
This place is such a joke.
yes that's the one and only reason inflation...not outsourced labor, not tax breaks for the rich, not the decimation of unions leading to less pay for the middle class among other things couple with inflation. nope just inflation.
Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
cost of living has gone up because of inflation yes (I didn't deny that)...however couple that with getting paid less, not having a job, tax cuts on the rich who have demonstrated a propensity for NOT spending their cash means we have a whole shitload of people shopping at Wal-Mart for their low prices while collecting welfare checks. it is inflation, but not only inflation that has fucked shit up here. of course the latter pokes holes in the old deregulating free markets idea, just like every other instance of deregulating free markets failing getting the old "crony capitalism" eyeroll. well duh, how are you gonna regulate against crony capitalism if the only people regulating things are the one's with money and power - like what we see now around the world.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
This place is such a joke.
Did you read his line that "taxation is theft?"
The same people who complain that they have to pay taxes and hiw it's "theft" are often the same ones complaining about how long it takes the police to arrive and how dirty the public parks are.
Right! And this is why I've often said we need to acknowledge that there is a lot of waste in social services and work on making them more efficient, not throwing them out all together. We need to see our tax dollars used wisely and stop being so cynical and saying that won't happen. I'm sure some here will say, "Well, that's why we need to privatize these services" but I'd need proof that a for-profit industry of this sort would be more focused on helping people than on making money and that would be a stretch.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Do you even understand what he meant by inflation being a concern, genius? So, you don't think inflation matters?
This place is such a joke.
Did you read his line that "taxation is theft?"
The same people who complain that they have to pay taxes and hiw it's "theft" are often the same ones complaining about how long it takes the police to arrive and how dirty the public parks are.
His underlying point was responding to another poster's thoughts on the decimation of the middle class. He's underlying point was - it's due to inflation. Do you disagree?
Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
cost of living has gone up because of inflation yes (I didn't deny that)...however couple that with getting paid less, not having a job, tax cuts on the rich who have demonstrated a propensity for NOT spending their cash means we have a whole shitload of people shopping at Wal-Mart for their low prices while collecting welfare checks. it is inflation, but not only inflation that has fucked shit up here. of course the latter pokes holes in the old deregulating free markets idea, just like every other instance of deregulating free markets failing getting the old "crony capitalism" eyeroll. well duh, how are you gonna regulate against crony capitalism if the only people regulating things are the one's with money and power - like what we see now around the world.
Why can't I get people to answer questions around here. Once again -
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the "cost of living" over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on "cost of living", not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
cost of living has gone up because of inflation yes (I didn't deny that)...however couple that with getting paid less, not having a job, tax cuts on the rich who have demonstrated a propensity for NOT spending their cash means we have a whole shitload of people shopping at Wal-Mart for their low prices while collecting welfare checks. it is inflation, but not only inflation that has fucked shit up here. of course the latter pokes holes in the old deregulating free markets idea, just like every other instance of deregulating free markets failing getting the old "crony capitalism" eyeroll. well duh, how are you gonna regulate against crony capitalism if the only people regulating things are the one's with money and power - like what we see now around the world.
Why can't I get people to answer questions around here. Once again -
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the "cost of living" over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on "cost of living", not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
ok let me try this again. inflation has increased the cost of living. those other things operate as masks for the rising cost of living. as you said they should and have kept costs down and people keep buying stuff. in fact, nearly every time we buy something we are getting it at below its cost to the world around us (environmentally, socially, culturally, economically, etc.). only focusing on one issue (inflation in this case) will not fix the things that have come into vogue in order to cover up what inflation has done - they are interdependent not independent.
who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey
You're a classy guy, bro.
dude seriously lighten up...you're like the bully that cries when someone says something mean back - only after you've put down every person you respond to in a condescending manner. you can't be the victimizer and claim victimhood - well actually you do it so I guess it's possible. either way it was totally a joke i honestly don't hope that brian steals your significant other leading to you both coexisting for years and never speaking to one another.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
in fact, nearly every time we buy something we are getting it at below its cost to the world around us (environmentally, socially, culturally, economically, etc.).
To me, this is a hugely important factor. I find it very frustrating that these costs are so seldom included in a discussion on economics. If these cost of consumed goods continue at the rate they have been we might very well see a time when our environment and societies can no longer support them and we will be having a discussion of a very different nature.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
there is a great stat that says that basically if the world lived like americans - we would need 4.1 times the resources the world has now ...
the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...
well, duh, there's like outerspace (someone will soon build a star siphon for energy) and underground resources like hydrofracking that we haven't tapped yet. growth always leads to positive outcomes.
who fucked whose gf/wife again? i'm hoping it was Joey
You're a classy guy, bro.
dude seriously lighten up...you're like the bully that cries when someone says something mean back - only after you've put down every person you respond to in a condescending manner. you can't be the victimizer and claim victimhood - well actually you do it so I guess it's possible. either way it was totally a joke i honestly don't hope that brian steals your significant other leading to you both coexisting for years and never speaking to one another.
I said: "you're classy, bro".
You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.
there is a great stat that says that basically if the world lived like americans - we would need 4.1 times the resources the world has now ...
the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...
Who created this "stat"? Why do you believe it? It's incomprehensible and impossible in this day and age to model unknown resources. We've gone over this in the past.
Who created this "stat"? Why do you believe it? It's incomprehensible and impossible in this day and age to model unknown resources. We've gone over this in the past.
i believe it because it makes sense to me ... i look around the world and i see the consumption patterns ... but i won't get into it ... don't want to derail this thread ...
You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.
"Like the bully" - a simile. Why do I get frustrated with you? Because you obviously have a level of intellect that is interesting to debate with but you don't debate leading to the issues I should look into (frustration over the fact that I have never witnessed a post where you concede a point - could be out there I just haven't seen it).
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
there is a great stat that says that basically if the world lived like americans - we would need 4.1 times the resources the world has now ...
the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...
Who created this "stat"? Why do you believe it? It's incomprehensible and impossible in this day and age to model unknown resources. We've gone over this in the past.
I really don't mean to sound like I'm name-dropping inlet but I have corresponded with researchers who have quoted statistics similar or the same as the one polaris_x quoted- Bill McKibben, Richard Manning, Wendell Berry a friend who teaches entomology who has also studied sustainability, a brother-in-law who is a tree geneticist and has spent countless hours working with others who study and understand concepts like renewable natural resources. All of these people have studied and worked with a much larger body of people who understand the limits of resources. These are not people who make up shit. They're all excellent researchers. To ignore what they are telling us would be foolish.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I really don't mean to sound like I'm name-dropping inlet but I have corresponded with researchers who have quoted statistics similar or the same as the one polaris_x quoted- Bill McKibben, Richard Manning, Wendell Berry a friend who teaches entomology who has also studied sustainability, a brother-in-law who is a tree geneticist and has spent countless hours working with others who study and understand concepts like renewable natural resources. All of these people have studied and worked with a much larger body of people who understand the limits of resources. These are not people who make up shit. They're all excellent researchers. To ignore what they are telling us would be foolish.
Said it before, I'll say it again. It's a f'ing statistical model. And they are modeling the "unknown" as a dependent variable. It's impossible to do that. Moreover, anyone who even tries has an agenda.
You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.
"Like the bully" - a simile. Why do I get frustrated with you? Because you obviously have a level of intellect that is interesting to debate with but you don't debate leading to the issues I should look into (frustration over the fact that I have never witnessed a post where you concede a point - could be out there I just haven't seen it).
It's an internet board on a rock band's website. No need to get frustrated and lash out. That's all I'm saying. You've done it before, this isn't a one time thing.
Not everyone agrees with you. Moreover, lots of people, including yourself don't often concede points here - particularly when they believe they have no reason to.
Thanks for providing us permission to donate. :fp: This is exactly the issue. Why can't we decide how or if we want to "donate"? Why does the US government, that is horribly inefficient enough to have more debt than our entire economy, get to tell us how they plan to solve this issue? I don't trust them... get it through your head. I agree this is an issue, but they won't EVER solve it.
On your point - When people get a "stimulus" the economy is most likely hurting. Lots of people focus on themselves in those times, because their own personal family is hurting. Like I've said in other threads, it's the economy - stupid. That's the problem.
I don't care what the "conservative" pom-pom waving argument is, nor do I care how you interpret it with your liberal pom-poms waving as being wrong. Both sides are sheep and can't think independently.
I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:
I should probably be the one doing the eye rolls and laughys after reading this. You're shifting the goal posts in you response regarding government efficiency. If it's defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic. Being able to provide this relatively quickly and efficiently with low admin costs is on topic. You don't seem to know much about public assistance, so maybe you should be open to learning more. By the way, it says "EBT cash" as an option for those who receive cash tanf (referred to earlier), food stamps is not cash. You can access both with one card in order to be more 'efficient'.
I think you said you are an educator, so therefore it seems like you should be open to looking at things differently, rather than just adhering to you rule that private is always more efficient than public. Some things should be left to the private market, and some things left to the government to do, and somethings work when there's overlap.
Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,426
I really don't mean to sound like I'm name-dropping inlet but I have corresponded with researchers who have quoted statistics similar or the same as the one polaris_x quoted- Bill McKibben, Richard Manning, Wendell Berry a friend who teaches entomology who has also studied sustainability, a brother-in-law who is a tree geneticist and has spent countless hours working with others who study and understand concepts like renewable natural resources. All of these people have studied and worked with a much larger body of people who understand the limits of resources. These are not people who make up shit. They're all excellent researchers. To ignore what they are telling us would be foolish.
Said it before, I'll say it again. It's a f'ing statistical model. And they are modeling the "unknown" as a dependent variable. It's impossible to do that. Moreover, anyone who even tries has an agenda.
The fact is here is a limit as to how much we can consume of this planet and this consumption along with the methods we use for resource extraction are creating an environment incompatible with the number of our species. If the people I mentioned have an agenda that agenda is to attempt to rescue what little time they can for their kids and grand kids to have an hospitable world in which to live. I can't imagine you having a problem with that, inlet.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I should probably be the one doing the eye rolls and laughys after reading this. You're shifting the goal posts in you response regarding government efficiency. If it's defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic.
Being able to provide this relatively quickly and efficiently with low admin costs is on topic. You don't seem to know much about public assistance, so maybe you should be open to learning more. By the way, it says "EBT cash" as an option for those who receive cash tanf (referred to earlier), food stamps is not cash. You can access both with one card in order to be more 'efficient'.
I think you said you are an educator, so therefore it seems like you should be open to looking at things differently, rather than just adhering to you rule that private is always more efficient than public. Some things should be left to the private market, and some things left to the government to do, and somethings work when there's overlap.
How you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is totally relevant to productivity. So, let's use that brain of yours to connect the dots for a moment. Let's start with - what are food stamps? They are basically a form of welfare for food. One goal is to not have people starve to death - another is to eat relatively healthy - which matters because we may have to pay for these folks healthcare now too. So, in order to encourage this they ban certain products alcohol and tobacco products and HOT food, for example. But, this gets confusing - One may not be able to buy a tuna melt wheat flat breat (because it's hot). Yet, one can buy soda, Italian Hoagie with boatloads of extras including extra oil and bacon, chips and tastycakes. What's healthier? Welcome to the world or gov't bureaucracy. Our goal of getting healthy products into these folks stomachs seems to run into a bit of a roadblock there, huh?
Then let's think about bang for our buck. Since, input here is $. Out tax $. One factor we should look at is what they are buying, it's ability to nourish and the expense of that product. You don't see the US Army feeding it's soldiers hoagies, Doritos and soda. They buy relatively low priced options - which are healthier. But, back to the point. So, let's talk practicality and price here - White meat chicken is $2.33 at Walmart. Green beans are $.5 a can. Water is free. That would feed a fucking family of four for under $3. Most people go to convenience stores instead with the EBT card as the video I showed and buy shit. This shit is more expensive than stuff you can buy at the store and cook.
Ugh. Then let's talk about logistics. The point (Output) of these plans is to provide a cushion. We don't want tons of people on these plans, right? Our goal is not to have boatloads of people on these plans. Yet, it's been growing a lot... an awful lot. Under the current admin - it's grown 100%. Moreover, why are we saying the following on the SNAP website: Most applicants will not be asked for proof of money in the bank or other resources, any non-citizens are eligible for SNAP, etc. Why even say that? Why advertise?
So, let's recap. Although we want those who need these programs to buy healthy food, a lot (I'd argue the majority) of people aren't using this to buy healthy food. Although we want this to be an economical program, a lot of people (I'd argue the majority) aren't using this to buy less expensive/healthier food. And although we seek to minimize these applications, it's growing and our gov't is encouraging recruiting new folks, including non-US citizens.
Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
First, you must live in the country. You certainly don't live in the Northeast. Second, If you're really trying to argue the DMV is productive and efficient, you're kidding yourself.
Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
The DMV is a good example of a government run agency that is, all things considered, relatively efficient. And although it is a quasi gov. agency, the US Postal Service (an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States) is remarkably efficient. Instead of demanding we privatize everything, why don't we use what does work as an example to streamline other agencies? It's been done before and I'm just saying it would make sense to work on making the structures we have in place more efficient. And while we're at it, we could take some lessons from mother nature- she is very efficient.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
No thanks. Instead of this, why don't you look at this stepping out of your mind instead?
It is.
You're wrong.
I'd say one way is productivity. Once again, go to a DMV. Please tell me those workers are "productive". You crack me up.
I can't think of one. I can think of a service that was primarily provided my government, but then handed over to the private sector (in a small form) - shipping bulk mail. Fed Ex, etc. They are relatively efficient. Much more so than the bankrupt postal service.
Ask the public.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!
Ha ha. Have you ever heard of a Wawa? Probably not. Basically it's a 7/11 with food inside. Subs, Chips, Sodas, Coffee, etc. Now, when you go up to swipe to pay your food. There's an option there - "EBT Cash". EBT = foodstamp card. So, apparently, not only can they buy hoagies and tastycakes and soda... you can also get STRAIGHT CASH! 1 in 7 people have these f'ing cards. That's 46 million people. Moreover aren't we trying to get people to eat healthy? lol.
Here you go bro - This is "efficient" right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o64Fz-KW1Dk
My friend, who's not political at all joked about getting an EBT card - he's well off. He looked into it when he was laid off, although he was quite comfortable financially and found out what you can get. Totally efficient, bro.
:roll:
Thanks for providing us permission to donate. :fp: This is exactly the issue. Why can't we decide how or if we want to "donate"? Why does the US government, that is horribly inefficient enough to have more debt than our entire economy, get to tell us how they plan to solve this issue? I don't trust them... get it through your head. I agree this is an issue, but they won't EVER solve it.
On your point - When people get a "stimulus" the economy is most likely hurting. Lots of people focus on themselves in those times, because their own personal family is hurting. Like I've said in other threads, it's the economy - stupid. That's the problem.
I don't care what the "conservative" pom-pom waving argument is, nor do I care how you interpret it with your liberal pom-poms waving as being wrong. Both sides are sheep and can't think independently.
I have "my own" questions on this issue for this thread which were pretty much bipassed, these questions may look familiar:
Why does the government do charity work best? In my mind, they aren't very good at even balancing a checkbook. They are very good at spending money on nonsense - like slug races. How in the world do you rationalize that they aren't wasting a lot of the money that's meant to be directed to these programs? Moreover, how do they provide checks to ensure there aren't "free riders"? Does anyone like paying for those free riders - the people who aren't looking for employment? How exactly are these gov't programs teaching people so they don't end up back with the same problem? Does the government have as much of an incentive to get them a job and off the books as a private enterprise would? Why can't one choose how they'd prefer to donate? Why does it need to be forced via taxes to do it the one way?
Moreover, why do some here equate ALL people who disagree with "government" forms of welfare, as people who hate the poor? For all you know, they contribute a hell of a lot more (as a percentage of their wealth) than you do - both in taxes and in charitable donations, they'd just prefer to the charitable donations because they know the tax money goes to slug races, running up more debt, hiring more useless gov't positions and printing money to hide it all.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It is a much bigger problem then you think.
At its goal, I believe the fed shoots for 2% inflation, that is considered a success I believe... it is like an annual tax increase that no one talks about except in passing. Its affects are very real. if every dollar you make is worth 2% less the next year in purchasing power...who does that hurt more, the rich or the poor?
It is why there is never enough tax money... It is why cereal boxes are smaller than ever and cost more...Are there other things that could help...absolutely...but inflation is a real issue that affects everyone...rich and poor
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Out of the options you mentioned, the most important is without a doubt inflation.
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the cost of living over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on cost of living, not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Did you read his line that "taxation is theft?"
The same people who complain that they have to pay taxes and hiw it's "theft" are often the same ones complaining about how long it takes the police to arrive and how dirty the public parks are.
Right! And this is why I've often said we need to acknowledge that there is a lot of waste in social services and work on making them more efficient, not throwing them out all together. We need to see our tax dollars used wisely and stop being so cynical and saying that won't happen. I'm sure some here will say, "Well, that's why we need to privatize these services" but I'd need proof that a for-profit industry of this sort would be more focused on helping people than on making money and that would be a stretch.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
His underlying point was responding to another poster's thoughts on the decimation of the middle class. He's underlying point was - it's due to inflation. Do you disagree?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Why can't I get people to answer questions around here. Once again -
Explain to me how cheaper labor, tax cuts or less unions affected the "cost of living" over the past 60 years? Make sure you focus on "cost of living", not on demand. Because outsourced labor, lower taxes and less union privileges should work to provide lower prices (via lower company costs), not higher prices.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Inlet, I think you are our Johnny Ramone.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
He would be Johnny, you'd be Joey, Brian.
That's it- I'm wearing my Joey Ramone t-short today!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You're a classy guy, bro.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
the economists type never factor in the sustainability component ... it's all about growth ...
To me, this is a hugely important factor. I find it very frustrating that these costs are so seldom included in a discussion on economics. If these cost of consumed goods continue at the rate they have been we might very well see a time when our environment and societies can no longer support them and we will be having a discussion of a very different nature.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I said: "you're classy, bro".
You wrote about four or five sentences responding to those couple words - at times saying I'm a bully, a victimizer and one who seeks victimhood. Why? I don't know. I think you may have some issues you should look into.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Who created this "stat"? Why do you believe it? It's incomprehensible and impossible in this day and age to model unknown resources. We've gone over this in the past.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
these guys ... http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
i believe it because it makes sense to me ... i look around the world and i see the consumption patterns ... but i won't get into it ... don't want to derail this thread ...
"Like the bully" - a simile. Why do I get frustrated with you? Because you obviously have a level of intellect that is interesting to debate with but you don't debate leading to the issues I should look into (frustration over the fact that I have never witnessed a post where you concede a point - could be out there I just haven't seen it).
I really don't mean to sound like I'm name-dropping inlet but I have corresponded with researchers who have quoted statistics similar or the same as the one polaris_x quoted- Bill McKibben, Richard Manning, Wendell Berry a friend who teaches entomology who has also studied sustainability, a brother-in-law who is a tree geneticist and has spent countless hours working with others who study and understand concepts like renewable natural resources. All of these people have studied and worked with a much larger body of people who understand the limits of resources. These are not people who make up shit. They're all excellent researchers. To ignore what they are telling us would be foolish.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Said it before, I'll say it again. It's a f'ing statistical model. And they are modeling the "unknown" as a dependent variable. It's impossible to do that. Moreover, anyone who even tries has an agenda.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It's an internet board on a rock band's website. No need to get frustrated and lash out. That's all I'm saying. You've done it before, this isn't a one time thing.
Not everyone agrees with you. Moreover, lots of people, including yourself don't often concede points here - particularly when they believe they have no reason to.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I should probably be the one doing the eye rolls and laughys after reading this. You're shifting the goal posts in you response regarding government efficiency. If it's defined by productivity, then stay with it, but then you reference what you can get on food stamps and what it takes to qualify, and this is based on one anecdotal story about your friend. How to qualify for food stamps and what you can get on them is a different topic. Being able to provide this relatively quickly and efficiently with low admin costs is on topic. You don't seem to know much about public assistance, so maybe you should be open to learning more. By the way, it says "EBT cash" as an option for those who receive cash tanf (referred to earlier), food stamps is not cash. You can access both with one card in order to be more 'efficient'.
I think you said you are an educator, so therefore it seems like you should be open to looking at things differently, rather than just adhering to you rule that private is always more efficient than public. Some things should be left to the private market, and some things left to the government to do, and somethings work when there's overlap.
Since you asked about me and the DMV, I'll go with it. I've been to the DMV 4 times in the last 18 years, 2 of those because I bought a used car out of state. One time I waited about a half hour, the other 3 less than 5 minutes. I had to pay an emission testing fee for my used car, but it turned out I didn't stay in the area very long. A couple months they returned the money to me, which I had forgotten about, because it didn't end up to be my permanent address. I didn't have to call or bug anyone about it. Every two years I get a reminder to get new tags in the mail. I pay about $80 bucks online, and that's it. Bonus: my plates have a bicyclist on them and it says 'share the road' on it. I've spent more time in line in my last two trips to Costco then I have in the DMV in 18 years (owning car(s) that entire time). Have you now changed the definition of efficiency to how long someone has to wait?
The fact is here is a limit as to how much we can consume of this planet and this consumption along with the methods we use for resource extraction are creating an environment incompatible with the number of our species. If the people I mentioned have an agenda that agenda is to attempt to rescue what little time they can for their kids and grand kids to have an hospitable world in which to live. I can't imagine you having a problem with that, inlet.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
How you qualify for food stamps and what you get on them is totally relevant to productivity. So, let's use that brain of yours to connect the dots for a moment. Let's start with - what are food stamps? They are basically a form of welfare for food. One goal is to not have people starve to death - another is to eat relatively healthy - which matters because we may have to pay for these folks healthcare now too. So, in order to encourage this they ban certain products alcohol and tobacco products and HOT food, for example. But, this gets confusing - One may not be able to buy a tuna melt wheat flat breat (because it's hot). Yet, one can buy soda, Italian Hoagie with boatloads of extras including extra oil and bacon, chips and tastycakes. What's healthier? Welcome to the world or gov't bureaucracy. Our goal of getting healthy products into these folks stomachs seems to run into a bit of a roadblock there, huh?
Then let's think about bang for our buck. Since, input here is $. Out tax $. One factor we should look at is what they are buying, it's ability to nourish and the expense of that product. You don't see the US Army feeding it's soldiers hoagies, Doritos and soda. They buy relatively low priced options - which are healthier. But, back to the point. So, let's talk practicality and price here - White meat chicken is $2.33 at Walmart. Green beans are $.5 a can. Water is free. That would feed a fucking family of four for under $3. Most people go to convenience stores instead with the EBT card as the video I showed and buy shit. This shit is more expensive than stuff you can buy at the store and cook.
Ugh. Then let's talk about logistics. The point (Output) of these plans is to provide a cushion. We don't want tons of people on these plans, right? Our goal is not to have boatloads of people on these plans. Yet, it's been growing a lot... an awful lot. Under the current admin - it's grown 100%. Moreover, why are we saying the following on the SNAP website: Most applicants will not be asked for proof of money in the bank or other resources, any non-citizens are eligible for SNAP, etc. Why even say that? Why advertise?
So, let's recap. Although we want those who need these programs to buy healthy food, a lot (I'd argue the majority) of people aren't using this to buy healthy food. Although we want this to be an economical program, a lot of people (I'd argue the majority) aren't using this to buy less expensive/healthier food. And although we seek to minimize these applications, it's growing and our gov't is encouraging recruiting new folks, including non-US citizens.
This is not productive, bro. Not at all.
First, you must live in the country. You certainly don't live in the Northeast. Second, If you're really trying to argue the DMV is productive and efficient, you're kidding yourself.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The DMV is a good example of a government run agency that is, all things considered, relatively efficient. And although it is a quasi gov. agency, the US Postal Service (an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States) is remarkably efficient. Instead of demanding we privatize everything, why don't we use what does work as an example to streamline other agencies? It's been done before and I'm just saying it would make sense to work on making the structures we have in place more efficient. And while we're at it, we could take some lessons from mother nature- she is very efficient.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"