Unity '08

[Texsox]

LMAO. The irony is tax receipts are at an all time high. If he doesn't cut taxes, we might still be in the Depression from thinking that only rate cuts would have solved the potential crisis that was the Clinton recession plus the biggest terror attack this country has ever known. With the bubble that developed after the irrational exuberance stock market, there was no telling how far things could have fallen without restoring confidence in the economy. And silly me, I don't believe you restore confidence by taking more money from people who are already shaken to the core. If you think you could have balanced the budget after 9-11, you are kidding yourself.

 

I wish I could laugh, but I'm not buying the GOP koolaid. Spending is even higher. If the only way to maintain our economy is by borrowing money from China, God help us all.

 

Nope, you restore confidence by buying people stuff. We pay taxes to stimulate our economy, not to pay for our government. Right

 

Drunk sailors in the White House Weeeeeeeeeeeee!! Free stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Act a little sad and they will give you stuff.

 

Don't worry out kids will be paying for all this, plus interest. In case you didn't notice, the USSR collapsed under their debt.

 

I guess I forgot what fiscal conservative means anymore. It use to mean not spending a bunch of money. Now it doesn't matter how much we spend as long as there is a deficit.

[southsider2k5]

I wish I could laugh, but I'm not buying the GOP koolaid. Spending is even higher. If the only way to maintain our economy is by borrowing money from China, God help us all.

 

Nope, you restore confidence by buying people stuff. We pay taxes to stimulate our economy, not to pay for our government. Right

 

Drunk sailors in the White House Weeeeeeeeeeeee!! Free stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Act a little sad and they will give you stuff.

 

Don't worry out kids will be paying for all this, plus interest. In case you didn't notice, the USSR collapsed under their debt.

 

I guess I forgot what fiscal conservative means anymore. It use to mean not spending a bunch of money. Now it doesn't matter how much we spend as long as there is a deficit.

 

I know that because it didn't happen, no one can appreciate the economic disaster that we avoided 6 years ago. Its just like looking back on a pitching change after the fact.

 

Go back and look at the roots of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was brought about two fold, a contracting economy, complete with crashing prices (which was already in place in 00) and then the banks made the stupid move of tightening the money supply to protect themselves, when they should have been infusing cash into the system. Putting a bunch of people out of work, or not aiding them keeping their jobs, doesn't help a recession end. Because the purveyors of money in the country acted so quickly and so decisively, I don't think people to this day appreciate how close to disaster this economy was. Everybody is too busy looking at the end result to realize what really happened in the game.

 

You also have to realize that fiscal conservatism does involved common sense. I know all of the cute little soundbytes that you like to post sound way better than actually researching and understanding the situation, and that is fine, because I am used to that. But to ignore the situation regarding the economy in 2000-2002 does a complete disjustice to exactly what transpired.

 

Now go ahead and feel free to resume your one liners...

[Texsox]

Six years later, the deficits continue to grow, with no end in sight, because it's the way to stay in power. Eventually *we* have to pay the bills, with interest. We avoided one problem and a far worse problem is looming on the horizon. When the world stops loaning us money, and that will happen, we will be in a dire situation. We are building a country that we can not afford.

 

We are looting our treasury and voting ourselves these gifts with no plan to pay it back.

 

We are not maintaining any relationship between collections and expenses. We have split those two things in our minds. We have become a debtor nation.

 

What makes you more prosperous, paying interest or collecting interest?

Whoo Whoo Freee Stuff!!

 

But keep laughing if it makes you feel better, it is basically like whistling through a cemetery. Isn't it ironic that it's a Dem that thinks we need to come closer to balancing the budget and a Rep who thinks we need to borrow trillions from foreign banks.

[kapkomet]

Tex, why do you keep saying things that 1) has no relevance at all to what SS is saying, and 2) saying that the deficits are growing when in actuality they are starting to shrink back again?

 

It's interesting, really, that almost all of us that are "fiscal conservatives" are madder then hell at how our government has handled spending, and you keep running around in the hyperbole world of "wooo hoo free stuff" when none of us are advocating that and furthermore hate the thoughts of it.

 

It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy.

 

Let's just print more money to cover this stuff - that works - oh wait a minute, that's called introducing a great depression - something that the Democrats would like to see because it means that the evil capitalisic society can implement more government controls! WOOT!

 

It's becoming obvious that this is all about straw man's arguments for you and not truths. The reason that our deficits are high is 100% the overspending, not the tax cuts. It's also a bad problem that foreign countries hold our money - but it's not about the tax cuts, it's about trade imbalances. I would argue they would hold even more of our money if it weren't for the stimulation that our economy has had as a result of the early 00's tax cuts.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy.

 

Part A is fact, Part B is partially fact and partially fiction. The single strongest influence on the resurgent economy after 2002 was the housing market - not tax cuts. If you look at the huge amount of money infused into the economy by way of huge real estate increases, that put a lot more cash in the system than the tax cuts did. Tax cuts probably helped too, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But they weren't the reason it happened, or even the single biggest reason.

[southsider2k5]

Part A is fact, Part B is partially fact and partially fiction. The single strongest influence on the resurgent economy after 2002 was the housing market - not tax cuts. If you look at the huge amount of money infused into the economy by way of huge real estate increases, that put a lot more cash in the system than the tax cuts did. Tax cuts probably helped too, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But they weren't the reason it happened, or even the single biggest reason.

 

You are missing a step when you give credit to the housing market rally.

 

The housing market only happened because people had jobs. If there was 10% unemployment, there wouldn't have been any housing market rally.

[NorthSideSox72]

You are missing a step when you give credit to the housing market rally.

 

The housing market only happened because people had jobs. If there was 10% unemployment, there wouldn't have been any housing market rally.

I guess I don't believe that the tax cuts kept unemployment at 6%- versus 10%. I just don't think it had that large an influence.

 

Also, the housing market boom was at least in part a delayed effect from 10 years of strong job and salary growth for the 10 years prior to 9/11. Then the sudden market crashes caused by the tech wreck in 2000, and then 9/11, caused a fear jump into real estate and gold (the ultimate safe harbor investments). All those things created the strong housing market much more so than the relatively small tax cuts, in my view.

[Texsox]

Tex, why do you keep saying things that 1) has no relevance at all to what SS is saying, and 2) saying that the deficits are growing when in actuality they are starting to shrink back again?

 

It's interesting, really, that almost all of us that are "fiscal conservatives" are madder then hell at how our government has handled spending, and you keep running around in the hyperbole world of "wooo hoo free stuff" when none of us are advocating that and furthermore hate the thoughts of it.

 

It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy.

 

Let's just print more money to cover this stuff - that works - oh wait a minute, that's called introducing a great depression - something that the Democrats would like to see because it means that the evil capitalisic society can implement more government controls! WOOT!

 

It's becoming obvious that this is all about straw man's arguments for you and not truths. The reason that our deficits are high is 100% the overspending, not the tax cuts. It's also a bad problem that foreign countries hold our money - but it's not about the tax cuts, it's about trade imbalances. I would argue they would hold even more of our money if it weren't for the stimulation that our economy has had as a result of the early 00's tax cuts.

 

It's the gap between spending and income that I object to. If Bush wants to cut taxes, fine, cut spending.

 

Fact is we are borrowing money from foreign countries and giving it to the citizens in the form of tax cuts. If that is the only way to support our economy we are screwed when banks stop loaning us money.

 

Sorry if my posts go beyond what SS posts. In the future I will confine my comments to SS posts only. If I can keep up the pace, damn he posts a lot.

 

Kap, As far as the hyperbole,.how many times have you posted

 

IT"S BUSH"S FAULT IMPEACH IMPEACH!!!!!!!!

[southsider2k5]

Six years later, the deficits continue to grow, with no end in sight, because it's the way to stay in power. Eventually *we* have to pay the bills, with interest. We avoided one problem and a far worse problem is looming on the horizon. When the world stops loaning us money, and that will happen, we will be in a dire situation. We are building a country that we can not afford.

 

We are looting our treasury and voting ourselves these gifts with no plan to pay it back.

 

We are not maintaining any relationship between collections and expenses. We have split those two things in our minds. We have become a debtor nation.

 

What makes you more prosperous, paying interest or collecting interest?

Whoo Whoo Freee Stuff!!

 

But keep laughing if it makes you feel better, it is basically like whistling through a cemetery. Isn't it ironic that it's a Dem that thinks we need to come closer to balancing the budget and a Rep who thinks we need to borrow trillions from foreign banks.

 

Ah more excellent one liners at the expense of substance.

 

Deficits haven't grown for years now. Deficits have dropped below historical levels as a percentage of GDP, and they have dropped in total dollars by a huge amount.

 

An ugly secret is that the US economy has run deficits and carried debts pretty much for its entire history, except for a few small occasions. They have also run deficits for pretty much all of its history.

 

I know its easy to use xenophobia that the scary foreigners are going to own the country soon (whatever happen to the Japanese who were supposed to own the US by now anyway?), but the only way they pull out of the US is if it isn't profitable to be here anymore. You want to take a stab at what would cause the quickest panic and withdrawl of foreign funds here? I'll give you a hint, its not a budget deficit... A prolonged depression would have money flying out of this country. The rest of the world knows it is in their best interest to support the US economy, because their economies are all perched squarely on our backs. Say theoretically that the Chinese pull their money out of our debt and our economy collapses into recession. When our unemployment spikes, and there is no one to buy their exports, what do you think happens to the Chinese economy? Well I am sure since they have a net surplus, they will be A-OK, because that is how it works, or so I keep getting told.

 

Its easy to say that we have to balance the budget. Its common sense to know that somethings are bigger than a soundbyte on TV. The irony is that the budget is back on its way to being balanced, without taking drastic measures that would torpedo the economy, but I guess the evil conservative media machine must be falling down on the job, because you sure don't hear that being talked about anywhere, and you sure don't hear about what could have been after 9-11.

 

I guess I don't believe that the tax cuts kept unemployment at 6%- versus 10%. I just don't think it had that large an influence.

 

Also, the housing market boom was at least in part a delayed effect from 10 years of strong job and salary growth for the 10 years prior to 9/11. Then the sudden market crashes caused by the tech wreck in 2000, and then 9/11, caused a fear jump into real estate and gold (the ultimate safe harbor investments). All those things created the strong housing market much more so than the relatively small tax cuts, in my view.

 

The effect was there, I guarentee it. All you have to do is look back into history and look at instances when action wasn't taken to prevent this, or worse, in times when the money supply was tightened. Like I said to Tex, read back through the economic history of the great depression, and look at the monetary supply actions taken and not taken. You don't have to believe me, but I really think history is on my side here.

[Texsox]

Forget who owns the debt, it's a problem no matter what.

 

My biggest worry is we have lost sight of why we pay taxes. We have broken the link between expenses and income. The public is beginning to believe the only way we have a healthy economy is to borrow money. We believe that someone else is going to pay the debt and the interest.

 

I am all for lower taxes, but lower the spending as well.

[southsider2k5]

Forget who owns the debt, it's a problem no matter what.

 

My biggest worry is we have lost sight of why we pay taxes. We have broken the link between expenses and income. The public is beginning to believe the only way we have a healthy economy is to borrow money. We believe that someone else is going to pay the debt and the interest.

 

I am all for lower taxes, but lower the spending as well.

 

I am for lower spending, but that is a completely different story. There are times when spending is need though...

 

Heck I would be in favor of closing entire governmental agencies, and privatizing many others. Having the government run anything is collosal waste of funds in almost any case. The duplicity and other ineffeciency of the US government has been estimated to be as high as 10% of spending. If done in the private sector with a profit motive, those are cost savings that would be realized, because the incentive is there to realize them.

[Texsox]

I am for lower spending, but that is a completely different story. There are times when spending is need though...

 

Heck I would be in favor of closing entire governmental agencies, and privatizing many others. Having the government run anything is collosal waste of funds in almost any case. The duplicity and other ineffeciency of the US government has been estimated to be as high as 10% of spending. If done in the private sector with a profit motive, those are cost savings that would be realized, because the incentive is there to realize them.

 

I'm not convinved that we would net a benefit.

 

Is government waste less than or greater than the profit that a private business would feel is justified? I think we have expanded the government beyond what should be funded and perhaps those areas would be privitized, but agfain, I'm not convinced we would see a savings at the same benefit level.

[kapkomet]

Another thought in all of this - how many people realize that the TRADE "deficit" goes away as soon as a currency is revalued? How long has it been since China has revalued? I think they have some inflationary pressures over there, at least the last time I checked.

 

It's all fuzzy math - but the bottom line is our government needs to stop spending money when they don't have it to spend. They could ger more revenues through growth or higher taxes, and they would still spend more then they bring in, and that is the point.

 

 

I'm not convinved that we would net a benefit.

 

Is government waste less than or greater than the profit that a private business would feel is justified? I think we have expanded the government beyond what should be funded and perhaps those areas would be privitized, but agfain, I'm not convinced we would see a savings at the same benefit level.

IF the government were ran like a real business, it would have shut down years ago. Of course we'd see benefits - it's been proven time and time again.

[Texsox]

IF the government were ran like a real business, it would have shut down years ago. Of course we'd see benefits - it's been proven time and time again.

 

links?

[NorthSideSox72]

The effect was there, I guarentee it. All you have to do is look back into history and look at instances when action wasn't taken to prevent this, or worse, in times when the money supply was tightened. Like I said to Tex, read back through the economic history of the great depression, and look at the monetary supply actions taken and not taken. You don't have to believe me, but I really think history is on my side here.

I agree the effect was there. What makes you think I didn't believe you? I said in my post I wouldn't argue against that.

 

What I said is that it was not nearly the influence the other factos were, in the specific economic period we were discussing (which I thought was the 90's and this decade).

[southsider2k5]

links?

 

 

How many links do you want? The US government is the most ineffecient business entity in the United States. Google "government inefficiency" and tell me how many links you come up with.

[NorthSideSox72]

links?

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take an extreme example, is so inefficient that only about 10% of its funds actually make it to the people they supposedly serve. It would actually be far more effective at this point to just send each tribe a head-count check and call it a day. At least then SOME of the money would be put to good use.

 

10 freakin' percent?!

[Texsox]

 

How many links do you want? The US government is the most ineffecient business entity in the United States. Google "government inefficiency" and tell me how many links you come up with.

 

inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service.

 

I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection.

 

So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc.

 

If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that?

[NorthSideSox72]

inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service.

 

I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection.

 

So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc.

 

If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that?

Tex, what kind of profit do most companies make? I'd be that for most corporations, they are happy with making, say, 10% or 20%, depending on the industry. Some more, some less, some none at all.

 

How many make 90%? Not too many I'd guess. How about charities even? Charities that only get 10% of the money to the target audience are usually considered substandard and can't get certified or approved by their various watchdog groups.

[Texsox]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take an extreme example, is so inefficient that only about 10% of its funds actually make it to the people they supposedly serve. It would actually be far more effective at this point to just send each tribe a head-count check and call it a day. At least then SOME of the money would be put to good use.

 

10 freakin' percent?!

Great example. You are the private company taking over. Should the government have any oversight on how you spend the money? Or do we just hand over the tax dollars and trust you? The public has demanded more and more accountability on how our money is spent. We demand multiple bids on all purchases. We demand meticulous record keeping from these agencies. If we turn this over to a private contractor, should we also drop those requirements?

 

The level of record keeping we demand of our government is beyond what private industry requires. Perhaps we need to put in place policies and procedures more in line with private industry.

 

 

Tex, what kind of profit do most companies make? I'd be that for most corporations, they are happy with making, say, 10% or 20%, depending on the industry. Some more, some less, some none at all.

 

How many make 90%? Not too many I'd guess. How about charities even? Charities that only get 10% of the money to the target audience are usually considered substandard and can't get certified or approved by their various watchdog groups.

 

Earlier someone mentioned 10% waste, if that is the same profit a private company wants, which is fair, we evened out.

 

IIRC Indian Affairs has seen their budget cut while the demands for record keeping etc. have stayed the same. Doing all the paperwork, etc, is required, sending them aid is not. Perhaps that is the problem. The legal requirements cost $X and those have to be funded first.

 

I agree that there are inefficiencies in out government, but there are also inefficiencies in private businesses. How many people in this conversation are working for private companies and getting paid to post?

[southsider2k5]

inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service.

 

I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection.

 

So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc.

 

If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that?

 

I am not quite sure if you understand what government spending really is or not. Pretty much the vast majority of it is the US government paying people to do work at a much higher rate than anyone else would do it for. If you want to cut spending, you are pretty much going to cut government jobs and move them into the private sector.

 

Plus there isn't an absolute rule that makes ineffeciencies the profit margin. I don't know where that came from, but isn't a rule, and it doesn't have to be even an actual occurence. The simple thing would be to make it a rule that a certian percentage of savings are given back to the taxpayers.

 

Also doesn't surprise me that the reports that agree with privatization, you would label as "biased". I guess you borrowed from our evil conservative playbook by dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your point of view as biased.

[NorthSideSox72]

Great example. You are the private company taking over. Should the government have any oversight on how you spend the money? Or do we just hand over the tax dollars and trust you? The public has demanded more and more accountability on how our money is spent. We demand multiple bids on all purchases. We demand meticulous record keeping from these agencies. If we turn this over to a private contractor, should we also drop those requirements?

 

The level of record keeping we demand of our government is beyond what private industry requires. Perhaps we need to put in place policies and procedures more in line with private industry.

Earlier someone mentioned 10% waste, if that is the same profit a private company wants, which is fair, we evened out.

 

IIRC Indian Affairs has seen their budget cut while the demands for record keeping etc. have stayed the same. Doing all the paperwork, etc, is required, sending them aid is not. Perhaps that is the problem. The legal requirements cost $X and those have to be funded first.

 

I agree that there are inefficiencies in out government, but there are also inefficiencies in private businesses. How many people in this conversation are working for private companies and getting paid to post?

In the case of BIA and other agencies that are so far gone (if I recall, their last director quit and said there was no fixing it), I think you literally abolish it. It's actually not doing ANY good for ANYONE, including the Indians. They get a small sliver of the money they were intended to get, and then get all kinds of buearacracy, corruption and administrative B.S. to deal with just to get that.

 

What I would do - take an amount of money equal to about 3 years' of the BIA's budget. Allocate it to the various tribal authorities on a per capita basis, and tell them to do whatever they see fit. Further, give all the Indians on the reservations the option to either own their land on it outright, or join their tribe's community if that's what they desire. Either way, they get some sort of land equity, and a chunk of cash. Then abolish the reservation system, and they are now part of society. The transition may be harsh, but it would be far better than the current nightmare they live in. Some of the BIA money may also have to go to the States and localities to deal with the burst influx on services, then veil it down over a number of years until it's nothing.

[Texsox]

I am not quite sure if you understand what government spending really is or not. Pretty much the vast majority of it is the US government paying people to do work at a much higher rate than anyone else would do it for. If you want to cut spending, you are pretty much going to cut government jobs and move them into the private sector.

 

Plus there isn't an absolute rule that makes ineffeciencies the profit margin. I don't know where that came from, but isn't a rule, and it doesn't have to be even an actual occurence. The simple thing would be to make it a rule that a certian percentage of savings are given back to the taxpayers.

 

Also doesn't surprise me that the reports that agree with privatization, you would label as "biased". I guess you borrowed from our evil conservative playbook by dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your point of view as biased.

 

Funny, I want the government to borrow less and that makes me an enemy of conservative values

I didn't dismiss any links because you didn't show any. When some company produces a report on how they can save the country millions and provide a better service, I dismiss it. But conservatives take it hook line and sinker? I don't think so. At least not any conservatives I know. It's something different and we need to proceed carefully. But being cautious with change must now be a liberal attribute.

 

The reports I have read are either by pro-government groups or industry groups looking to move in. Plus, much is theory and predicting the future. I asked for a link where the public received more for less. Let's build on those successes. I am certain their are some programs that could be privatized, but not all.

 

If you only answer one question, where will the profits come from?

 

The government has inefficiencies. Private companies are motivated by profit, the more the better. Either category does not directly help the tax payer.

 

You've always preached that higher wages are better for our economy. So which is better, higher paying government jobs (Inefficiencies) or lower paying private jobs and profit?

 

I think a better solution is looking at where we are demanding waste in the form of excessive requirements, getting benefits more in line with private industry (less days off for one), and focusing on the desired results, not the justification.

 

I also fear corruption in private industry. The Enron Department of Energy?

 

 

In the case of BIA and other agencies that are so far gone (if I recall, their last director quit and said there was no fixing it), I think you literally abolish it. It's actually not doing ANY good for ANYONE, including the Indians. They get a small sliver of the money they were intended to get, and then get all kinds of buearacracy, corruption and administrative B.S. to deal with just to get that.

 

What I would do - take an amount of money equal to about 3 years' of the BIA's budget. Allocate it to the various tribal authorities on a per capita basis, and tell them to do whatever they see fit. Further, give all the Indians on the reservations the option to either own their land on it outright, or join their tribe's community if that's what they desire. Either way, they get some sort of land equity, and a chunk of cash. Then abolish the reservation system, and they are now part of society. The transition may be harsh, but it would be far better than the current nightmare they live in. Some of the BIA money may also have to go to the States and localities to deal with the burst influx on services, then veil it down over a number of years until it's nothing.

 

I agree with your ideas, the current BIA system isn't working. I assume that once we gave them the money, "they" could distribute it anyway they want via whatever system they desired? That way we wouldn't have to follow up and have any agency expenses seeing if the money was used. This is how the inefficiency creeps in. Taxpayers demand that the government isn't just giving away the money and having it wasted. Someone discovers that tribal elders built themselves a retirement home for themselves and didn't spend it on the poorest residents. So we demand independent accountability and studies and etc. So the tribes are now creating a system to track their expenses and reporting to who?" Some government agency who has now sprung up to be certain the tribes are being fair and honest with *our* money.

 

The system is screwed.

[southsider2k5]

Funny, I want the government to borrow less and that makes me an enemy of conservative values

The reports I have read are either by pro-government groups or industry groups looking to move in. Plus, much is theory and predicting the future. I asked for a link where the public received more for less. Let's build on those successes. I am certain their are some programs that could be privatized, but not all.

 

If you only answer one question, where will the profits come from?

 

The government has inefficiencies. Private companies are motivated by profit, the more the better. Either category does not directly help the tax payer.

 

You've always preached that higher wages are better for our economy. So which is better, higher paying government jobs (Inefficiencies) or lower paying private jobs and profit?

 

I know I am pretty much wasting my breath here, but I have already answered half these things already, and asking them a slightly different way doesn't really change the answer too much. I think I have answered pretty much everything you asked, and then it proceded to turn into an absolute answer, and spun back around. Then again, that's pretty much how every discussion like this turns out. I give an answer, and you nitpick it apart based on assumtions, conjecture, and absolutes... and then post more questions.

 

If you don't believe me that's fine, I am not going to waste your time, or mine, anymore. Have fun.

[Texsox]

Take the absolute cost of something. The government tacks on waste from too many regulations and inefficiencies. Private industry tacks on profit. Either way money is diverted from the end purpose and hurts the tax payer.

 

We demand the government buy American, that increases prices. We demand the government write specs that allows the most companies to compete, that invites waste. If we could eliminate the waste without spending it on profits, we all win. Imagine calling the IRS and getting a call center in Malaysia.

 

A private company needs to buy a desk. They go to the store, find one they like and seems like a good price, and buy it. Later if they see one for $20 less, no big deal, the saved $20 in time and effort.

 

We demand that the government write up specifications for a desk and have companies bid. Someone has to write the specs and evaluate the specs. Why don't we allow the government to act like a private business? Instead we demand the waste then complain about it. We demand they spend $2 to save $1

 

Using NSS example in the BIA, when it is reported that the private company is sending more money to the Native Americans than before and the owner just bought a $10,000,000 ranch in Idaho, we should call it an American success. But wouldn't the taxpayer now demand the company send even more to the Native Americans? Would we really be happy knowing he bought that ranch with our tax dollars?

 

I believe we should carefully look at some programs and have private not for profits run the programs with clear benchmarks. Allow them to be more nimble.