Someone please explain Bachmann's "reasoning'?

[Texanmike]

You're hyberbole is noted. Post fifty ways to cut waste. I'll help. Fine contractors who don't meet timelines or fail to complete other work within the terms of the contract; and, deny them future gov't contracts. Forty-nine to go, odd-dude.

No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.

And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.

Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplication of services and outright graft?

You're forty-nine bricks short of a load, odd-dude. There are reasons for agencies, and the reasons can be summed up nicely with one phrase: Human Nature. I realize that may be too abstract for you, given how concrete you process information- though I'll offer no examples. I've read your responses too often: 'gumnt bad, fabian socialists bad, gumnt workers bad, Obmama bad, straw man, man'.

You're a F'n joke, you have no more ideas than a pet rock.

LOL it is always too complicated, ever notice that? It can't be demonstrated with a simple analogy and the morality of the whole situation is beyond reproach. If the purpose of your post is to just hurl insults isn't there an adolescent emo board you can go post on? Even if you're not discussing a topic with him, if you're going to put something out there like that then give the example for the rest of us who may not have been around as long.

What the hell is wrong with all of you? Are you here for political discourse and analysis (redundancy is a good thing) or are you here to belittle and disgrace anyone who holds a different opinion than you?

I'm an arrogant son of a bitch and I think I am smarter than most people I meet but that doesn't mean I can't learn something. If I have this arrogant attitude but can still behave like a rational human being, even when I disagree or actually do think I'm talking to an idiot then why can't you people who all claim to not be arrogant do the same. I see no point in the personal nature of your (the royal you...) rebuttals.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

No hyperbole at all, Bubba....Just inescapable facts.

And while you're busy dreaming up piddly new rules and regulations to pile on contractors that amount to pennies, I'll be over here eliminating entire bureaucracies that burn through billions of dollars.

Which approach do you figure has a better chance at eliminating waste, fraud, duplications of services and outright graft?

Here's the problem with your excersice oddball. It won't work. While you're busy coming up with your list of bureaucracies, 50 people are busy coming up with their list of untouchables. Their list will all include one of your list to cut. In the end you will all put all of the programs on a list to be cut and a list to not be cut while the debt grows.

The only possible solution is to cut all programs by 30% immediately. Tomorrow they all get an email saying they need to do the same ammount with 30% less money, if they can't they will be disbanded and we will pass their function to the state if the state deems it a necessary proposal.

Mike

Either that or you start treating people like adults and tell them "NO" for a change.

CPB/PBS/NPR don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.
NEA doesn't need budget reductions, it needs to be eliminated.
The DEA, ONDCP & the insane "war" on (some) drugs don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.
Military bases where the wars have been over for more than half a century don't need budget reductions, they need to be eliminated.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

Look man, I agree with you on most of this I'm sure. The problem is people have been using the same arguments for decades. One side wants these cuts and the other side wants no cuts from that program. I dont' think this will work if you ask me. Its time we just bite the bullet and admit that we are, by and large, incapable of rational debate and that we need drastic measures across the economy. Lets get out of debt first and then argue about how to fund the programs, all within a framework that keeps us from racking up a debt that won't be paid off before we colonize Mars.

Mike

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Can it educate ALL our children? No.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Etc.

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

Can you prove that the private sector cannot do all of those things, or do you simply assume that?

The fact is that no one I have seen on this board advocates eliminating the government, and the economy supports the government. Even Keynes preferred a smaller government to a larger one, yet every time anyone talks about making it smaller some idiot acts like making the government smaller will kill the economy because the economy depends on the government.

The truth is a bit more complicated than what I am about to say, but when it comes down to it the economy will go on forever without the government, and the government will collapse tomorrow without the economy.

The argument that the private sector doesn't do it ignores the fact that the government forbids the private sector from doing most things that it does. The USPS used to be the only game in town, and that somehow proved the private sector couldn't handle the mail. The funny thing is, no one thinks that today.

 

[Meister]

Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to “massively cut” government and to repeal “job killing regulations.’’

If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.

Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

Bigger government = higher taxes, or
Bigger government = higher debt

What you suggest would lead to a.....oh what the hell, your wry, why bother?

 

[Oddball]

Look man, I agree with you on most of this I'm sure. The problem is people have been using the same arguments for decades. One side wants these cuts and the other side wants no cuts from that program. I dont' think this will work if you ask me. Its time we just bite the bullet and admit that we are, by and large, incapable of rational debate and that we need drastic measures across the economy. Lets get out of debt first and then argue about how to fund the programs, all within a framework that keeps us from racking up a debt that won't be paid off before we colonize Mars.

Mike

We don't get out of debt without drastic cuts and wholesale elimination of programs and agencies...The bureaucratic bloat has simply overcome the ability for the productive to support it anymore.

In any case, what would the incrementalistic approach to ending slavery or prohibition look like?

 

[Texanmike]

Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Can it educate ALL our children? No.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Etc.

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

No
Yes
Is that the my responsibility?
Is that my responsibility?
Does the government do that?

The "fact" is that the very existence of this country depends on individual freedom and responsibility. We are in the situation we are in right now because people have learned that the long hand of government can take care of them and they have exchanged their dignity and self reliance in for a few pennies a month and a promise that the government cannot keep.

Katrina,procedures that were in place on 9/11, SSI, Education, Food Safety, Drug Regulation, Financial Regulation, Postal Services, Medicare, War on Drugs, do you know what they all have in common?

They all represent monumental failures of the government. They are either bankrupt or they are examples of what happens when people become dependent on government and fail to take responsibility for their own actions. The preposterous thing is that people are under the impression that we should either spend more money on them or give the government more control. That is like saying the Texans should have paid HWWNBN (long story but we don't mention our first QB's name for fear of invoking a curse from the football gods) more money and given him longer in order to be successful.

Given a choice between private education and public education... which one would you take? Yet you hold up education as a landmark achievement of government?

Mike

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No. That's why we have a Defense Department.. The Defense Dept. Is part of government.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No. Um...Hate to break it to you... contractors do just that, day in and day out.. The do it because the govern mention pays them to do it.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No. Never heard of Medigap insurance, have you?. No. Does it cover all the medical expenses of all elderly people? Or only a small fraction for a small fraction of the elderly?
Can it educate ALL our children? No. All of the chilluns aren't getting educated right now, despite jillions of gubmint buckaroos and big bureaucracies being thrown at it.. What percent of American children are not getting an education, according to you? What percent would it be if we abolished public schools?
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No. Little known fact...#1 polluter in America: Department of Defense. The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter | Personal Health | AlterNet...Looks like Big Daddy Big Gubmint can't even clean up his own back yard. So if the military pollutes... then what? What is your point exactly?

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

What really doesn't "do it" are strawmen, platitudes and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc arguments.

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

I do teacher, I do. Call on me pleassssssssssssssse.

It means you're an arrogant prick able to use google. What it does not mean is you have a clue about life, liberty or the lunacy of your faux arguments.

 

[Woyzeck]

Nice strawman, dickweed.

I'm of course speaking of the parasites at the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor, Energy, HHS & HUD, Fatherl...er...Homeland Security & TSA, CPB/PBS/NPR, BATF, DEA, ONDCP, and the rest of the Alphabet Soup Mafia.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Now, where does the money to pay those stooges come from?.... Santa Claus?

Aren't you a libertarian Oddball? Why would you not want military might cut from the federal government? That would seem first and foremost wise in terms of fiscal responsibility, and in terms of federal government power.

You can make huge cuts in the military...That doesn't by extension make its personnel parasitic, as national defense is one of the legit functions of the feds.

That said, I would throw in the Euroweenies and Asians mooching off American military presence in their nations (Germany, Japan, South Korea, England), as a back-door way to prop up their welfare states, as parasites.

If that helps you any.

I see, it's only parasitic when it goes towards regular citizens and not to private military contracts.

 

[Oddball]

Aren't you a libertarian Oddball? Why would you not want military might cut from the federal government? That would seem first and foremost wise in terms of fiscal responsibility, and in terms of federal government power.

You can make huge cuts in the military...That doesn't by extension make its personnel parasitic, as national defense is one of the legit functions of the feds.

That said, I would throw in the Euroweenies and Asians mooching off American military presence in their nations (Germany, Japan, South Korea, England), as a back-door way to prop up their welfare states, as parasites.

If that helps you any.

I see, it's only parasitic when it goes towards regular citizens and not to private military contracts.

You man now cease putting words in my mouth.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

it usually means you're a liberal trying to defend some idiocy.

 

[Woyzeck]

You can make huge cuts in the military...That doesn't by extension make its personnel parasitic, as national defense is one of the legit functions of the feds.

That said, I would throw in the Euroweenies and Asians mooching off American military presence in their nations (Germany, Japan, South Korea, England), as a back-door way to prop up their welfare states, as parasites.

If that helps you any.

I see, it's only parasitic when it goes towards regular citizens and not to private military contracts.

You man now cease putting words in my mouth.

Hey man, don't blame me for the implications of your views. Welfare is parasitic, you said it there right above in response to countries like Japan, England and Germany, and your choice to ignore the massive spending of the military to go first on the chopping block is telling. Where do you think the money goes? I bet the guys at Boeing eat pretty well.

Socialism is only evil when it happens to individuals and not corporations I guess.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Suggesting government is inefficient and proving government is so are two very different things. It's true that some of government largess is wasted, a good deal of that waste is the product of private sector greed, incompetence and thievery. Medicare fraud needs to be investigated and those who engage in white collar crime need to go to prison and make full and complete restitution.

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Can it educate ALL our children? No.
Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Etc.

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

Can you prove that the private sector cannot do all of those things, or do you simply assume that?

The fact is that no one I have seen on this board advocates eliminating the government, and the economy supports the government. Even Keynes preferred a smaller government to a larger one, yet every time anyone talks about making it smaller some idiot acts like making the government smaller will kill the economy because the economy depends on the government.

The truth is a bit more complicated than what I am about to say, but when it comes down to it the economy will go on forever without the government, and the government will collapse tomorrow without the economy.

The argument that the private sector doesn't do it ignores the fact that the government forbids the private sector from doing most things that it does. The USPS used to be the only game in town, and that somehow proved the private sector couldn't handle the mail. The funny thing is, no one thinks that today.

The fact is windbag the failure of the Articles of Confederation proved the private sector cannot do the things conservatives suggest than can do.

Roads, for example. I can today get on the SF-Oak Bay Bridge (I-80) and drive straight through to New York City. Thinking people can imagine how different this would be if 10, 20 or 100 + private sector businesses owned sections of I-80 across the country.

 

[uscitizen]

Bachman intends to win by using the same tool Bush did. Fear.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

it usually means you're a liberal trying to defend some idiocy.

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

it usually means you're a liberal trying to defend some idiocy.

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

 

[uscitizen]

Is that avitar kiddie porn or child abuse?

 

[Oddball]

Republicans nit-pick over government spending while ignoring the big picture: government does what the private sector in incapable of doing.

Can the private sector protect our country? No.
That's why we have a Defense Department..
The Defense Dept. Is part of government.
Yes it is...However, the state militias weren't...They were only to be regulated by the feds, not dictated to as to how they may or may not be organized, up to and including for-hire troops.

Can the private sector build and maintain our roads? No.
Um...Hate to break it to you... contractors do just that, day in and day out..
The do it because the govern mention pays them to do it.
Irrelevant...Private contractors still do the vast bulk of the building and maintenance of roads and bridges, no matter where they get their funding...Move the goalposts much?

Can it provide medical insurance to the elderly? No.
Never heard of Medigap insurance, have you?.
No. Does it cover all the medical expenses of all elderly people? Or only a small fraction for a small fraction of the elderly?
Irrelevant...You claimed that private enterprise was incapable of providing it, not that it was universally issued or covered every possible injury/malady....Move the goaposts much?

Can it educate ALL our children? No.
All of the chilluns aren't getting educated right now, despite jillions of gubmint buckaroos and big bureaucracies being thrown at it..
What percent of American children are not getting an education, according to you? What percent would it be if we abolished public schools?
Irrelevant...You were the one who invoked the universal qualifier "ALL", not me....In any case, the best evidence of the inadequacy, if not outright failure, of gubmint schooling is the recent surge in the need for remedial courses in math and English, for college freshmen.

Can it protect the air, the water, and the land from industrial poisons? No.
Little known fact...#1 polluter in America: Department of Defense. The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter | Personal Health | AlterNet...Looks like Big Daddy Big Gubmint can't even clean up his own back yard.

So if the military pollutes... then what? What is your point exactly?
Point being is that the very people you claim are THE protectors of the environment have the worst track record in protecting it on their own lands...Guess you haven't been out west and seen how BLM lands are treated either, huh?

The fact is the very existence of this country depends on government, and there would be no economy without it. The argument that the private market does it better ignores the fact that the private sector doesn't do it.

What really doesn't "do it" are strawmen, platitudes and post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc arguments.

Do you know what "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc" means?

Absolutely...It's basically what your "if gubmint didn't do it, nobody would" argument boils down to.

 

[Oddball]

I see, it's only parasitic when it goes towards regular citizens and not to private military contracts.

You man now cease putting words in my mouth.

Hey man, don't blame me for the implications of your views. Welfare is parasitic, you said it there right above in response to countries like Japan, England and Germany, and your choice to ignore the massive spending of the military to go first on the chopping block is telling. Where do you think the money goes? I bet the guys at Boeing eat pretty well.

Socialism is only evil when it happens to individuals and not corporations I guess.

At least the guys at Boeing are providing something that is provided for as a legitimate function of a de jure central government....America abandons global empire, closes those foreign bases, and you get those big cuts in military spending that all you lefties get a big woody over.

How much is enough?

 

[Wry Catcher]

it usually means you're a liberal trying to defend some idiocy.

Why do you keep posting? You're really, honestly, in all truth, more stupid than crusaderfrank, daveboy, willow tree and Odd-dude. I know, being more stupid is like being more pregnanat, but man you are really stupid.

I find it charming that you think you're qualified to judge the intelligence of other posters.

My Masters Degree is in "Human Relations" and included courses and siminars in Psychology, Sociology, Counseling and Anthropology. I took several courses in Psychological Testing for Counselors and interviewed hundreds (likely more than a thousand) men and women in my lifetime.

I glad you find my assessment of you and a few others charming. I suggest you go back and review the posts you've made on this message board, and your life thus far and prove me wrong.

 

[Woyzeck]

You man now cease putting words in my mouth.

Hey man, don't blame me for the implications of your views. Welfare is parasitic, you said it there right above in response to countries like Japan, England and Germany, and your choice to ignore the massive spending of the military to go first on the chopping block is telling. Where do you think the money goes? I bet the guys at Boeing eat pretty well.

Socialism is only evil when it happens to individuals and not corporations I guess.

At least the guys at Boeing are providing something that is provided for as a legitimate function of a de jure central government....America abandons global empire, closes those foreign bases, and you get those big cuts in military spending that all you lefties get a big woody over.

How much is enough?

Yeah! It's not socialism when it's for military purposes! Giving people assistance to survive? Evil, vile socialism! Giving corporations money to design things designed to kill people? Totally patriotic use of funds!

Judging by your response, I guess I wasn't putting words in your mouth then, hm?