Your Tax Dollars At Work...Again

Hobbit

Senior Member
Mar 25, 2004
5,099
423
48
Near Atlanta, GA
So apparantly, it's not enough for the government to take your money by force of law and then spend it on things controlled by bloated, expensive beauracracies. Now, they have to take your money and spend it on things controlled by bloated, expensive, beauracracies that accomplish absolutely nothing.

For those of you who don't know, FEMA has a little road show. They've spent $22.6 million on what they call 'crisis counseling.' Apparantly, the slow hurricane season was so slow that they didn't have any better way to spend your money than activities to relieve that oh so horrible stress being felt by Florida due to the tropical depression that featured wind of up to *gasp* 25 miles/hour. FEMA is putting on puppet shows, 'hurrican bingo,' and sponsoring yoga classes on the beach, all with your money.

It just never occurs to politicians any more where that money comes from, does it. These bits of horrendous waste were paid for by taking, by force of law, money from hardworking Americans who had bills to pay, a retirement to plan for, and children to take care of. There are a hundred really good ways the American people could have spent this money, but it was instead taken from them to spend on this cash toilet. I'm disgusted.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...ct08,0,3230053.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines
 
So apparantly, it's not enough for the government to take your money by force of law and then spend it on things controlled by bloated, expensive beauracracies. Now, they have to take your money and spend it on things controlled by bloated, expensive, beauracracies that accomplish absolutely nothing.

For those of you who don't know, FEMA has a little road show. They've spent $22.6 million on what they call 'crisis counseling.' Apparantly, the slow hurricane season was so slow that they didn't have any better way to spend your money than activities to relieve that oh so horrible stress being felt by Florida due to the tropical depression that featured wind of up to *gasp* 25 miles/hour. FEMA is putting on puppet shows, 'hurrican bingo,' and sponsoring yoga classes on the beach, all with your money.

It just never occurs to politicians any more where that money comes from, does it. These bits of horrendous waste were paid for by taking, by force of law, money from hardworking Americans who had bills to pay, a retirement to plan for, and children to take care of. There are a hundred really good ways the American people could have spent this money, but it was instead taken from them to spend on this cash toilet. I'm disgusted.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/lo...ct08,0,3230053.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines


Congress knows EXACTLY where the money comes from and whose it is. They don't get a pass from me for giving FEMA millions to waste.
 
The real problem with proposing cuts is, people can't imagine how things would be different in the abscence of government spending. You can make an explicit list of things which would not be funded if a spending cut were enacted. But you cannot really make a similarly detailed list of the things that the private sector would have funded if the government had not soaked up so much cash. We just don't know for sure. Therefore, people assume that under a small-government regime, things would be exactly 100% the same as they are now, only without the government programs.

Example: "B-b-but without NASA there would be no space exploration, or velcro, or Tang!" Yeah, but without NASA (and a hundred other crap programs), private companies might have developed carbon nanotubes or nuclear rockets or some other underlying technology to the point that private space travel would be routine, affordable, and unremarkable by now.
 
The real problem with proposing cuts is, people can't imagine how things would be different in the abscence of government spending. You can make an explicit list of things which would not be funded if a spending cut were enacted. But you cannot really make a similarly detailed list of the things that the private sector would have funded if the government had not soaked up so much cash. We just don't know for sure. Therefore, people assume that under a small-government regime, things would be exactly 100% the same as they are now, only without the government programs.

Example: "B-b-but without NASA there would be no space exploration, or velcro, or Tang!" Yeah, but without NASA (and a hundred other crap programs), private companies might have developed carbon nanotubes or nuclear rockets or some other underlying technology to the point that private space travel would be routine, affordable, and unremarkable by now.

It is my belief that any goal which the government may aspire to can be done better and for less money by any entity which does not have the power to fund itself limitlessly. There are few things I can think of that cannot be done better by the private sector, and only then because the private sector does not have the authority to use force to accomplish its own ends.

Think on this. Right now, a satellite can only go up with government permission aboard a government craft, yet you can still get palm-sized devices for just a few hundred dollars that can connect to the satellite network to bring you phone service, access to a worldwide computer network, and even your geographical coordinates within a few inches. Now, imagine what we'd be able to do if private companies could launch satellites themselves.
 
It is my belief that any goal which the government may aspire to can be done better and for less money by any entity which does not have the power to fund itself limitlessly. There are few things I can think of that cannot be done better by the private sector, and only then because the private sector does not have the authority to use force to accomplish its own ends.

Think on this. Right now, a satellite can only go up with government permission aboard a government craft, yet you can still get palm-sized devices for just a few hundred dollars that can connect to the satellite network to bring you phone service, access to a worldwide computer network, and even your geographical coordinates within a few inches. Now, imagine what we'd be able to do if private companies could launch satellites themselves.


Why don't they?
 
Do you have any links to that by any chance Hobbit? Not that I doubt it. This brings up another pet peeve of mine.

1) Government spends loads of money, and eventually does something which is actually worthwhile.
2) This is endlessly paraded as evidence by pro-government groupies that government provided the goods that the private sector just couldn't, but...
3) ...the people making this argument are unaware of the obscure laws which hamstrung the private sector from providing this in the first place!

I'm thinking of the internet as one example (lots of FCC and telecom regulations which prevented competition) and health care (of course it's expensive, it was cheap but government policies/rules/regulation have grossly distorted the market).
 
Do you have any links to that by any chance Hobbit? Not that I doubt it. This brings up another pet peeve of mine.

1) Government spends loads of money, and eventually does something which is actually worthwhile.
2) This is endlessly paraded as evidence by pro-government groupies that government provided the goods that the private sector just couldn't, but...
3) ...the people making this argument are unaware of the obscure laws which hamstrung the private sector from providing this in the first place!

I'm thinking of the internet as one example (lots of FCC and telecom regulations which prevented competition) and health care (of course it's expensive, it was cheap but government policies/rules/regulation have grossly distorted the market).

I can't at the moment, but until recently, only governments were permitted beyond a certain altitude. During the Cold War, it was so American rocket secrets couldn't be dropped into the Soviet Union.
 

Forum List

Back
Top