Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The G.W. Bush Presidential Library

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rick wrote:
> 
>> Mike Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Which programs are those?  I would be surprised if they aren't 
>>> extremely wasteful because the money goes to corporations that provide 
>>> services and lobbyists and campaign contributions.  Related to this -- 
>>> here's a good question:  Why don't Republicans want the Federal gov't 
>>> to negotiate prices with drug companies?  It's comically wasteful not 
>>> to do so.  It makes Bush and cronies look really corrupt to me. 
>>> Here's a story:
>>>
>> They're wasteful because there's a huge government bureaucracy involved 
>> in it.
>>
>> http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare
> 
> I can't read very far into that article because one of the first claims is 
> that there is more poverty now than in 1965, which obviously is not true.
> 

I don't read that statement quite the same way. Assuming you're speaking 
about this paragraph:

"Since the start of the "war on poverty" in 1965, the United States has 
spent more than $5 trillion trying to ease the plight of the poor. What 
we have received for this massive investment is -- primarily -- more 
poverty."

I read this as more of a comment that we have invested over $5 trillion 
into eliminating poverty, yet have not even broken even on that investment.

> What is the reason why there should be more "waste" in government than in 
> a private company?  It seems to me that the leadership in the private 
> company have an incentive to create efficiency so that they can profit 
> from it.  The result can be lower prices, but not necessarily.  Why should 
> the leadership lower the price if it will mean lowering their salaries? 
> Unless they are faced with a serious rival, they will not lower prices.
> 

There is more waste in government bureaucracy than in private business 
because there are entirely different motivations behind the two. If a 
private business loses billions of dollars on a daily basis, that 
business will fail. If a gov't agency loses billions of dollars on a 
daily basis, that's business as usual.

You're right, though, a business will not lower their prices unless 
forced, because their entire goal is to make profit.

> Bechtel provided workers in New Orleans after Katrina.  They billed the 
> government $900 per day per worker and they paid the workers $300 per day. 
> Is that "efficient?"  What causes the high overhead in the private 
> company?  Is Bechtel better than the US government?  Is it wasteful for 
> the government to essentially pay a CEO $50 million/year, or to contribute 
> $500 million to a corporation's profits?  Or is it only waste if the money 
> is absorbed by midlevel functionaries, by thieves or by poor people?
> 

If a company make 3000% profit on something, why would they not do so? 
The question is not whether or not Bechtel were greedy, that's a 
foregone conclusion, the question is why did the gov't pay them $900? If 
you want to lay the blame on someone, how about placing it on the 
*gov't* agency that authorized an apparently retarded payout.

> You might say that we can now stop giving money to Bechtel because they 
> have shown themselves to be unworthy.  I would strongly agree except for 
> several problems.  First, Bechtel started screwing us many decades ago and 
> they are still at it, so it seems unlikely that we will stop paying them. 
> Second, what would stop the Bechtel leadership from reforming a new 
> corporation with a new name to get back on the gov't gravy train? 
> Nothing, I suppose.  I'm sure that the leadership at Bechtel and 
> Halliburton agree strongly with your idea that private contracts are more 
> efficient, that government is wasteful, and that we need smaller 
> governmnent and more contracts for private companies.  This is where they 
> idea comes from and why it is promoted -- rich manipulators want more 
> government money for themselves and they want you to be their unwitting 
> pawn.  You won't believe this, of course, but you should think about it.
> 

Again, this has a lot more to do with the gov't agency/agents making the 
decision than the corporation taking the money. This isn't going away 
and, quite to the contrary, the more power you give to the gov't, the 
more this is going to occur.

> The problems are not caused by a difference between government and private 
> industry.  The problems are caused by incentive structures that make 
> corruption possible.  The next question is what can we do to create and 
> maintain desirable incentive structures?  It is a complicated and 
> difficult problem but it has to be solved.  It will be hard to design a 
> good system, but much harder to get it implemented because it will mean 
> vastly reducing the power of certain powerful people who will adamantly 
> oppose it.
> 

You are partially correct. First, we allowed the federal gov't to take 
that power (that it was not entitled to have), *then* we allow them to 
take advantage of us time and time again. We are pigs:

How to Catch a Wild Pig
First you find out where the wild pigs are roaming and feeding. You then 
put some corn out in an open field. Soon the pigs will come to eat the 
free corn. You keep putting out this free corn everyday. More wild pigs 
will come. After the pigs get used to your free corn, you put up a 
length of fence along one side of the open field. Soon the pigs will get 
accustomed to the fence. You keep giving them the free corn. Later you 
put up another section of fence at right angles to the first. You keep 
giving them the free corn. The pigs get used to the second fence. After 
awhile you put up a third section of fence at right angles to the second 
section. You now have a U-shaped fenced open area. You keep giving them 
free corn. Then you put another section of fence with a gate in it, 
making a closed area except for the gate. You keep giving them free 
corn. Now, the pigs are no longer out in the woods, working to find 
their own food. They get accustomed to the fenced area with the open 
gate. Then, one day you slam shut the gate trapping the wild pigs 
inside. They quickly lose their ability to find their wild food and 
become totally dependent on your free corn. They can not survive without 
you.

This is how communism and socialism works. They give you “free corn” 
until you are dependent on them. Until you lose your ability to support 
yourself. They rob you of your free spirit and your self respect. You 
become their domesticated worker pigs.

> That's one reason to vote for Obama.  He knows how to use diplomacy to 
> reduce conflict and save on defense spending.  Yes, he will maintain 
> programs that aid for the poor and disabled and that doesn't bother me. 
> He'll also want to encourage higher education and better access to health 
> care.  It's all good.
> 

Yeah, I love Obama's "diplomacy": 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/washington/10fisa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

This thing really makes me want to kick Bond square in the dangly bits...

However, I seriously doubt that we'll see any defense spending savings 
after we get done giving health care and university degrees to every 
illegal alien we can lay hands on.

> Mike

Rick
-- 
Live life as a dog would. If you cant eat it or hump it, piss on it and 
walk away.
-Carlos SantaMaria

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion