Guitar Gear Forum

DoubleBarrel wrote:

Krunchmeister wrote:Are you are ignorant? Read what I wrote again . Ideas dont kill -people do.

People will kill for ideas, and that's the danger

Krunchmeister wrote:FWIW there has never been a true communist state. In fact most modern governments are just perversions of their claimed idealogies.

Agreed, and there will never be a true communist state, It's a lefty fantasy.

Krunchmeister wrote:You dont really think the USA is a democracy do you?

It is a democratic republic of sorts.

Krunchmeister wrote:Chavez was tryin to run a true socialist system and he wasnt a brutal dictator. He shared the profits from oil sales with ALL the citizens. He was practically giving oil away to other countries where the common folks were at the mercy of international banks. Cant have that -slip something in his food. Modern tyrants prefer to hide behind corporate masks and pull the strings of power.

Hugo Chavez ? Is that your shining example of a socialist state ? Might want to read up on his record, and his best bud Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

During Chávez's administration, homicide rates in Venezuela more than tripled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled. The majority of the deaths occur in crowded slums in Caracas.[344][345] The NGO found that the number of homicides in the country increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 19,000 in 2011[346][347] and 21,692 in 2012.[348][better source needed] In 2010 Caracas had the highest murder rate in the world.[349] For 2012 there were 13,080 murders in Venezuela and 14,670 murders in neighboring Colombia.[350]

Between 2000 and 2007, 6,300 Venezuelan policemen were investigated for violations of human rights.

People dont need excuses to kill each other-dont blame ideas. The USA is not a democracy unless you stretch the definition (but if thats fair then you could also stretch the definition to call it communist or some other system).USA has the most folks in prison-even more than china which is noted for human rights abuses. Actual # of murders (not a % rate)occur more often in the USA. When one makes the definitions and controls the media of course people get brain-washed. Economic war is being waged by corporate america on Venezuela as they refuse to bow to the World bank.

I think the NYPD has the Venezuelan cops beat lol

Wayne wrote:

Diddlybo wrote:So, I guess most of the people posting in this thread are fine with food stamp fraud? OK.

I'm fine with some fraud because I know that overall the program does much more good than harm. Do I wish there was less? Of course, but it's unrealistic to expect zero fraud.

I'm not a commie either. In fact I vote Republican a lot of the time. This whole angle of going after food stamps is one of the most idiotic things Conservatives have come up with in a while. It almost seems like if I were a Democrat trying to get votes I'd send some double agents to the Republican side to rail against food stamps. Out of all the idiotic ways our government wastes money, this is not one of them.

Poor people have to eat and I do not want mobs of starving poor people roaming around. I've been to South America and seen it. No thank you. Even if not on compassionate grounds I think most people should support food stamps for self-preservation reasons.

Your missing something here


NOBODY is saying dont feed the poor who really need it (if you are, your a idiot!!) there are those who slip through the cracks of society and have issues and need help and assitance and we should be there for those who REALLY need it, no 1 is arguing that


However it "should" be setup as a handup and not a generational handout! someone needs something shortterm and falls down needs assistance, is fine, but not 30 years of it being a generation to generation type thing


We should be thinking of ways to get people "OFF" goverment assitance (education, workfares, even welfare reform) and NOT thinking of ways to put them ON IT! (which many politicians do)


We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? How is it working out? Has it improved things in areas?


Hows graduation rates?..
Hows job growth?..
Hows out of wedlock birthrates?..
Hows crime levels?..
How is poverty rates doing?..
How are these areas doing?..


50 years and not much has changed (if not WORSE in some instances) Should we continue on that same path? Should we just throw more $$ and hope things get better? Has it been a good bang for the buck? Is it working? Should we try a different approach?


Cmon lets be adults about things and look at the big picture, its not about 'hating" people its about whats working and whats not working!

"We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? "

I would rather we spend trillions feeding our poor children than spend trillions to kill children in foreign lands.

Krunchmeister wrote:People dont need excuses to kill each other-dont blame ideas.

you can't really believe that. Even clidren know that is a lie. Just another feel good talking point for the left

Krunchmeister wrote:The USA is not a democracy unless you stretch the definition (but if thats fair then you could also stretch the definition to call it communist or some other system).

I told you .................the US is a democratic republic,

Krunchmeister wrote:USA has the most folks in prison-even more than china which is noted for human rights abuses.

because China # 1 lies about everything, #2 don't hold prisoners, they kill them

Krunchmeister wrote:Actual # of murders (not a % rate)occur more often in the USA.

That dog won't hunt Leroy, you must use a percentage.

US population 315,183,801
Venezuela Population 29,105,632

Due to the vast difference in population, of course there will be more murders. Simple math

Krunchmeister wrote:When one makes the definitions and controls the media of course people get brain-washed.

Agreed

It worked for Stalin, The Nazi's, Castro, Chavez, and countless others. Which is why, with the leftist bias (if not out right control) of most media outlets in the US, most of you are brainwashed into thinking Obamacare is a great thing. It's gonna be a disaster Give it 2 years and you'll see.

Krunchmeister wrote:Economic war is being waged by corporate america on Venezuela as they refuse to bow to the World bank.

Got some links on that ? Interested to read on that. But it still doesn't make Chavez a hero.

Krunchmeister wrote:Are you are ignorant? Read what I wrote again . Ideas dont kill -people do.
FWIW there has never been a true communist state. In fact most modern governments are just perversions of their claimed idealogies. You dont really think the USA is a democracy do you? Chavez was tryin to run a true socialist system and he wasnt a brutal dictator. He shared the profits from oil sales with ALL the citizens. He was practically giving oil away to other countries where the common folks were at the mercy of international banks. Cant have that -slip something in his food. Modern tyrants prefer to hide behind corporate masks and pull the strings of power.

if you think Chavez was not a dictator and was equally distributing the oil profits you either don't check facts or know anyone living in Venezuela....

Krunchmeister wrote:"We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? "

I would rather we spend trillions feeding our poor children than spend trillions to kill children in foreign lands.

Did you read the whole post?

Is that all you got out of that? Nothing else? .

***1776*** wrote:NOBODY is saying dont feed the poor who really need it (if you are, your a idiot!!) there are those who slip through the cracks of society and have issues and need help and assitance and we should be there for those who REALLY need it, no 1 is arguing that


However it "should" be setup as a handup and not a generational handout! someone needs something shortterm and falls down needs assistance, is fine, but not 30 years of it being a generation to generation type thing


We should be thinking of ways to get people "OFF" goverment assitance (education, workfares, even welfare reform) and NOT thinking of ways to put them ON IT! (which many politicians do)


We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? How is it working out? Has it improved things in areas?

I hear you and agree to a certain extent. It would be more compassionate to get everyone working at jobs they can be proud of and living with dignity and stuff.

On the other hand the food stamp program has obviously helped a lot of people eat well who might otherwise have been hungry. Whatever deleterious long-term effects the program might have, I think the anti-fraud drumbeat is a mean-spirited-sounding, losing message.

that is actually a very good point wayne. Keeping the sanctity of the welfare system and having it work as well as it possibly can...keeping it clear (as humanly possible) of fraudulent activity. Making sure that people are fed. Putting abusers on a different system...like probation....community service/outreach...making them work at soup kitchens (or the like), etc.

Not as punishment, but as an opportunity to be educated on how the system (idealistically) works. With the goal being for them to become self-reliant/community-reliant and not entitled to a free "gimme-gimme my free 'boma-phone" handout.

Affirm their humanity.

***1776*** wrote:

Krunchmeister wrote:"We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? "

I would rather we spend trillions feeding our poor children than spend trillions to kill children in foreign lands.

Did you read the whole post?

Is that all you got out of that? Nothing else? .

I read it. I get your points but sadly an empty belly takes priority over the rest.
Why is it OK for Lockheed to suck trillions from the government teets and not to feed the starving masses?

DoubleBarrel wrote:

Krunchmeister wrote:People dont need excuses to kill each other-dont blame ideas.

you can't really believe that. Even clidren know that is a lie. Just another feel good talking point for the left

Krunchmeister wrote:The USA is not a democracy unless you stretch the definition (but if thats fair then you could also stretch the definition to call it communist or some other system).

I told you .................the US is a democratic republic,

Krunchmeister wrote:USA has the most folks in prison-even more than china which is noted for human rights abuses.

because China # 1 lies about everything, #2 don't hold prisoners, they kill them

Krunchmeister wrote:Actual # of murders (not a % rate)occur more often in the USA.

That dog won't hunt Leroy, you must use a percentage.

US population 315,183,801
Venezuela Population 29,105,632

Due to the vast difference in population, of course there will be more murders. Simple math

Krunchmeister wrote:When one makes the definitions and controls the media of course people get brain-washed.

Agreed

It worked for Stalin, The Nazi's, Castro, Chavez, and countless others. Which is why, with the leftist bias (if not out right control) of most media outlets in the US, most of you are brainwashed into thinking Obamacare is a great thing. It's gonna be a disaster Give it 2 years and you'll see.

Krunchmeister wrote:Economic war is being waged by corporate america on Venezuela as they refuse to bow to the World bank.

Got some links on that ? Interested to read on that. But it still doesn't make Chavez a hero.

Pull your head out of Glen Becks rear. I never said the ACA was a great thing. I'm for single payer,medicare for all. It could have been done on day 1 as every citizen gets in the system at birth. As the ACA stands its a windfall for the insurance industry and by definition TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. So yes it needs to be seriuosly upgraded. Chavez died of cancer this year and he had to go to Cuba for treatment. IMO he will be remembered as a champion of the poor in Venezuela regardless of what Fox news thinks. Percentage rates dont matter if you compare piles of bodies. If the USA prisons werent majority privately owned then I'll bet the republicans would be pushing the death penalty asap.

Wayne wrote:

***1776*** wrote:NOBODY is saying dont feed the poor who really need it (if you are, your a idiot!!) there are those who slip through the cracks of society and have issues and need help and assitance and we should be there for those who REALLY need it, no 1 is arguing that


However it "should" be setup as a handup and not a generational handout! someone needs something shortterm and falls down needs assistance, is fine, but not 30 years of it being a generation to generation type thing


We should be thinking of ways to get people "OFF" goverment assitance (education, workfares, even welfare reform) and NOT thinking of ways to put them ON IT! (which many politicians do)


We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? How is it working out? Has it improved things in areas?

I hear you and agree to a certain extent. It would be more compassionate to get everyone working at jobs they can be proud of and living with dignity and stuff.

On the other hand the food stamp program has obviously helped a lot of people eat well who might otherwise have been hungry. Whatever deleterious long-term effects the program might have, I think the anti-fraud drumbeat is a mean-spirited-sounding, losing message.

Ok so we agree to a point, lets stay on track


If I suggested I want a 15-25% reduction for the actual number of people on government assistance and people working would you call that mean spirited? I want workfare reform and not welfare (and YES tougher fraud standards, etc) would you disagree with that? ---- Again im NOT saying end social programs im saying lets try another direction


I do think its not healthy when families/generations are on it forever and standards are lower allowing more people "free things" from the government, welfare comes in many different ways in not just hungry kids, In fact a case can be made that if you support the status quo (just keep throwing $$ at the problem) that you in fact don't want to see people climb the social ladder

***1776*** wrote:

Wayne wrote:

***1776*** wrote:NOBODY is saying dont feed the poor who really need it (if you are, your a idiot!!) there are those who slip through the cracks of society and have issues and need help and assitance and we should be there for those who REALLY need it, no 1 is arguing that


However it "should" be setup as a handup and not a generational handout! someone needs something shortterm and falls down needs assistance, is fine, but not 30 years of it being a generation to generation type thing


We should be thinking of ways to get people "OFF" goverment assitance (education, workfares, even welfare reform) and NOT thinking of ways to put them ON IT! (which many politicians do)


We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? How is it working out? Has it improved things in areas?

I hear you and agree to a certain extent. It would be more compassionate to get everyone working at jobs they can be proud of and living with dignity and stuff.

On the other hand the food stamp program has obviously helped a lot of people eat well who might otherwise have been hungry. Whatever deleterious long-term effects the program might have, I think the anti-fraud drumbeat is a mean-spirited-sounding, losing message.

Ok so we agree to a point, lets stay on track


If I suggested I want a 15-25% reduction for the actual number of people on government assistance and people working would you call that mean spirited? I want workfare reform and not welfare (and YES tougher fraud standards, etc) would you disagree with that? ---- Again im NOT saying end social programs im saying lets try another direction


I do think its not healthy when families/generations are on it forever and standards are lower allowing more people "free things" from the government, welfare comes in many different ways in not just hungry kids, In fact a case can be made that if you support the status quo (just keep throwing $$ at the problem) that you in fact don't want to see people climb the social ladder

I know nothing will be done, we as a nation don't do change very well...it's understandable. Few of us as individuals like to change big life stuff...like having to move, or changing careers, getting married, etc. They can all be absolutely wonderful in the end, but the transition can be tough to endure.

But at least looking at how things can be cleaned up, made more efficient is always good too. A wise person once said, 'knowing the right question is sometimes more important than knowing the right answer.'

we need to ask how/why things are working when they do and how/why things aren't working where they aren't.

we're the greatest country on the planet for many reasons. one of which is an abundance of resources. we are not a poor nation. As ppl, we are smart. work hard. motivated. caring. compassionate. willing to learn. willing to teach. we are a nation of leaders, not a nation of complainers.
We give more than anyone else on the planet as individuals and as a nation.

Let's show our less fortunate who they really are. educate the poor. show them how hard work is in itself a reward (not oppressive slavery)...but finding what motivates each person (we're all different) and actually caring about whether the succeed and being compassionate when they don't.
The whole while demonstrating and teaching generosity.

sigh. I can't dream can't I?

Krunchmeister wrote:

***1776*** wrote:

Krunchmeister wrote:"We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? "

I would rather we spend trillions feeding our poor children than spend trillions to kill children in foreign lands.

Did you read the whole post?

Is that all you got out of that? Nothing else? .

I read it. I get your points but sadly an empty belly takes priority over the rest.
Why is it OK for Lockheed to suck trillions from the government teets and not to feed the starving masses?

DoubleBarrel wrote:

Krunchmeister wrote:People dont need excuses to kill each other-dont blame ideas.

you can't really believe that. Even clidren know that is a lie. Just another feel good talking point for the left

Krunchmeister wrote:The USA is not a democracy unless you stretch the definition (but if thats fair then you could also stretch the definition to call it communist or some other system).

I told you .................the US is a democratic republic,

Krunchmeister wrote:USA has the most folks in prison-even more than china which is noted for human rights abuses.

because China # 1 lies about everything, #2 don't hold prisoners, they kill them

Krunchmeister wrote:Actual # of murders (not a % rate)occur more often in the USA.

That dog won't hunt Leroy, you must use a percentage.

US population 315,183,801
Venezuela Population 29,105,632

Due to the vast difference in population, of course there will be more murders. Simple math

Krunchmeister wrote:When one makes the definitions and controls the media of course people get brain-washed.

Agreed

It worked for Stalin, The Nazi's, Castro, Chavez, and countless others. Which is why, with the leftist bias (if not out right control) of most media outlets in the US, most of you are brainwashed into thinking Obamacare is a great thing. It's gonna be a disaster Give it 2 years and you'll see.

Krunchmeister wrote:Economic war is being waged by corporate america on Venezuela as they refuse to bow to the World bank.

Got some links on that ? Interested to read on that. But it still doesn't make Chavez a hero.

Pull your head out of Glen Becks rear. I never said the ACA was a great thing. I'm for single payer,medicare for all. It could have been done on day 1 as every citizen gets in the system at birth. As the ACA stands its a windfall for the insurance industry and by definition TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. So yes it needs to be seriuosly upgraded. Chavez died of cancer this year and he had to go to Cuba for treatment. IMO he will be remembered as a champion of the poor in Venezuela regardless of what Fox news thinks. Percentage rates dont matter if you compare piles of bodies. If the USA prisons werent majority privately owned then I'll bet the republicans would be pushing the death penalty asap.

So, you are a pure socialist

I'm, not a Glen Beck fan,

ACA is a money and power grab by the federal government. Pure and simple. It's about control, redistribution of wealth, and making people reliant on the nanny state. Obama, and the left have said they want to "fundamentally transform the USA". This is what he meant. Why don't people understand this

Medicare is for senior citizens , perhaps you mean medicaid ?

Chavez was a tyrant and a thug in the mold of Stalin and Castro. Is that what you want here in the US ?


Look, comparing the US to Venezuela in pure number is just silly. We have 10 times the population, so naturally we will have more crimes

As the ACA stands its a windfall for the insurance industry and by definition TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

This is the only thing we agree on. Except you want to reform it, and I want to eliminate it.

soulsurfer wrote:

***1776*** wrote:

Wayne wrote:

***1776*** wrote:NOBODY is saying dont feed the poor who really need it (if you are, your a idiot!!) there are those who slip through the cracks of society and have issues and need help and assitance and we should be there for those who REALLY need it, no 1 is arguing that


However it "should" be setup as a handup and not a generational handout! someone needs something shortterm and falls down needs assistance, is fine, but not 30 years of it being a generation to generation type thing


We should be thinking of ways to get people "OFF" goverment assitance (education, workfares, even welfare reform) and NOT thinking of ways to put them ON IT! (which many politicians do)


We have had a "war on poverty" for about 50 years (Lydon Johnson in the early 1960s) and it has spent TRILLIONS $$$ (with a T) and what are the results? How is it working out? Has it improved things in areas?

I hear you and agree to a certain extent. It would be more compassionate to get everyone working at jobs they can be proud of and living with dignity and stuff.

On the other hand the food stamp program has obviously helped a lot of people eat well who might otherwise have been hungry. Whatever deleterious long-term effects the program might have, I think the anti-fraud drumbeat is a mean-spirited-sounding, losing message.

Ok so we agree to a point, lets stay on track


If I suggested I want a 15-25% reduction for the actual number of people on government assistance and people working would you call that mean spirited? I want workfare reform and not welfare (and YES tougher fraud standards, etc) would you disagree with that? ---- Again im NOT saying end social programs im saying lets try another direction


I do think its not healthy when families/generations are on it forever and standards are lower allowing more people "free things" from the government, welfare comes in many different ways in not just hungry kids, In fact a case can be made that if you support the status quo (just keep throwing $$ at the problem) that you in fact don't want to see people climb the social ladder

I know nothing will be done, we as a nation don't do change very well...it's understandable. Few of us as individuals like to change big life stuff...like having to move, or changing careers, getting married, etc. They can all be absolutely wonderful in the end, but the transition can be tough to endure.

But at least looking at how things can be cleaned up, made more efficient is always good too. A wise person once said, 'knowing the right question is sometimes more important than knowing the right answer.'

we need to ask how/why things are working when they do and how/why things aren't working where they aren't.

we're the greatest country on the planet for many reasons. one of which is an abundance of resources. we are not a poor nation. As ppl, we are smart. work hard. motivated. caring. compassionate. willing to learn. willing to teach. we are a nation of leaders, not a nation of complainers.
We give more than anyone else on the planet as individuals and as a nation.

Let's show our less fortunate who they really are. educate the poor. show them how hard work is in itself a reward (not oppressive slavery)...but finding what motivates each person (we're all different) and actually caring about whether the succeed and being compassionate when they don't.
The whole while demonstrating and teaching generosity.

sigh. I can't dream can't I?

Good post


So there is some *common ground* between us, now to me it would be a matter of how much and what 2 to implement, more ideas, etc, at least its a starting point!


Much better than screaming ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG and yelling at each other and having faux outrage, etc, etc (both sides do this nonsense) just yesterday you had a member of congress mention KKK with Reps, when you do shit like this it just makes the process more difficult


Sit down and talk (even if its heated) but talk to each other and exchange ideas!

We've gotten to this point in our national "Dialogue" that most people think that agreement without debate is preferable to debate without agreement.

This is horrifying to me.

I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

BrendanO wrote:I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

sounds like some good song lyrics and song title

BrendanO wrote:I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

It's not an 'either/or' situation. Doesn't have to be anyway.
Makes as much sense as comparing PB&J to caviar. Everyone knows PB&J wins.

soulsurfer wrote:

BrendanO wrote:I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

It's not an 'either/or' situation. Doesn't have to be anyway.
Makes as much sense as comparing PB&J to caviar. Everyone knows PB&J wins.

To some extent it is.

Even business gets to a point of "good enough" in the pursuit of efficiency. You can't catch everyone, and eventually you get to a point where your efforts start harming legit citizens. This is the same argument for any sort of "Voter reforms" which are always targeted at reducing turnout, not actually catching voter fraud.

If the system were perfect we wouldn't need it.

BrendanO wrote:I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

Why does it have to be a either/Or type thing?


Welfare comes in many forms and doesnt include just kids "starving", Cue: dramatic music...

A simple honest debate (this a good 1 for the board actually) goes a long way, it doesnt have to be ZOMG ZOMG emotional rabble platitudes (not picking on ya at all Brendan) Nobody 1 wants kids starving, but its also time to look and change course if somethings barely working for DECADES!!

Doesnt sound 2 rash to me

madryan wrote:

soulsurfer wrote:

BrendanO wrote:I'd rather 10,000 people grift the system for millions of dollars than let one person starve. End of story, end of life-philosophy. Maybe I'm a sucker, but maybe you're a monster.

It's not an 'either/or' situation. Doesn't have to be anyway.
Makes as much sense as comparing PB&J to caviar. Everyone knows PB&J wins.

To some extent it is.

Even business gets to a point of "good enough" in the pursuit of efficiency. You can't catch everyone, and eventually you get to a point where your efforts start harming legit citizens. This is the same argument for any sort of "Voter reforms" which are always targeted at reducing turnout, not actually catching voter fraud.

If the system were perfect we wouldn't need it.

True. Especially with something as large are this system. Diminishing returns and all that. However, if it were truly 'one percent' (as you alluded to in another thread/post) it would be a lot easier to deal with.
...but it is much worse than that.

So, in this case it has swung the other way and become too inefficient. Because of the depth and massive size of the system, it is all the more important to find the better bang-for-the-buck.
Because it can be hard to nail down hard numbers, we're gonna have to work with (educated) estimates.


As of 2011, ~12% of every tax dollar goes to 'welfare'. That includes education, health, child care, food stamps, etc. (Again, these are rough numbers, but realistic) -About $400 billion annually. I'm not holding fast to these numbers...just getting us in the ballpark for the sake of the discussion. If you can find better numbers that we can agree on, by all means correct mine.
((Obamacare has changed that, so we'll leave that out for now))

There has to be some way to for the government to get more out of every tax dollar spent on welfare.
Because the national government machine (r) has so much bureaucracy and red tape, it not only costs more for it to do what a small more local entity (volunteer persons, local gov, private org, etc) could do much cheaper and more quickly.

For instance, 100% of every dollar Mishpacha House Spends goes to housing, feeding, educating, counseling, healing, helping those it ministers to. I know that is unique. I have a 100% volunteer staff. They are required to donate time and resources to the ministry. (how they do that is up to them)
but most non-profits operate at a much higher efficiency rate than the government. (IMO, they should be shooting for +80% efficiency)

It can be done. I'm doing it. I know of others that are as well.

If the government gave incentives for businesses to give to local charities/programs/orgs etc. every dollar would be more efficiently spent on helping the those in need.

Do the math. It isn't good to take money from those that have it, and put it into a machine that only gets 6 miles to the gallon, when if left alone that same dollar could be put into a machine that gets 80-100 miles to the gallon.

The government spends less in collections and distribution. The local businesses get inspired to spend some money on local needs. More local needy get cared for.
Everyone benefits.

Our Prez sought authority from Congress to combine the Small Business Administration and five other small departments into a single one that would take the place of the Commerce Department. "No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operation," Said Obama. "You wouldn't do it when you're thinking about your businesses, so why is it O.K. for our government?"

The Republicans shot it down claiming a power grab.

I can go on and on and on quoting both sides of the isle, non-partisan committees on government waste, independent studies of the same and the obvious in-our-face instances of pork spending.
Each dept of the welfare system is included in this assessment and it gets ridiculous when we pool it together as a whole.
there are billions of dollars (sited by the GAO) in governmental waste, overlap and duplication.

We need to take a sound look and agree that something needs to be done to protect our ppl and their tax $$$$$$$$$$$$

But, alas, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” ~Milton Friedman

soulsurfer wrote:Our Prez sought authority from Congress to combine the Small Business Administration and five other small departments into a single one that would take the place of the Commerce Department. "No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operation," Said Obama. "You wouldn't do it when you're thinking about your businesses, so why is it O.K. for our government?"

The Republicans shot it down claiming a power grab.

I can go on and on and on quoting both sides of the isle, non-partisan committees on government waste, independent studies of the same and the obvious in-our-face instances of pork spending.
Each dept of the welfare system is included in this assessment and it gets ridiculous when we pool it together as a whole.
there are billions of dollars (sited by the GAO) in governmental waste, overlap and duplication.

We need to take a sound look and agree that something needs to be done to protect our ppl and their tax $$$$$$$$$$$$

But, alas, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” ~Milton Friedman

This really cuts to the heart of the problem.

One side has a good idea, the other side shoots it down because they didn't think of it first.

That sort of thing should get one fired.

madryan wrote:

soulsurfer wrote:Our Prez sought authority from Congress to combine the Small Business Administration and five other small departments into a single one that would take the place of the Commerce Department. "No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operation," Said Obama. "You wouldn't do it when you're thinking about your businesses, so why is it O.K. for our government?"

The Republicans shot it down claiming a power grab.

I can go on and on and on quoting both sides of the isle, non-partisan committees on government waste, independent studies of the same and the obvious in-our-face instances of pork spending.
Each dept of the welfare system is included in this assessment and it gets ridiculous when we pool it together as a whole.
there are billions of dollars (sited by the GAO) in governmental waste, overlap and duplication.

We need to take a sound look and agree that something needs to be done to protect our ppl and their tax $$$$$$$$$$$$

But, alas, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” ~Milton Friedman

This really cuts to the heart of the problem.

One side has a good idea, the other side shoots it down because they didn't think of it first.

That sort of thing should get one fired.

Anybody else think we need a viable third party ?

madryan wrote:

soulsurfer wrote:Our Prez sought authority from Congress to combine the Small Business Administration and five other small departments into a single one that would take the place of the Commerce Department. "No business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operation," Said Obama. "You wouldn't do it when you're thinking about your businesses, so why is it O.K. for our government?"

The Republicans shot it down claiming a power grab.

I can go on and on and on quoting both sides of the isle, non-partisan committees on government waste, independent studies of the same and the obvious in-our-face instances of pork spending.
Each dept of the welfare system is included in this assessment and it gets ridiculous when we pool it together as a whole.
there are billions of dollars (sited by the GAO) in governmental waste, overlap and duplication.

We need to take a sound look and agree that something needs to be done to protect our ppl and their tax $$$$$$$$$$$$

But, alas, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” ~Milton Friedman

This really cuts to the heart of the problem.

One side has a good idea, the other side shoots it down because they didn't think of it first.

That sort of thing should get one fired.

I know that issue is there, but I think it's much deeper than that. As long as they think that 'they' are the one with the answer, they will all be wrong and nothing will change.
It's like an AA meeting for politicians.
Political addict - "hello, my name is Bob and I'm a politician"
group in unison - "hi bob"
PA - "well, yesterday I was able to admit for the first time that I am powerless over my addiction for power and attention"
group - <applause> - "congratulations!" "well done!" "atta boy" "way to show humility" </applause>

DoubleBarrel wrote:Anybody else think we need a viable third party ?

I think a two party system works in theory. It's never been pretty. We either agree or disagree. Having more options to disagree with will only make it worse. Forcing everyone to either say yay or nay, up or down, left or right keeps it simple.



OK, maybe replacing both parties for two new ones will work for a while. maybe they can get something done in less than 8 years.