124 Reasons
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: hypoluxa3k
1. Cut the Veteran’s Administration budget by $25 billion as he began his war in Iraq.
2. Reneged on a promise to increase funding for education and failed to fund the so-called “No Child Left Behind” Act.
3. Promised $15 billion in AIDS funding for Africa in 2003 State of the Union Address then – oops – left it out of the budget submitted a few weeks later.
4. In May 2001, Bush gave $43 Million to the Taliban.
5. Repealed the Alternative Minimum Tax for corporations, which was enacted in 1987, and REFUNDED all taxes paid, by corporations under the AMT since its inception.
6. Won’t reveal who participated in Cheney’s energy policy meetings. [Enron, Enron and Enron???]
7. Opposed affirmative action at Michigan State in the Supreme Court case.
8. Charles Pickering, Pricilla Owens, Miguel Estrada. Packing the courts with extremists.
9. Appointed Elliott Abrams, who was convicted during Reagan administration in Iran-Contra, to the National Security Council.
10. Sealed documents from the Reagan and Bush administrations that would have revealed illegal dealings in Iran-Contra.
11. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
12. Cut $35 million in funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
13. Cut by 50% funding for research into renewable energy sources.
14. Revoked rules that reduced the acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water.
15. Blocked rules that would require federal agencies to offer bilingual assistance to non-English speaking persons. This, from a candidate who would readily fire-up his Spanish-speaking skills in front of would-be Hispanic voters.
16. Proposed to eliminate new marine protections for the Channel Islands and the coral reefs of northwest Hawaii (San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2001).
17. Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.
18. Suspended rules that would have strengthened the government's ability to deny contracts to companies that violated workplace safety, environmental and other federal laws.
19. OK'd Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.
20. Appointed John Negroponte - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure to the post of United Nations Ambassador.
21. Abandoned a campaign pledge to invest $100 million for rain forest conservation.
22. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
23. Rescinded a proposal to increase public access to information about the potential consequences resulting from chemical plant accidents.
24. Suspended rules that would require hard rock miners to clean up sites on Western public lands.
25. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America program for public housing.
26. Proposed to eliminate a federal program, designed and successfully used in Seattle, to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
27. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
28. Cut $200 million of work force training for dislocated workers.
29. Eliminated funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
30. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
31. Cut a program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees (though it still pays for Viagra).
32. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
33. Appointed Otto Reich - an un-indicted high-level Iran Contra figure - to Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs.
34. Cut Environmental Protection Agency budget by $500 million.
35. Proposed to curtail the ability of groups to sue in order to get an animal placed on the Endangered Species List.
36. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
37. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
38. Abandoned campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide, the waste gas that contributes to global warming.
39. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
40. Closed White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
41. Nominated David Lauriski - ex-mining company executive - to post of Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
42. OK'd Interior Secretary Gale Norton to go forth with a controversial plan to auction oil and gas development tracts off the coast of eastern Florida.
43. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
44. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments.
45. Gutted White House AIDS Office.
46. Renegotiating free trade agreement with Jordan to eliminate worker’s rights and safeguards for the environment.
47. Will no longer seek guidance from The American Bar Association in recommendations for the federal judiciary appointments.
48. Appointed recycling foe Lynn Scarlett as Undersecretary of the Interior.
49. Took steps to abolish the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
50. Cut the Community Oriented Policing Services program.
51. Allowed Interior Secretary Gale Norton to shelve citizen-led grizzly bear re-introduction plan scheduled for Idaho and Montana wilderness.
52. Continues to hold up federal funding for stem cell research projects.
53. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.
54. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
55. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
56. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut, of which 43% will go to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
57. Signed a bill making it harder for poor and middle-class Americans to file for bankruptcy, even in the case of daunting medical bills.
58. Appointed a Vice President quoted as saying "If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants." (Vice President %@!#$& Cheney on "Meet the Press.")
59. Appointed Diana "There is no gender gap in pay" Roth to the Council of Economic Advisers. (Boston Globe, March 28, 2001.)
60. Appointed Kay Cole James - an opponent of affirmative action - to direct the Office of Personnel Management.
61. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
62. Helped kill a law designed to make it tougher for teenagers to get credit cards.
63. Proposed elimination of the "Reading is Fundamental" program that gives free books to poor children.
64. Is pushing for development of small nuclear arm to attack deeply buried targets and weapons, which would violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
65. Proposes to nominate Jeffrey Sutton - attorney responsible for the recent case weakening the Americans with Disabilities Act - to federal appeals court judgeship.
66. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
67. Eliminated funding for the "We the People" education program, which taught School children about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and citizenship.
68. Appointed John Bolton - who opposes nonproliferation treaties and the U.N. - to Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
69. Nominated Linda Fisher - an executive with Monsanto - for the number-two job at the Environmental Protection Agency.
70. Nominated Michael McConnell - leading critic of the separation of church and state - to a federal judgeship.
71. Nominated Terrence Boyle - ardent opponent of civil rights - to a federal judgeship.
72. Canceled 2004 deadline for automakers to develop prototype high mileage cars.
73. Nominated Harvey Pitts - lawyer for teen sex video distributor - to head SEC.
74. Nominated John Walters - strong opponent of prison drug treatment programs - for Drug Czar. (Washington Post, May 16, 2001.)
75. Nominated J. Steven Giles - an oil and coal lobbyist - for Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
76. Nominated Bennett Raley - who advocates repealing the Endangered Species Act - for Assistant Secretary for Water and Science.
77. Is seeking the dismissal of class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. against Japan by Asian women forced to work as sex slaves during WWII.
78. Earmarked $4 million in new federal grant money for HIV and drug abuse prevention programs to go only to religious groups and not secular equivalents.
79. Reduced by 40% the Low Income Home Assistance Program for low-income individuals who need assistance paying energy bills.
80. Nominated Ted Olson - who has repeatedly lied about his involvement with the Scaiffe-funded "Arkansas Project" to bring down Bill Clinton - for Solicitor General.
81. Proposes to ease permit process - including environmental considerations - for refinery, nuclear and hydroelectric dam construction. (Washington Post, May 18, 2001.)
82. Proposes to give government the authority to take private property through eminent domain for power lines.
83. Proposes that $1.2 billion in funding for alternative renewable energy come from selling oil and gas lease tracts in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve.
84. Appoints Army Secretary Thomas White who is being investigated for selling Enron stock just before Enron posted losses. White was a former Enron executive who is alleged to have dumped his stock after being contacted by an Enron official.
85. Took 3 months of vacation of first 9 months in office as president.
86. Had absolutely no concern about terrorism before 9-11.
87. Many of his big campaign supporters are crooks who doctored their books in order to screw investors.
88. Wants to fulfill a personal vendetta against Hussein causing a huge and costly war with destabilization of the Middle East and Russia and china siding with the Arabs.
89. Wants to kill minimum wage and its enforcement so that people work at slave wages for his corporate supporters.
90. Wants to take away benefits from the elderly and children in order to compensate for giant tax cuts for super rich.
91. Gave the Taliban 38 million in may, 2001 so that they would allow pipelines for his buddies at Enron.
92. Wants to create the most polluted country on earth by eliminating anti-pollution laws so that his super rich factory owner supporters can get richer.
93. Exploiting 911 families to justify NMD/SDI. Nuclear deterrence is still working against China, Pakistan's Islamic dictatorship, and all 7 Rogue states. It worked in Gulf War 1 against Saddam; has worked since 1991 and will continue to work indefinitely just like N. Korea since 1953.
94. Pushed for USA Patriot Act.
95. Creation of Deptartment of Homeland Security. During Hitler's reign, Germany was protected by the HSA, the Reichshauptsicherheitamt, which roughly translates into "Main Office of Homeland Security."
96. Exploited 911 families' pain & suffering in order to justify naked aggression against Saddam's conventional and pathetic military forces even though they're still contained within Iraq. Gulf War2 = Pearl Harbor2 = Schlieffen Plan2 = Barbarossa2.
97. Bush tried to appoint Henry Kissinger as head of the September 11 commission.
98. Used Homeland Security Act to protect Eli Lilly from autism suits.
99. Gave $95 million to North Korea for nuclear program and waived the part of the agreement that required inspections to ensure no weapons grade plutonium had been hidden away.
100. Abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty while squandering billions in chasing the chimera of national missile defense.
101. Undermined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while expressing support for testing new nuclear weapons and refusing to rule out a nuclear first strike against non-nuclear nations.
102. Derailed negotiations to improve international inspection systems to monitor and prevent the production of biological and chemical weapons.
103. Repudiated an international scientific consensus and withdrawn from global efforts to curb global warming.
104. Renounced the U.S. signature on the treaty to create an International Criminal Court and campaigned aggressively to exempt all U.S. personnel from its jurisdiction, even threatening to veto UN peacekeeping operations if it does not get its way.
105. Dismissed the need for broad international cooperation in its war on terrorism, preferring to act alone or with selected allies.
106. Treated human rights as an obstacle to rather than an essential component of civic security at home and abroad.
107. Undermined the Oslo peace process, condoned the Israeli reoccupation of Palestinian territory, and rejected UN Security Council resolutions supported by previous administrations that provide a framework for conflict resolution containing strict security guarantees for both Israel and the Palestinians.
108. Slighted global efforts to mobilize an offensive against the spread of AIDS, instead privileging the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies over the need for affordable life-saving medicines.
109. Suspended U.S. support for the UN's family planning programs and balked at supporting the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
110. Continued to pursue a global economic agenda that is of, by, and for transnational corporations and blocked efforts to build international rules to enforce labor and consumer rights and environmental protections.
111. Bush team prevented thousands of eligible voters in Florida from voting. That is how the elections were stolen.
112. Bush deceives Americans about the terrorists’ motives to shield U.S. foreign policies from public scrutiny; his first concern is the special interests he serves.
113. Cynically and callously exploiting "terrorism," most of all with regard to the memory of those killed or injured in the September 11 attacks, as well as concern for their loved ones, as a means of (1) justifying his and his administration's attacks on the Constitution and on Americans' most basic rights and (2) diverting public attention from his absolute incompetence--and utter lack of concern--over the very real economic and financial terrorism being visited upon millions of middle-class, working-class, and poor Americans while padding the pockets of corporations and the rich!
114. Former President Clinton requested numerous meetings with George W following the election to discuss making terrorist activities a priority of the new administration. Finally a staff underling rudely gave Clinton a hearing. The information, which was for the President’s ears, only was never passed on.
115. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops.
116. Went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard for 18 months making him ineligible to be commander-in-chief.
117. Allowed looting to continue in Baghdad and around Iraq while guarding only the oil ministry.
118. Because over 5000 innocent civilians were murdered in Iraq and he said that counting them didn't matter.
119. Because art and antiquities were stolen from the Baghdad Museum by professional art thieves who allowed to operate and smuggle the objects out of the country for private collectors.
120. Because hospitals were looted in Iraq without the army being given any direction to protect them.
121. Because nuclear facilities were looted in Iraq without the army being given any direction to protect them.
122. Because schools were looted in Iraq without the army being given any direction to protect them.
123. Because antiquities were looted from the national library without the army being given any direction to protect them.
124. Because no weapons of mass destruction - the excuse for going to war - were found.
Posted by: 3rd gen noob
125. He is silly :P
did you copy/paste that or type it?
p.s. i agree with your views in part
Posted by: j2k4
Would I be over-stepping if I asked you to prove perhaps even 10% of your charges?
That would only be 12.4; a manageable number, I think.
Posted by: Lamsey
The most important charge is that the man is hopelessly out of his depth and therefore wholly unsuited to his current job.
In my opinion, that charge at least is irrefutable.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 06:21
The most important charge is that the man is hopelessly out of his depth and therefore wholly unsuited to his current job.
In my opinion, that charge at least is irrefutable.
You are entitled to your opinion, Liam, but I suspect for the reasoning behind the opinion you would probably refer to a list such as Hypoluxa's.
As a mod, how do you view a post such as this, which is a cut and paste, and which also precludes an equally comprehensive reply by virtue of it's....ah... comprehensiveness?
I haven't been able to find a "cut and paste" reply.
Posted by: Lamsey
Originally posted by j2k4+7 July 2003 - 12:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 7 July 2003 - 12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 06:21
The most important charge is that the man is hopelessly out of his depth and therefore wholly unsuited to his current job.
In my opinion, that charge at least is irrefutable.
You are entitled to your opinion, Liam, but I suspect for the reasoning behind the opinion you would probably refer to a list such as Hypoluxa's.
As a mod, how do you view a post such as this, which is a cut and paste, and which also precludes an equally comprehensive reply by virtue of it's....ah... comprehensiveness?
I haven't been able to find a "cut and paste" reply. [/b][/quote]
My reasoning is based on the fact that the man is way too thick to be the most powerful man in the world - that and the facts that he has no diplomatic sense and that I find his casual disregard for human life horrifying.
And who needs to cut-and-paste? You could come up with your own list :P
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 06:36
[And who needs to cut-and-paste? You could come up with your own list :P
A list of what, exactly?
Reasons Hypoluxa is wrong?
Reasons Dubya is great?
Such lists as Hypaluxa's are compiled by dissenters, not otherwise.
I'm not looking for a humorous reply to his post.
As you know, dissention and complaints are easy; the refutation is a bit more difficult.
You see, we are not in a court of law, here-guilt doesn't have to be proven-innocence doesn't accrue to the accused, and so here we see the equivalent of a drive-by shooting (with 124 rounds fired), undeterred, indeed joined, somewhat, by the mod on the scene.
Posted by: Lamsey
Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 13:09
You see, we are not in a court of law, here-guilt doesn't have to be proven-innocence doesn't accrue to the accused, and so here we see the equivalent of a drive-by shooting (with 124 rounds fired), undeterred, indeed joined, somewhat, by the mod on the scene.
I realise all this and I'd like to make the point that I'm not defending Mr. Spammer - I'm also fairly sure that more than a few of his points are not reflective of the whole truth.
You could, however, refute a few select points or come up with a few good things that Bush has done, just to show us the reasoning behind your argument.
I'd like to hear it - I am always willing to learn.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 07:15
You could, however, refute a few select points or come up with a few good things that Bush has done, just to show us the reasoning behind your argument.
I'd like to hear it - I am always willing to learn.
I am well aware of your essential and well-appreciated fairness, Lamsey, but really, just "refute a few select points"?
Out of 124 points, which ones?
Right or wrong, I'm not about to take on the entire "cut and paste" anti-Bush crowd by myself.
They have me on sheer numbers, if in no other way.
I really don't have that kind of time.
Posted by: Lamsey
Just refute the first few in the list, then say you could go on but won't, then ask them to check their facts before posting accusations.
That's what I'd do anyway...
Or you could refute mine; there's only a few of them...
Posted by: hypoluxa3k
hey, who 'cut and paste'-d?
not me...BTW, is this true:
"11. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million. "
that's bad. :lol: :lol: :lol:
suckers.
sorry.
bye.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@7 July 2003 - 09:22
hey, who 'cut and paste'-d?
not me...BTW, is this true:
"11. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million. "
that's bad. :lol: :lol: :lol:
suckers.
sorry.
bye.
Okay, lets start there-
Hypoluxa, libraries are great, essential and, well, downright beneficial to the lives of our citizens.
I stand in support of them unequivocally.
But you know what?
If I'm running the show, and you run a sloppy, irresponsible library program, I'm gonna whack you right where I'll get your attention; in your budget.
Now, since I'm pretty sure you've never been to a library in the U.S., and hence know absolutely nothing about the amenities provided therein, and, though you claim to know the amount of money cut from the national library budget, you haven't the slightest idea of what we do spend on libraries, your relevant knowledge is roughly zero.
Bottom line:
You, who are ignorant, have allowed a wee bit of knowledge to misle you.
Sucker.
P.S.
Liam-I will not so answer 123 more of his putrid morsels.
Posted by: TheDave
sorry these words are confusing but is j2k4 trying to sidestep around lamsey asking for one point in bush's favour?
if you cant do it j2k4 why do you support bush?
here, i think ive got a theory cos everytime someone not regular to the news room leaves a comment you immediatly put it down. if you want your own forum go get one and stop trying to control this one
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by TheDave@7 July 2003 - 10:45
sorry these words are confusing but is j2k4 trying to sidestep around lamsey asking for one point in bush's favour?
if you cant do it j2k4 why do you support bush?
here, i think ive got a theory cos everytime someone not regular to the news room leaves a comment you immediatly put it down. if you want your own forum go get one and stop trying to control this one
I'm not putting anybody down, Dave, but I have noticed a trend:
In the face of logic, the chronic complainers tend to scatter.
If you consider being corrected a put-down, then I have no help for you.
That is to say, don't come to a gunfight with only a knife, or, worse yet, an amorphous collection of cut-and-paste "facts".
If you are wrong, admit it; I shall do the same.
This in lieu of agreeing to disagree.
Oh, and just so I'm not side-stepping Liam:
I, j2k4, hereby firmly state my belief George Walker Bush is doing an excellent overall job on foreign policy, and I therefore support him.
What you think of it, I'm sure, is something else, but you know what?
The only thing you can rightly claim is to have an opposing opinion, as "facts" are so easily thrown around, yes?
So, you state your "facts", and I'll state mine-let the reader be the judge.
I will never call you a bad name as long as you state your opinion.
Posted by: TheDave
lol. you didnt even try and make something up you just said you support his foriegn policy without any reason for your arguement. at least we put reasons some maybe exagerated but they almost all have a truth
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by TheDave@7 July 2003 - 11:38
you didnt even try and make something up
And here are the key words in your post, Dave.
You are hoist on your own petard. ;)
Posted by: TheDave
oops i didnt realise how that sounded. what i meant was you didnt put even the smallest thing or a half-truth. ive learnt what im presuming is the lorrals, morals whatever as you; dont lie to prove a point cos itll look 1000 times worse than admitting your mistakes
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by TheDave@7 July 2003 - 11:50
oops i didnt realise how that sounded. what i meant was you didnt put even the smallest thing or a half-truth. ive learnt what im presuming is the lorrals, morals whatever as you; dont lie to prove a point cos itll look 1000 times worse than admitting your mistakes
I'll assume your post doesn't contain an accusation that I have lied.
Let's see-
I support George Bush's aid program to fight AIDS in Africa.
Will that suffice?
Posted by: TheDave
i didnt accuse you of lying.
and that comment made me realise you dont hear about that on the news :unsure:
ill have to look it up, but im still opposed to bush
Posted by: Lamsey
Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 17:55
I support George Bush's aid program to fight AIDS in Africa.
That's very good of him. He's spending $200 million, which is brilliant.
He's also expected to spend $250 million on his own re-election campaign...
Priorities?
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by TheDave@7 July 2003 - 11:59
ill have to look it up, but im still opposed to bush
Dave-
Let me perfectly clear-If you are against Bush, that is fine with me; I would NEVER berate or belittle you for that.
But-if you are going to do what Hypoluxa did (no debate, just something somebody put together which he found and then posted), I will call you, as I did him, on the cheapness of your tactical error; there are many here with opinions, but we are short on true debaters.
To truly relieve someone of their ignorance requires a bit of one's own thought. not just cutting and pasting what you "think" looks like a blunt instrument.
I want to see debate here; not name-calling and flaming (I have regretfully done a bit of this myself recently, with EBP), but nobody seems interested in real debate-it takes too much time, perhaps-I know I hate to go to work (which I must do in a bit) when a good thread is gonna take off while I'm gone, but I've had to develop a good bit of patience, too.
So-'til later, then.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 12:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 7 July 2003 - 12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 17:55
I support George Bush's aid program to fight AIDS in Africa.
That's very good of him. He's spending $200 million, which is brilliant.
He's also expected to spend $250 million on his own re-election campaign...
Priorities?[/b][/quote]
Lamsey-
The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya's re-election to the tune of $250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?
Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.
I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates' fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he's got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin' great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?
Posted by: Lamsey
Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 18:28
Lamsey-
The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya's re-election to the tune of $250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?
Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.
I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates' fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he's got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin' great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?
I'm certainly not suggesting that, although cropping off some of Bill Gates' wealth sound like a brilliant idea to this cash-strapped student ;)
I just think that for such a great country with such laudable ideals, America could do more to help out the rest of the world. $200 million isn't much, when you consider the scale of the African AIDS epidemic.
However, I am honestly uninformed as to how the US government handles its budget. Maybe $200 million is a lot for an aid donation - it just doesn't seem like much compared to GWB's campaign fund.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 12:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 7 July 2003 - 12:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@7 July 2003 - 18:28
Lamsey-
The figures are embarrassing at first blush, but the fact is, in the U.S., people own their money (which is why taxes are such a constant issue), and spend it as they please; if people want to support Dubya's re-election to the tune of $250 million, who are you, or I, or anybody to tell them otherwise?
Election laws dictate campaign contributions go for the campaign in whose name they are donated; simple as that.
I know this will fly like a lead balloon with you, but should Bill Gates' fortune be confiscated to fight the AIDS problem, just because he's got lots of cash? He is in the habit, at the moment, of spending "flippin' great wodges of cash" on any number of charitable causes; should his ability to choose which causes be usurped by the government?
I'm certainly not suggesting that, although cropping off some of Bill Gates' wealth sound like a brilliant idea to this cash-strapped student ;)
I just think that for such a great country with such laudable ideals, America could do more to help out the rest of the world. $200 million isn't much, when you consider the scale of the African AIDS epidemic.
However, I am honestly uninformed as to how the US government handles its budget. Maybe $200 million is a lot for an aid donation - it just doesn't seem like much compared to GWB's campaign fund.[/b][/quote]
Moral relativity is the sand in the gears, here.
This very point is what is responsible for all the political squabbling here in the U.S.; if the politicians (all of them; in both parties) didn't owe their livelihoods as politicians to the distribution of tax revenue (how much they drag back to their districts), things could be more easily accorded proper funding.
An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases).
The conservative side opposes this for the same reasons.
The irony is, if this issue were ever resolved, ALL of the politicians lose their raison d`etre, a fact which is not lost on them.
The fact is, there is enough money wasted in government bureaucracy to pay off our debt, provide free medical care and prescription drugs. etc., etc.,.... but the pols won't spend responsibly.
We are beset by incredible greed, and a system which accomodates and winks at this behavior.
THAT is the bottom line.
Posted by: Lamsey
So what you're saying is that the US suffers from being at the extreme end of Capitalism?
Could this perhaps explain the widespread dislike of the US in poorer countries, especially those with socialist or ocmmunist governments?
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 13:20
So what you're saying is that the US suffers from being at the extreme end of Capitalism?
Could this perhaps explain the widespread dislike of the US in poorer countries, especially those with socialist or ocmmunist governments?
Like this, though:
Yes we are at the extreme end of capitalism, but the system will perpetuate itself to the point of revolt-if this occurs, however, do not assume we will "loose our grip."
We will go on.
Socialist and communist governments should realize they can never get to where we are (power and influence-wise) by following those roads (1); and (2) the lesson therein is not "Evil Capitalism", but rather, Evil Politicians.
Thus endeth the lesson. ;) :D B)
Posted by: Rat Faced
Although a lot of those points are personal opinions in the original post (especially near the end)...Im sure that over 10% could be proven.
We all know about Kioto Agreement and the ICC for example as being true (so there is over 1.5% as a starter ;) )
There were also a number of "appointed" near the start...these could be checked relatively easily, and also Election Pledges that have been abandoned could easily be checked.
I think if he just "proves" these points...easily done i should think, our spammer has beaten j2k4's challenge.
Go for it.... ;)
Posted by: kAb
more than half of those are BS :rolleyes:
damn liberals.
Posted by: Rat Faced
The challenge was to Prove 10% ;)
Posted by: kAb
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 11:40
The challenge was to Prove 10% ;)
ah ic now, well i would very much like to see 10% proved, however i believe it would be impossible :)
Posted by: Rat Faced
Oh i dont know...thats only 13 points out of the 124.
I accepted 2 without reservation, or need to look anything up.
There are a lot of "appointed"...easily proven/disproven.
Lot of "Budget" points...again, easily proven/disproven.
j2k4 accepts the Library cut, however hasnt justified it with a citing what this is in %...Inflation here is running at about 2%, so a freeze is a "cut" in real terms. 2-3% cut can be called "efficiancy savings", any more and its a cut..pure and simple.
Efficiancy can only come through year on year cuts...not a big one off ;)
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 13:55
Oh i dont know...thats only 13 points out of the 124.
I accepted 2 without reservation, or need to look anything up.
There are a lot of "appointed"...easily proven/disproven.
Lot of "Budget" points...again, easily proven/disproven.
j2k4 accepts the Library cut, however hasnt justified it with a citing what this is in %...Inflation here is running at about 2%, so a freeze is a "cut" in real terms. 2-3% cut can be called "efficiancy savings", any more and its a cut..pure and simple.
Efficiancy can only come through year on year cuts...not a big one off ;)
Rat,
The problem with this list is that I'm positive that it's being taken at absolute face value.
The budget reductions are a good case in point( as j2 as already pointed out).
Just saying that the budget for libraries has been cut by x million dollars doesn't really give much of a picture of the real world impact of that cut. Maybe it ends a program to distribute free Harry Potter books to the children of San Diego. I don't know and neither do you.
Several of the appointees were described as "unindicted co-conspirators". Well "unindicted" means "not charged" which equals "not guilty of anything provable", doesn't it? In the context of this list, "unindicted" is used to imply guilt, but in another thread the US is being castigated for the way it's treating "unindicted"( read: innocent until proven guilty) foreign nationals. Seems a bit of a double standard.
Also, when it comes to US legislation, you must be very careful to read way deeper than the title of the proposal. "The Clean Air Act" could very easily have been drafted by the reps for the lead mining industry and not be at all beneficial to clean air as we know it. Are you familiar with the actual intent of any of the bills that Bush is blamed for killing?
Me neither.
I have no doubt that some of the 124 points are true and fairly represented.
I also have no doubt that some are sheer nonsense.
Why then, would a sincere and honest critic allow his position to be weakened by the inclusion of so many easily provable half-truths?
Posted by: DarkBlizzard
Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 06:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 7 July 2003 - 06:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 12:32
<!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey@7 July 2003 - 06:21
The most important charge is that the man is hopelessly out of his depth and therefore wholly unsuited to his current job.
In my opinion, that charge at least is irrefutable.
You are entitled to your opinion, Liam, but I suspect for the reasoning behind the opinion you would probably refer to a list such as Hypoluxa's.
As a mod, how do you view a post such as this, which is a cut and paste, and which also precludes an equally comprehensive reply by virtue of it's....ah... comprehensiveness?
I haven't been able to find a "cut and paste" reply.
My reasoning is based on the fact that the man is way too thick to be the most powerful man in the world - that and the facts that he has no diplomatic sense and that I find his casual disregard for human life horrifying.
And who needs to cut-and-paste? You could come up with your own list :P [/b][/quote]
If Bush has no diplomatic sense then Iran, Palistine, North Korea, and a few other countries would have US Soldiers attacking them and Bombs dropping every day over there capitals.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 14:40
The challenge was to Prove 10% ;)
Rat-
As re: the Kyoto Agreement:
Clinton signed it in 1997, but somehow was in no rush, nor made any real attempt to get our Senate to ratify it (they would not have done this, anyway), which would have been necessary for it's strictures to be put into effect-Bush thought the agreement unfair to U.S. industry, and so withdrew from it.
Have you noticed Japan has done the same?
As to the rest of Hypoluxa's list, many of his "reasons" are of a nature which could only be defined as having a partisan flavor, and, as such, are no more than complaints such as you might have had against, say, Mrs. Thatcher; i.e., "Mrs. Thatcher hasn't got a heart", could be answered by merely saying, "What of it?"
So, as my challenge of 10% is rather easily met, it is likewise rather easily dismissed.
Posted by: Lamsey
Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@8 July 2003 - 02:14
If Bush has no diplomatic sense then Iran, Palistine, North Korea, and a few other countries would have US Soldiers attacking them and Bombs dropping every day over there capitals.
Why? There is no obvious benefit to the US from attacking these countries, whereas the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought purely to defend American interests.
Let me give you one example of Bush's lack of diplomatic sense:
It is best, when having your picture taken shaking hands with someone else, not to shake hands across your body. The body language implies weakness, whereas the man with his arm out to the side depicts a more open, stronger image.
GWB was clearly told this ahead of a recent meeting with Arial Sharon in Israel. When he was standing next to Mr. Sharon for a photo call, Mr. Sharon offered his hand for a handshake. However, it would have required President Bush to shake hands across his own body (the "weak" body-language image).
So what did GWB do? He looked blankly at Mr. Sharon's hand, walked around to the other side of the man, and then offered his own hand (this time in the open, "strong" body position).
A great way to build up diplomatic relations, don't you think?
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 04:11
It is best, when having your picture taken shaking hands with someone else, not to shake hands across your body. The body language implies weakness, whereas the man with his arm out to the side depicts a more open, stronger image.
GWB was clearly told this ahead of a recent meeting with Arial Sharon in Israel. When he was standing next to Mr. Sharon for a photo call, Mr. Sharon offered his hand for a handshake. However, it would have required President Bush to shake hands across his own body (the "weak" body-language image).
So what did GWB do? He looked blankly at Mr. Sharon's hand, walked around to the other side of the man, and then offered his own hand (this time in the open, "strong" body position).
A great way to build up diplomatic relations, don't you think?
Definitely indicative of the degree to which he is "out of his depth."
A competent head of state would have been standing in the right place to begin with. :lol:
For a rich guy, he sure is "common."
We over here do so dearly wish he had less "Texas swagger" and more of that "Aristocratic Arkansas polish."*
*Gratuitous swipe at the Clinton administration
Boy, if you guys think I'm insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president. ;)
Posted by: Lamsey
http://www.10-7.com/humor/photopages/clinton%20sex%20offender.jpg
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 07:17
http://www.10-7.com/humor/photopages/clinton%20sex%20offender.jpg
Which, Arkansas or Clinton?
"Both" would be accurate.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by j2k4@8 July 2003 - 06:02
Boy, if you guys think I'm insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president. ;)
I should imagine that the election of a liberal President would render you mute with apoplexy ( at least for a while). :P
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by clocker+8 July 2003 - 08:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 8 July 2003 - 08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@8 July 2003 - 06:02
Boy, if you guys think I'm insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president. ;)
I should imagine that the election of a liberal President would render you mute with apoplexy ( at least for a while). :P [/b][/quote]
Good morning, clocker-
I spent eight years being apoplectic; plenty of time to get over the aspect of "muteness".
Although I would abhor another liberal presidency (Hillary looms large in '08), I am perpetually primed for the occasion. :D
Posted by: 4th gen
BUMP
is this a worthwhile post from hypoluxa? :rolleyes:
:)
(read the first (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=50364) post in the topic)
Posted by: 1234
An example: Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases).
My govt has a national health service and it is closer to the truth to say that it's biggest single expense (barring wages maybe) is paying money to those drug companies you say would suffer.
The UK also have a very vibrant medical research field, funded both by the state and private industry.
Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?
Posted by: vidcc
Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 11:15
Would I be over-stepping if I asked you to prove perhaps even 10% of your charges?
That would only be 12.4; a manageable number, I think.
these are all public record.that said i did give up reading after a while....we could probably compile a similar list about most political leaders...just happens GW is in power now and he is a hot topic, especially in an election year.
as to the context of each individual point well they are open to retort
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by 1234@11 January 2004 - 10:13
Care to prove your claim that 85% of the costs are "bureaucracy"?
I would prefer you prove that it is not.
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
Or have you solved that problem already?
Posted by: vidcc
Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 18:13
[
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
:lol: appoint a quango to look into it :lol:
Posted by: j2k4
:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:
Whatzit?
Posted by: Biggles
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 15:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
Figures.
I don't know how that one could possibly have slipped by me. <_<
Pretty sorry for a conservative, eh?
:)
Posted by: Biggles
When one is distracted by DIY (destroy it yourself?) these things take second place.
Posted by: 1234
I would prefer you prove that it is not
Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.
Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.
You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.
So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
The Audit Commission.
Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.
You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know ;)
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by 1234@12 January 2004 - 16:16
I would prefer you prove that it is not
Eh? You make a spurious claim and the onus is on me to disprove it? Sorry but the way this works is that you have to prove your claims.
Example - The planets orbiting our nearest neighbour stars are made of green cheese. Prove me wrong otherwise I am right.
You can't, as the data is not available since we can only track these planets by gravitational distortions not direct observations. Does that mean they are made of green cheese just because I said so? Nope, I'd have to prove it.
So please prove your claim otherwise it is uninformed opinion and nothing more.
Do you claim to have all relevant knowledge of the costs of a typical U.S. government bureaucracy?
Nope, so why are you claiming to have knowledge of how the NHS is financed?
85% is a figure entirely typical of ALL entitlement bureaucracies administered by the U.S. government; I would imagine actual individual (by department) figures swing +/- 4-5%.
The US is one of the fiscally corrupt western nations (cf Enron, Worldcom etc and their links to the Bush administration. Halliburton overcharging on Iraq contracts etc) where contracts are given to old friends and financial backers of the imcumbant administration. However, I still want to see you prove this claim too. Lets say social security in the US has a budget of 100 billion (just to keep figures simple), are you saying 85 billion is administration costs and only 15 billion is spent on benefits? If the UK operated at those levels the Audit Commission would have apoplexy. So, prove this claim too if you would be so kind.
It is for this particular reason that I am against most entitlements.
From your previous posts I am guessing the real reason is that you don't like paying taxes to pay for them. As Thatcher said once, "No such thing as society" could apply to you maybe?
Perhaps you could enlighten me; how does the U.K. cope with bureaucracies and their inherent costs?
The Audit Commission.
Anyway, lets not stray from the point here. Prove your claim that 85% of the NHS's budget is spent on bureaucracy. Hell, lets make it 80% so we fit into your +/- 5%.
You see you have made a simple mistake, so I will help you out a little. You are lumping in service providers with regulatory bodies and statutory functions. There is a difference you know ;)
You are once again mistaken.
I never claimed to have any knowledge of your National Health service other than the fact of your having one.
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.
You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?
I suggest you get a life.
One more thing:
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration.
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you.
Posted by: BabyGeniuses
Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.pitt.edu/~jdarling/My_Fathers_War_and_Me.pdf&e=7764)
It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@13 January 2004 - 02:05
Herez #1 proved:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=h...d_Me.pdf&e=7764 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=6&q=http://www.pitt.edu/~jdarling/My_Fathers_War_and_Me.pdf&e=7764)
It talks about some old dude and his son and how this old dude is a vet of some war and how the government cut 25 billion in vet pay or something.
Good for you!
Now, the other 123.....? :D
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by Biggles@12 January 2004 - 19:35
A quasi autonomous government organisation. Strangely, a Maggie Thatcher invention if I recall correctly.
I hate to correct Biggles and I dare say it was just a slip of the digit but a Quango is a Quasi autonomous nongovernmental organisation.
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 21:47
That fact alone is why I asked that you, oh, great and wondrous 1234, disprove it.
You are so eager to take me on that you dig threads out of the dustbin?
I suggest you get a life.
you might wanna put your glasses on and look again, to see who disturbed the hallowed burial ground of old threads. wasn't 1234, i'm afraid. :lol:
Posted by: 1234
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.
I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.
Understand?
Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all :) Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.
So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration
Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you
But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.
Posted by: j2k4
QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
You try and link nationalised health care to no money for research and no breakthroughs, coupled with 85% bureaucratic costs.
Once again, not accurate.
My point is that a National Health Care system in the U.S. would, as a matter of habit and practice, be afflicted with a bureaucracy similar to those extant.
From there, it would only be prudent to forecast a similar cost for same.
I would ask you to provide us with the details of how the U.K. handles the bureaucratic problems inherent in this situation; indeed, what it spends on it's NHS, and what percentage of same goes to the attending bureaucracy?
Can you not answer this simple question?
I am showing you that this is not the case, using the NHS and UK medical research as an example.
For you to be, as you say, "showing me" you would have to provide details you have not so far.
As a result, you are telling me; you are showing me nothing.
Understand?
Sorry, no.
Now if you want to just say that the US is incapable of doing it thats fine, but many countries do manage it. So it would seem nationalisation is not the problem, wonder what the problem could be?
I have no problem saying the U.S. is incapable of "doing it".
I sincerely wish that were not the case, but as you mistakenly believe me to be afflicted with terminal jingoism, you have overlooked the possibility that I could be dissatisfied with my own government.
But I digress.
QUOTE
Were you aware that Halliburton was re-retained in Iraq at the behest of the Clinton administration? This predated Dick Cheney's tenure there, I believe.
At what point? I seem to recall there being sanctions in place during Clintons tenure so Haliburton shouldn't have been there at all Halliburton also paid large sums to the democrats (along with Enron, Worldcom, etc) to grease the wheels when Clinton was in.
QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
A hero of mine? He is a good time guy from Alabama who managed to charm his way all the way to the White House. Infinitly preferable to Bush, but definitly not a hero of mine. Many US conservatives tend to forget that to most countries both your parties are right wing.
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
BTW-I wouldn't even mention it if it was someone else, but Clinton was from Arkansas (as shown graphically, and repeatedly, elsewhere in this very thread), not Alabama.
So please, recount away. Tales of sanction busting are always welcome.
No, I promised you I wouldn't do that.
QUOTE
If you look, you will also find Clinton's links with Enron, Worldcom, et. al., to be even more comprehensive than with the current administration
Heh, more comphrehensive? Bush's admin is full of ex oil. I'd list some, but it would probably be easier to list the ones that don't have a connection. However we can both agree though that whatever US party is in office they like a nice backhander. That is what you are saying isn't it?
Are you trying to co-opt my words? Shame on you.
QUOTE
I'd also leave the "green cheese" alone, too, were I you
But your green cheese is still out there. Prove that social security payments (I believe you call that welfare) to individuals are 15% of the total welfare budget, with the other 85% being bureaucracy. That's in the US btw, like I asked earlier.
No, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.
3RA1N1AC-
1234 (or !@#$, as I refer to him in private) used as entree here a post of mine from July, I think, no matter who bumped the thread.
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :)
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 08:08
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :) [/color][/i]
how could i not have inferred that your accusation toward 1234 carried a hostility that stands regardless of the mislaid blame for the aforementioned bumpage? well, at least you've more than filled my daily quota for instruction in nuance... i'll have to balance that out by viewing videos of people being kicked in the groin. :lol:
Posted by: vidcc
i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing :lol:
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by vidcc@13 January 2004 - 14:13
i wonder if j2 ever suffers from repeatative strain syndrom with all that typing :lol:
No.
I have to work quickly, however, due to a condition brought on by eyestrain.
I take frequent breaks, often between words.
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+13 January 2004 - 13:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 13 January 2004 - 13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 08:08
Sorry if my quibble was too nuanced for you to digest. :) [/color][/i]
how could i not have inferred that your accusation toward 1234 carried a hostility that stands regardless of the mislaid blame for the aforementioned bumpage? well, at least you've more than filled my daily quota for instruction in nuance... i'll have to balance that out by viewing videos of people being kicked in the groin. :lol:[/b][/quote]
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
You, on the other hand...... :)
Feel free to call me when next you run low on nuance.
I can address the problem and you'll never even notice. ;)
Posted by: vidcc
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:41
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
so you do just copy an paste :lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by vidcc+13 January 2004 - 14:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 13 January 2004 - 14:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:41
Besides, I certainly don't type as much as you or the others do.
:)
so you do just copy an paste :lol: :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
No.
Very rarely, actually, as I have found that it usually causes me more problems than I need.
After months and months of no C&P, I do it twice in succession, and what do I get for my trouble?
1234 and lefty.
What a deal, huh? ;)
I think I shall stick to my own guns, thank you.
Posted by: Busyman
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
What do you mean?
Who "are" they?
Posted by: vidcc
Originally posted by Busyman+13 January 2004 - 20:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 13 January 2004 - 20:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
What do you mean?
Who "are" they? [/b][/quote]
1234 is the sponser of sesame street :lol: a name that helps kids to count
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 10:47
my animus left me.
you should have that checked out by a latin physician.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by Busyman+13 January 2004 - 16:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 13 January 2004 - 16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 19:47
Wrong again.
I harbor no ill-will toward 1234, or leftism, for that matter.
Once I realized who they were, my animus left me.
What do you mean?
Who "are" they? [/b][/quote]
"They" are veterans of the board who have chosen the cloak of new identities.
They come around once in a while; reminiscent of the 17-year locusts-I'm sure you are familiar with them, being in D.C.? ;)
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+13 January 2004 - 20:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 13 January 2004 - 20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@13 January 2004 - 10:47
my animus left me.
you should have that checked out by a latin physician. [/b][/quote]
Yes, I could-
But I will not.
I like the feeling of peace. :)
Posted by: 1234
Once again, not accurate.
What is not accurate? You state that nationalisation brings about the stated ill effects. I am showing you that you are talking rubbish, with a real life example in the UK NHS. Just retract your statements before you sound even more uninformed than you actually appear to be.
My point is that a National Health Care system in the U.S. would, as a matter of habit and practice, be afflicted with a bureaucracy similar to those extant.
So you are retracting the other statements you made and just focusing on the 85% figure now? Ok, fine with me.
Please show us (and this is the third or fourth time I have asked) proof of this 85% figure in service providers within the US. Note, service providers such as welfare and health.
I would ask you to provide us with the details of how the U.K. handles the bureaucratic problems inherent in this situation; indeed, what it spends on it's NHS, and what percentage of same goes to the attending bureaucracy?
Here (http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicfinances/story/0,12671,847924,00.html) is a link with details of the NHS budget. Links from this page will take you to more detail than you could ever want if that page is not enough.
It states - Most of the £53.4bn pot for England goes on revenue expenditure, covering day to day running costs such as staff pay and drugs. The remainder is allocated to capital expenditure, used to purchase new equipment and buildings. Around 75% of the revenue funding is channelled to primary care trusts, which in addition to overseeing GP activities are responsible for commissioning hospital services.
Can you not answer this simple question?
That was never the point, it was about you proving what you had claimed - and have still yet to prove. But as a courtesy, there you go - my case is proven. Can yours be sometime?
For you to be, as you say, "showing me" you would have to provide details you have not so far.
As a result, you are telling me; you are showing me nothing.
Once again, you made the initial claim with no evidence (and have yet to present any) and yet you berate me for not giving figures? I was waiting on you to provide even a single piece of evidence before presenting mine, to avoid dignifying your claims with more work than they merited. However, I have provided the evidence now so eagerly await you to do the same.
I have no problem saying the U.S. is incapable of "doing it".
I sincerely wish that were not the case, but as you mistakenly believe me to be afflicted with terminal jingoism, you have overlooked the possibility that I could be dissatisfied with my own government.
Ah I see, you are one of those apathetic people who (as long as they are comfortable) don't really care about their fellow citizens or their welfare. Why are you not incredibly angry about the millions of people in your country who are dying and living in pain due to your lack of a national health care system? Other nations similar to the US can do it fine, yet you are happy to sit back and say "Oh well".
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
Left of everyone? If you mean left of the US Democrat's yep. Tony Blair's party is left of the US Democrats too, as are most of Europe's govts. Are you calling all of us the looney left and Comrade Citizen? Your parochialism is humourous.
BTW-I wouldn't even mention it if it was someone else, but Clinton was from Arkansas (as shown graphically, and repeatedly, elsewhere in this very thread), not Alabama.
Sorry I should have guessed you would not understand references to things such as the Good Ol' Boys or the Blind Boys of Alabama. My apologies ;)
No, I promised you I wouldn't do that.
Because there is no evidence to support your claim? Oh well, you can't win 'em all. Or even one in your case.
Are you trying to co-opt my words? Shame on you.
Just asking you a question. Most of your posts are full of questions for me rather than actual points, but I can't ask a question?
No, I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it.
Finally, you admit that you pulled those numbers out of your *** and have no way of proving them. Why didn't you do that pages ago? Would have saved much embarrassment on your part.
1234 (or !@#$, as I refer to him in private) used as entree here a post of mine from July, I think, no matter who bumped the thread.
The thread was listed 2nd or 3rd on the board so I opened it and read it. Didn't even notice the dates till a few hours later. Don't blame me for necro posting this one, I just replied to it's content.
1234 is the sponser of sesame street a name that helps kids to count
I try to be helpful :)
Though actually it was due to the band I was listening to at the time I needed to ask a quick question on the tech boards. Bonus points available to who knows who that band could have been.
"They" are veterans of the board who have chosen the cloak of new identities.
Nope, I have only ever posted under this name on this board. Check my registered date for this name - are you saying I planned almost a year ago to tackle your ignorance now? Please, leave your delusions of importance at the door. I neither know nor care about you. You just happen to be the person posting unsubstantiated drivel on the board when I am in a posting mood. I reply to the Theresa fanboy the same way I reply to you.
Posted by: j2k4
Delusions of importance?
Nah.
I am your humble servant.
Why do your take offense at my notice of your proud claim of being "left" of any American political party?
It would seem you believe you alone enjoy the sunshine of true enlightenment; I have a different opinion.
You, by virtue of your remarks, denigrate the U.S. and it's political system, then claim immunity from anyone who would question your motivation.
I haven't made remark one about the political systems of any European country.
You, on the other hand, can't make enough about mine, or the U.S.
You suffer the intolerance and tyranny of your extremism, and attempt to visit same on others who disagree with you, and you seem to have fixated on me.
While I am flattered by your obsessive behavior, I would not anticipate a dinner invitation.
BTW-Please attend to your ignorance as to correct use of the "QUOTE" function.
You have no excuse for this, as everyone here has the same one, and your pretension precludes your reliance on the sham of it "not working".
:)
Posted by: leftism
Originally posted by 1234
Please show us (and this is the third or fourth time I have asked) proof of this 85% figure in service providers within the US. Note, service providers such as welfare and health.
For the fifth time j2k4 refuses to answer a simple question about his own argument and resorts to insults. I've witnessed exactly the same thing in the thread about global warming.
I suspect j2k4 wants a soapbox for his "the left are trying to destroy civilization" conspiracy theory. He has made it quite clear that he has no interest in any kind of debate.
Unless of course you define debate as "assert your position, refuse to defend it and spit out insults at anyone who is persistent enough to ask questions more than once".
Posted by: j2k4
Pray, lefty-
Where are these "insults"? :huh:
Posted by: alpha
:frusty:
Posted by: leftism
Originally posted by j2k4
Where are these "insults"?
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?
Your blatant double standards beggar belief.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by leftism+14 January 2004 - 12:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 14 January 2004 - 12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Where are these "insults"?
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?
Your blatant double standards beggar belief. [/b][/quote]
As do yours, sir. ;)
How do you like it?
Alpha-
Thank you-I feel the same way. ;)
Posted by: 1234
Why do your take offense at my notice of your proud claim of being "left" of any American political party?
That was not your statement. This is what you actually said -
So you are left of everyone, huh? That's too bad.
I am not left of everyone, however I am left of most US parties. Sorry, but the US does not qualify as "everyone".
It would seem you believe you alone enjoy the sunshine of true enlightenment
Where did I say that? I present things for debate and debate other people's posts.
I have a different opinion.
Opinion appears to be all you have, unnsupported by facts.
You, by virtue of your remarks, denigrate the U.S. and it's political system, then claim immunity from anyone who would question your motivation.
But you are the one who pointed out the Democrats took backhanders from Enron etc, not me. So you are quite happy to point the finger at US politics too.
However I am not against the US, I am against the elite in the US that harm both US citizens and the wider world. Now if you cannot distinguish between criticism of political process and racism/nationalism (which if I attacked the US as a people for no reason I would be guilty of) that is not my problem but yours. Bush is not America, neither was Clinton.
Also, what immunity? From random insults like the ones you post? Now quite sure I follow you there.
I haven't made remark one about the political systems of any European country.
Feel free if you want, I look forward to hearing how erroneous your views are there too. However, this thread is about George Bush so it's hardly surprising that it's mostly about US politics is it?
You, on the other hand, can't make enough about mine, or the U.S.
The thread is about US politics you goof :) As for your views, I can only comment on what you post. Stop posting baseless drivel and I will stop pointing that drivel out.
You suffer the intolerance and tyranny of your extremism, and attempt to visit same on others who disagree with you, and you seem to have fixated on me.
What intolerance and tyranny? Care to provide examples? Or is this just one more baseless accusation from you, to add to the many. As for you, I have already said that I would attempt to expose the fallacies of anyone who posts as much baseless drivel as you (cf the guy defending Theresa). I can't help it if you post most of the crap here :P Stop thinking you are a special case, you are not.
While I am flattered by your obsessive behavior, I would not anticipate a dinner invitation.
Ah, back to the juvenile insults - with a gay undertone too! Ok, maybe you are a special case. But only as in special ed maybe.
BTW-Please attend to your ignorance as to correct use of the "QUOTE" function.
You have no excuse for this, as everyone here has the same one, and your pretension precludes your reliance on the sham of it "not working".
Hmm you mean like you do? Typing Quote, followed by the quote in question? Or by using the tags? Oh dear you must be pretty desperate if you are attempting to use a board bug to belittle people now. I use code quotes whenever the board lets me, as do you. That is shown by when you don't use tags and just type Quote.
Want me to post some examples?
QUOTE
My figure of 85% expenditure applies to U.S. entitlements.
QUOTE
Medical Care is the eternal political football; the libs (if they had their way) would nationalize it, effectively dulling the "cutting edge" of medical research (no competition=no profit opportunity=no money for research=no breakthroughs) and we'd have to also pay the exhorbitant costs of the attendent bureaucracy (bureaucratic costs approach 85% of revenue income in some cases)
QUOTE
As Clinton is doubtless (for you) a heroic figure, I shall refrain from a comprehensive recounting of this fact.
These are from this thread. Are you hoping no one would notice or something?
You sad little man heh. Every attempt at trying to be superior is shot down by your own inadequacies. First we had the laughs that were "estopped" and now quote tags.
Can you give me one good reason why anyone should answer your questions when you refuse to answer their questions about your position on a topic 5 times?
Leftism, but I did answer him and provided links. He doesn't because he knows his first statement was fictitous and was hoping not to be pulled on it.
As do yours, sir.
How do you like it?
As I just said, I provided answers and links supporting those answers. So your are incorrect saying neither side presents data or evidence. Just you mate, just you.
Posted by: leftism
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As do yours, sir.
How do you like it?[/b]
Translation:
Originally posted by j2k4@
No I cant think of any good reason why anyone should answer my questions when I refuse to answer their's 5 times. I will however dig myself a deeper hole and ask another one.
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Alpha-
Thank you-I feel the same way.[/quote]
After 5 attempts to get you to answer a simple question just think how 1234 feels :lol:
:frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:
Posted by: clocker
J2,
I have been ghosting along with this thread since it's inception and must admit that your assertion that 85% of SS assets is devoted to administration fees seems, well, very high.
Finally I decided to google a bit and found this link (http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-15es.html), a study devoted to exploring the potential costs of Bush's proposal to privatize SS.
They come up with a figure of between 1.1 and 1.8% for administration costs, which they admit is actually higher than current costs.
Even applying a generous fudge factor to the statistics, it doesn't begin to approach your figure of 85%.
What am I missing here?
Posted by: 1234
Damn Clocker, I was saving those figures till he actually attempted to prove his case!
Ah well, they are out now :lol:
So j2k4, what is you response? We appear to have an 83% differential here, what's going on?
The board awaits with baited breath.
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by 1234@14 January 2004 - 13:09
The board awaits with baited breath.
"Baited breath?"
I suggest you stop eating raw fish.
I believe you mean 'bated breath.
Very well.
I shall conduct an archival expedition in search of the correct figures.
I must off to work shortly, so I beg a bit of time to complete the appointed task.
I will say, for now, that the figure I quoted did not spring from a google or other web search, so this may take some time.
Edit:
Also-
If you can fight your way into those figures, I suspect you will find the 1.1%-1.8%
figures probably apply to the actual costs of distribution of money; i.e., postage to mail the checks.
Posted by: 1234
"Baited breath?"
I suggest you stop eating raw fish.
I believe you mean 'bated breath.
Well if we are going to get pedantic about spelling and such on a 'net message board, shall I go through your posts and point out incorrect spellings and grammatical errors? I am quite happy to admit to misspelling in my posts (see Gandhi/Ghandi in another thread) as I am often replying on one machine while working on another.
Well if you want - bated not 'bated. The missing "a" does not need the apostrophe. Hoist on your own petard again!
Just let me know if you would rather critique spelling than debate actual issues, I have noticed plenty of material in your posts :P
It is definitly a pattern with you though (as Leftism has pointed out). Make random false claims, then attack anyone who questions you with whatever insult/pointless attack you can find.
I will say, for now, that the figure I quoted did not spring from a google or other web search, so this may take some time
We know where it sprang from ...
If you can fight your way into those figures, I suspect you will find the 1.1%-1.8% figures probably apply to the actual costs of distribution of money; i.e., postage to mail the checks
Heh, desperate. From the article -
The cost of administering existing retirement savings programs indicates that administrative and money management expenses for a system of individual accounts could amount to anywhere from roughly 1.17 percent to 1.83 percent of assets, or roughly $35-$55 per worker for the first year
Admin and money management, not postal. You are clutching at straws. Fun to watch, but tragic really.
Posted by: j2k4
Finding some interesting things already, though not the hard figure I quoted.
Of course, I 've only been looking for about five minutes.
Scan this, if you would; a little perspective helps.
The Bureaucratic Incubus
Clarence B. Carson
The bureaucracy is like the weather: everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. Presidents often complain upon taking office that the bureaucracy is so deeply entrenched that they can gain only a tenuous control over the government. Congressmen find that wrestling with bureaucrats for their constituents occupies a considerable portion of their time. Businessmen have to learn to thread their way through a maze of bureaus in order to do business. "Bureaucrat" is an epithet to the general public: he requires a seemingly endless stream of paperwork - "red tape" - is by turn evasive, interminably slow, haughty, arbitrary, autocratic, and is surely an "oppressive hindrance to favorable action." Yet the Federal tribe of bureaucrats increases geometrically, joined by their state and local counterparts.
There is an amazing array and variety of Federal bureaus. They range from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training to Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to Center for Disease Control. Just how many such bureaus there are is well-nigh impossible to determine. One reason for this is the variety of names by which they are called: commissions, boards, bureaus, offices, divisions, centers, agencies, administrations, departments, and so on. For example, the Department of Commerce has Domestic and International Business Administration, Bureau of Census, Economic Development Administration, Planning Division, Technical Assistance Division, Public Works Division, Business Development Division, Technical Support Division, Equal Opportunity Division, Economic Development Representative, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Audits, and National Weather Service Forecast Office. How many of these would be called bureaus is a matter of classification.
States have their own panoply of institutes, commissions, boards, services, offices, divisions, and so on. For example, the Secretary of State of Georgia oversees such bureaus and agencies as: Administrative Procedure Division, Archives and History Department, Bank and Credit Union Charters, Corporations Division, Professional Examining Boards (Board of Accountancy, Board of Architects Qualifications and Registration of, Board of Dental Examiners and Hygienists, State Board of Examiners of Plumbing Contractors, Real Estate Commission, and so forth), State Board of Registration for Used Motor Vehicle Parts Dealers-Motor Vehicle Dismantlers-Motor Vehicle Rebuilders, among many, many others.
Activities and Rules
Of the myriad activities of these numerous bureaus there is no end. In a recent column on Federal grants, James J. Kilpatrick noted that there are now some 975 assistance programs administered by 52 agencies costing more than fifty billion dollars annually. His description of some of their activities deserves to be quoted:
Each of the 975 assistance programs, it perhaps goes without saying, has its own rules, regulations, application forms, and miscellaneous requirements. These periodically are promulgated, revised, amended, adopted, further amended, withdrawn, codified, and readvertised in the Federal Register, a paper printed daily in the city of Washington in type designed to put your eyes out. The Register, which includes a vast deal of other stuff, last year ran to 35,000 pages.
On the matter of bureaucratic rulemaking, Representative Elliott H. Levitas of Georgia had these observations, among others, to make in support of a bill he was introducing to Congress:
Time and time again, the principles embodied in good legislation are lost by the time the unelected bureaucratic rulemakers publish their regulations. The rules, which really are laws, are now being ground out at the rate of almost 6,000 per year as compared to about 600 acts of Congress, in the same period.
It is absolutely essential that Congress regain control over this administrative lawmaking process, especially when the violation of these rules -- many of which are unreasonable and far beyond, or contrary to, the original purpose of Congress can result in a citizen's being fined or going to jail just as surely as if he had violated an act of Congress itself.
Hardly a day goes by that the newspapers do not report on the doings and misdoings of the bureaucracy, but what we find there is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of bureaucratic activity. For example, recently church groups attempting to assist in aiding Vietnamese refugees reported that their efforts were frequently tangled in red tape. One head of a refugee committee said:
Three months ago we would call one official and he'd tell us one thing, then we'd call the man sitting at the next desk and held give us a different answer.
Another report from the same meeting was from a factory owner who wanted to employ 35-40 refugees "but he couldn't get anybody in the government to respond, even though he's been trying for three months."
Stories of the slowness and time-consuming activities of bureaucracies abound. Here is a summary included in an account of efforts by the airlines to reduce bureaucratic regulation:
Currently, airlines must go through a process that can last years to get a CAB decision before they can raise or lower their fares or begin to serve or stop serving certain airports.
Another horrendous example was reported recently in Atlanta concerning the Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). For four years now, MARTA has been about to embark on the building of a rapid transit system for Atlanta with massive Federal aid. The newspaper reports that MARTA "is about to embark on an $87,500 program to review its 'goals and objectives' and develop a system for monitoring its progress." To all appearances, it would not require a study to monitor progress; none is being made.
Sympathetic Controllers
A common complaint against the bureaucracy is that men appointed to regulate industries really favor the activities of the businesses rather than control them. Here is the report of such a relationship:
Federal officials responsible for the integrity of American grain shipments have frequently yielded to industry pressures and ordered unjustified upgrading of quality ratings for export shipments, according to government officials.
A pattern . . . of actions by federal aides favoring the industry has emerged from interviews with a number of officials and former officials of the Grain Division of the Agriculture Department.
There should be no doubt, then, that bureaus have gained and hold an ever-expanding sway over our lives. If anyone doubts this he need only to attempt to go into business, go out of business, make a product, render a service, sell something, or engage in some activity regulated by government. Not only is the bureaucracy omnipresent but it is by way of becoming omnipotent in many areas. Americans do indeed appear to be beset by some sort of incubus, an incubus that weighs upon us, oppresses us, and hinders favorable action.
Earlier Criticisms
Criticisms of the bureaucracy are hardly new. More than forty years ago, Herbert Hoover had delineated the pathology of bureaucracies about as thoroughly as needs to be done. He perceived that, once created, bureaucracies tend to become self-perpetuating monstrosities, that they are fertile sources of new programs, that their effect on industry is stultifying, and that they are veritable propaganda machines. In 1934, he said:
Already a host of new government bureaus and nearly two thousand commissions have been established with authority over every trade, and in nearly every town and village. We have witnessed this host of government agents out over the land . . . threatening the people and prosecuting for a new host of crimes.
They were, he said, leading us into "the swamps of serfdom."
The question - the vital question - is what is to be done about this incubus which oppresses the people? Indeed, can anything be done about it? My suspicion is that nothing will be done about it so long as we focus on bureaucracy as the villain of the piece, or attribute our ills to bureaucrats. Such a focus leads us to think that the solution lies in reforming the bureaucracy. There is no good reason to suppose that we could do this. Herbert Hoover spent a great deal of energy first and last on reforming the bureaucracy by reorganizing the government. He even served on a commission under President Truman with that object in view. Yet, after all his words, all his studies, and all his efforts, the bureaucracy was as deeply entrenched as ever, and there are none to testify to the positive results of his or anybody else's efforts to reform the bureaucracy.
Possibly, a particular bureaucrat could be reformed along the lines sought by industrious effort, much as a dog can be trained to stand on his hind feet. A bureaucrat might be trained to be swift, decisive, responsible, judicious, sparing of paperwork, kindly, and f air. But there is no more reason to suppose that he would be emulated throughout the service than that dogs in general would take to their hind feet once one of them had been taught to do so. Dogs stand on all four feet because it is their nature to do so; bureaucrats behave as they do because of the nature of the function they perform.
Ills Stem from Nature of Job
The ills that we so often attribute to bureaus, bureaucrats, and bureaucracies do not arise from them. After all, a bureau is only an organization patterned after any other by which men would act in concert to realize some common purpose. Any business, church, charity, or school is apt to be organized along similar lines. A bureaucrat is only a man, pretty much the same as the rest of us.
If You cut him, he will bleed, He may be good-natured or crabbed, hard-working or a dawdler, a faithful husband or a philanderer, a churchgoer or an agnostic, a clock-watcher or absorbed by his work.
The ills that we attribute to bureaucracies really arise from the functions which some bureaus perform. Not all government agencies are castigated as bureaucracies, nor all government workers as bureaucrats. The species bureaucrat does not include nearly all of those who belong to the genus government employee. A soldier is not a bureaucrat, nor a postal carrier, nor a teacher, nor a judge, nor a policeman, nor even a member of Congress. Even some agencies that are called bureaus do not belong to the bureaucracy. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is not a part of the bureaucracy. Whether a government agency belongs to the bureaucracy or not can be determined by the function it performs. Those agencies whose function is primarily regulatory make up the bureaucracy; those who Perform a service to the consumer or protect life, liberty, and property do not.
For example, the Postal Service is not of the bureaucracy because it picks up and delivers mail, thereby serving consumers. (This is not an argument for government mail delivery, or provision of any other such service; there are good and sufficient reasons why government should not offer what are basically peaceful services, but they have little or nothing to do with bureaucracy.) By contrast, the Interstate Commerce Commission UCC) does not serve consumers by running trains or trucks; its function is regulatory, and it is bureaucratic. Armies, courts, and police protect life, liberty, and property; they are not of the bureaucracy. The Federal Communications Commission is regulatory and bureaucratic.
Of course, regulatory agencies claim to protect life and property and would probably justify most of their activities on that ground. Whether they generally protect life and property is a good question (if, under the guise of protecting property, they take away some of the rights of property, they are not protecting but invading it). Whether they are "necessary and proper" to the protection of life and property is an even better question. But however these questions might be answered in a particular case or in general, the fact remains that regulatory agencies are bureaucracies by the manner of the performance of their f unction.
They do not, themselves, perform a service to the consumer or protect his life or property; they regulate others who are charged with performing the tasks involved. F6r example, the ICC does not erect safety signals at railroad crossings; the railroads usually do this, though they may have done so in a particular instance at the behest of the ICC. It is this regulatory character, this authority over those who do without responsibility for doing it, this remove from the actual work that makes them bureaucracies, that makes them behave in just those ways that are castigated, and that makes them resistant to all efforts at reform. It is the nature of regulatory agencies to be the way they are.
Inevitable Red Tape
Let us review some of the charges against the bureaucracy and show by way of illustration that the conditions complained of follow from the nature of the activity.
The most common complaint about bureaucracies is the red tape - paperwork - entailed in dealing with them. Anyone seeking the approval of a bureau for some project must submit great quantities of paperwork in support of his application. A regulated business must not only submit all this paperwork in support of the original application but must supplement it periodically with reports, affidavits, depositions, notarized statements, and other assorted proofs of compliance. How could it be otherwise? The only visible product of regulatory agencies is the paperwork they produce and require from others. If the regulatory bureaucracy be conceived of as an industry, then each bureau is a paperwork factory. Everything the bureaucracy actually does is recorded on paper or by some other device.
What bureaucracies do is issue rules, hold hearings, have meetings, send out blank forms which are returned completed, send out inspectors, and so on. Rules must be in writing, hearings recorded, minutes kept of meetings, applications submitted on paper, documents of verbal decisions reduced to writing, accounts kept, and so on, ad infinitum. Of course, any activity today is apt to be accompanied by considerable paperwork; the point about bureaucracies is that paperwork is what they produce and collect. In theory, they provide protection, but they do not do the actual work of providing it. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not actually take safety and health measures within a plant; it requires the employer to do so.
But could the amount of paperwork not be reduced? If it could be done, it could only be done by reducing the productivity of the bureaucracy. The only certain measure of the productivity of a bureau is the quantity of paperwork it produces. To cut back is to reduce its function. A dog can be taught to stand on its hind legs, but it cannot catch rabbits in that position. A bureau could be made to cut back on its paperwork, but insofar as it did so it would be reducing the extent of its regulation. There is no end to what needs to be reported in order to assure the effectiveness of regulation. The whole fabric connecting the regulator with the regulated is paperwork. One might as well expect printers to print without using paper as expect bureaucracies to regulate without voluminous paperwork.
No Way to Measure Efficiency
The charge that bureaucracies are self-perpetuating and expansive is true enough but somewhat off the mark. The bureaucrat is no more nor less interested in keeping his job than anyone else. Any department head usually has various incentives for increasing the number of workers under him. The distinctive thing about regulatory agencies is that there is no handy way to measure the productivity of bureaucrats. The paperwork done and required can be measured, of course. But Congress is unlikely to find an argument for hiring more bureaucrats to produce more paperwork very persuasive.
The only other thing bureaucracies do is to provide protection, and the method is by prevention. Now there is no way to tot up the amount of something that did not happen. The Federal Aviation Agency cannot list the number of airplanes that did not crash. The Food and Drug Administration cannot count the number of people not poisoned by foods and drugs they did not allow to be marketed. The problem of cost accounting the work of regulatory bureaucracies is further aggravated by the f act that the actual work of prevention is not even done by them. How many accidents would have been prevented by the employer's safety measures if there had been no Occupational Safety and Health Administration? Or, to open the whole matter up, how many injuries that did occur would have been prevented if the employer had assumed full responsibility for determining how safe his plant was rather than relying on the favorable report of a government safety inspector? There is no way of knowing, then, how many bureaucrats there ought to be, so the bureaucracy can continue to expand its numbers by scare tactics.
Indecisive and Slow
Bureaucracies are indecisive and slow, and they are often arbitrary and capricious. These two charges should be considered together, for they are like two sides of a single coin. The troublesome fact is that they can only become swift and decisive by becoming more arbitrary and capricious, or they can only become less arbitrary, if that is possible, by taking more time. The reason for this bind in which they are caught is not far to seek. Bureaucracies are called upon or take on the making of decisions which would have made Solomon in all his wisdom flee his throne.
The CAB may take years to decide about authorizing a new flight because, to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness, just about everything imaginable and all those involved need to be taken into consideration. Studies must be made, hearings held, documents assembled, and painful decisions reached. What will be the impact on competing airlines if a new flight between two cities is authorized? What will be the effect on the air traffic patterns? Is the airline seeking to introduce the flight financially sound? Does the traffic between the cities warrant a new flight? Do the airports have the ground facilities to accommodate the additional airplanes and passengers? There is no end to the questions that ought to be answered before a decision is reached. But even a bureau must eventually make a decision, and it will have to be to some extent arbitrary.
Regulatory bureaus are irresponsible in their behavior. This is not because they do not attend to their tasks or perform them faithfully. It is rather that as regulatory bodies they are not responsible for making the products they inspect or providing the services they oversee. They are not responsible at law or in fact. Whatever ills may result from their policies, they cannot be held responsible for them. They do not make the moneys that they spend - these come from taxpayers - nor do they pay for the time and effort that men spend in complying with their requirements. In short, bureaucracies are irresponsible by nature.
Regulatory agencies impinge upon and reduce the liberties of those whom they regulate. Could they not be reformed so as to prevent this? It is difficult to see how this could be accomplished. Every regulation proceeding from a bureau to anyone else in society involves a reduction of freedom of action of those to whom it applies. Since no regulation can be conceived that would not reduce freedom of action, it goes without saying that regulatory bureaucracies are an assault upon liberty.
Hope for Reform
America is afflicted by an incubus, by a deep-seated and oppressive hindrance to favorable action. Is it a bureaucratic incubus? Yes, but only if we stick carefully to the original or first meaning of the word. An incubus, the dictionary says, is "an imaginary demon or evil spirit supposed to descend upon sleeping persons." That is a most apt description of the prevailing attitude toward bureaus, bureaucrats, and bureaucracies. We stand back and hurl imprecations at them, treating them as if they were the source of evils which beset us. Moreover, we are made impotent by our belief that we can somehow reform them.
But bureaucracies are imaginary demons; the real ills we face come from a deeper source. They come from our determination to have and commitment to government regulation of the economy. Bureaucracies are instruments in this regulation, instruments which are as they are because they are assigned the task of regulation. The bureaucratic incubus can be exorcised only by removing the regulations. To be free of the incubus we must free ourselves of the regulation. Bureaucracies cannot be substantially reformed, but they can be abolished, which is what will happen when their regulatory function is taken away.
But, do we not need the protective functions provided for us by the regulatory agencies? To put it more directly, do we not need protection from maltreatment by those who provide us with goods and services? Furthermore, is it not a proper function of government to police these and set a framework within which they may operate? These are good questions, but they are questions which can only receive the most general kind of answer here. It has been the burden of this article to show that bureaucracies are as they are because of the regulatory functions assigned them, to show that they are paperwork factories, self-perpetuating and expansive, beyond fiscal accounting, painstakingly slow and indecisive, irresponsible, and destructive of liberty. It would take much more space to show how ineffective they are in performing their protective functions. Only a few observations may be offered.
Three Possible Courses of Action; All Wrong
In general, regulatory bodies take three sorts of action. Either they permit what should be prohibited, or prohibit what should be permitted, or permit what men should be permitted to do without any special authorization. A single example may illustrate all three of these actions. Suppose that the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizes one trucking company, and only one, to haul freight between two cities. By so doing, it establishes a monopoly which it would have better prohibited. Secondly, it prohibits all other carriers to haul freight to and from these cities when they should be permitted to do so. Thirdly, it permits a company to operate in ways it should be able to do without permission. Most formal actions of regulatory bodies fall into one or more of these three categories. In short, regulatory bodies tend to be either useless or harmful.
Men do indeed need protection from fraud, deceit, failure to perform on contracts, poisons, tainted food, shoddy merchandise, and assorted wrongs which may be done to them in the market. There are three time-tested ways to get this protection which do not require regulatory bureaucracies. They are: positive law, competition, and caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).
If there is some substantive ill from which men need protection by government, it should be prohibited by law, with criminal penalties provided for convicted violators, As for most of the matters with which regulatory bodies deal, the best solution is competition. In the final analysis, however, there is no substitute for the wariness of the buyer. Regulatory bodies have not and cannot relieve us of the necessity for exercising care in all our transactions. We must reward those who serve us well, refuse our custom to those who do not, and use whatever sanctions that are available to us against those who do not live up to their agreements. If we value our safety and health, we must keep a sharp lookout for potential dangers to them.
There is a choice to be made, I have been saying. We can be rid of the bureaucracies by removing the regulatory function. Or, we can persist in having the regulation with the understanding that to do so entails all that we deplore in bureaucratic behavior. There is no indication that the bureaucracy can be reformed. There is much reason to believe, however, that the advantages that are supposed to follow from regulation are illusory but that the disadvantages are very real and follow from the method used. The bureaucracy can be dispensed with. To do so would be to remove the "oppressive hindrance to favorable action."
Regulation of American Business
What We're Doing is applying pointless regulatory brakes to business in many important ways when we should be trying to step on the gas. We are surrounded by seemingly numberless regulations of debatable need, uncertain effect, and arbitrary origin. As for the element of public consent to this process, the public hardly comprehends what is taking place.
Here, perhaps, lies the greatest danger - the danger that individual initiative will become swamped by government edict before enough people awake to the threat.
In the words of John Stuart Mill, "A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands - even for beneficial purposes - will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished."
Please avoid labeling this as non-responsive-you wanted answers?
Here's how they start, fellows. :)
Posted by: 1234
Mmm thats a big cut and paste job. Shame none of it is really relavent. Those 1000's of words say in essence one thing - bureacracy can be a slow moving and an annoying process. Well doh I think we all knew that. Where is any evidence of the 85% figure you gave?
One thing in there you may not even have bothered to read was this -
Those agencies whose function is primarily regulatory make up the bureaucracy; those who Perform a service to the consumer or protect life, liberty, and property do not.
Remember what I said a few pages ago? You don't? Go back and look then read the above quote again. Then sit in the corner and say "Oh damn" :D
Please avoid labeling this as non-responsive-you wanted answers?
Here's how they start, fellows.
Um no, what you just posted is utterly irrelavent to the question at hand - do US welfare systems run at 85% cost bureacracy levels. All you posted was some right wing guys musings on red tape which actually confirm our view in parts, not yours.
Posted by: j2k4
All right, here is something I will call an indicator:
The costs of inefficient administration of entitlement programs count against their "bureaucratic costs", correct?
From the National Center for Policy Analysis:
Ironically, in the field of social welfare this premise has been turned on its head. In the early years of the War on Poverty, federal welfare programs were a social safety net -- to provide services the private sector, for one reason or another, did not. Now, it is obvious that just the opposite is true -- increasingly, the private sector is reaching people whom government does not reach and offering essential services that government welfare programs do not provide.
If a humane welfare system means anything at all, it means getting aid first to people who need it most. One of the most astonishing and least-known facts about the welfare state is how miserably it fails to achieve this goal. Consider that: 96
Only 41 percent of all poverty families receive food stamps; yet 28 percent of food-stamp families have incomes above the poverty level.
Only 23 percent of all poverty families live in public housing or receive housing subsidies; yet almost half of the families receiving housing benefits are not poor.
Only 40 percent of all poverty families are covered by Medicaid; yet 40 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries are not poor.
Amazingly, 41 percent of all poverty families receive no means-tested benefit of any kind from government; yet more than half of all families who do receive at least one means-tested benefit are not poor.
Stay tuned-more to come!
BTW-1234-
I left the apostrophe there in case you didn't know the "a" was missing.
I have no way of knowing what you do/do not know, so, better safe than sorry, huh?
Posted by: leftism
Does such a simple question really require a ~4000 word answer?
Whether a government agency belongs to the bureaucracy or not can be determined by the function it performs. Those agencies whose function is primarily regulatory make up the bureaucracy; those who Perform a service to the consumer or protect life, liberty, and property do not.
According to the author a United States Health care system would not "make up the bureaucracy" because it would "protect life".
This is irrelevant anyway, lets get back to the point.
Support your "85% claim". You've made a specific argument and it requires specific proof.
You didnt just pull that 85% figure out of thin air... did you?
Posted by: j2k4
Originally posted by leftism@14 January 2004 - 15:11
You didnt just pull that 85% figure out of thin air... did you?
Nope.
And I will continue my search until I find supporting documentation, though I am sure you will reject it as "spurious".
Posted by: 1234
Again, not a mention of the 85% figure for bureaucratic costs. Just more irrelavent ramblings about entitlement takeups from a right winger (again).
One of the most astonishing and least-known facts about the welfare state is how miserably it fails to achieve this goal.
The UK welfare state (while not perfect) does not fail miserably at it's goal. Therefore it appears this article is inaccurate from the start. Note, it does not specify US welfare states.
The costs of inefficient administration of entitlement programs count against their "bureaucratic costs", correct?
Admin costs, sure. But a right wing think tanks definition of "poor" as a deciding factor? Nope. You do not need to be "in poverty" to qualify for benefits or aid, just on a low income