124 Reasons

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

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 ...

Quote:

---

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.

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. :)

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 -

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Does such a simple question really require a ~4000 word answer?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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".

Again, not a mention of the 85% figure for bureaucratic costs. Just more irrelavent ramblings about entitlement takeups from a right winger (again).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 (or whatever else is the entitlement in law). So all those stats you are placing your hopes in from this article are irrelavent. Bureacratic spending means money spent on bureaucrats and their accoutrements. Find the 85% figure that applies to this please. Not politicised definitions of "in poverty" and take up rates.

Quote:

---

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?

---

Oh I agree, it's why I put the "i" in baited originally. For all those people unaware of archaic old english, and for whom english is a 2nd language. Wouldn't want to exclude those.

Or you are just covering up yet another one of your gaffes ;)

You begin be making another mistake.

My post was headed "National Center for Policy Analysis".

Whose nation did you think it would refer to?

Yours?

This is typical of the sloppiness of your critique and your lack of concern for detail

Again, not a mention of the 85% figure for bureaucratic costs. Just more irrelavent ramblings about entitlement takeups from a right winger (again).


QUOTE
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.

See above.
QUOTE
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 (or whatever else is the entitlement in law). So all those stats you are placing your hopes in from this article are irrelavent. Bureacratic spending means money spent on bureaucrats and their accoutrements. Find the 85% figure that applies to this please. Not politicised definitions of "in poverty" and take up rates.

Hold it right there.

You have the gall to demand figures but reserve the right to dismiss them as right-wing propaganda if I provide them?

No thanks, pal.

You just gave me the out to tell you to piss off, you presumptuous twit.

I am done with you.

QUOTE
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?



Oh I agree, it's why I put the "i" in baited originally. For all those people unaware of archaic old english, and for whom english is a 2nd language. Wouldn't want to exclude those.

Or you are just covering up yet another one of your gaffes

Quote:

---

You begin be making another mistake.

My post was headed "National Center for Policy Analysis".

Whose nation did you think it would refer to?

Yours?

---

It said that welfare failed, I used the UK as an example of how welfare is not a failure. Again, if you want to admit that the US is incapable of doing things that other countries find relatively easy I am sure we can agree. Like I said, it did not specify the US though.

Quote:

---

This is typical of the sloppiness of your critique and your lack of concern for detail

---

Hahahahahahahaha. I will let our readers judge this one. Lets just say that from previous responses I doubt they will agree with you. Oh except maybe Jpol your cheerleader, or is that just an alt login of yours?

Quote:

---

You have the gall to demand figures but reserve the right to dismiss them as right-wing propaganda if I provide them?

---

You provided no figures though. All the facts you provided are dependant on their definition of "poor". What is that definition? Who created that definition? For what purpose? This is of course forgetting that the definition is worthless - the people entitled to a benefit are decided at the time a law is passed and those requirements are written into that law. What some think tank defines as poor is irrelavent.

I pointed out they are right wing sources (as they indeed are) due to their inherent bias. They say welfare systems always fail, the UK and others proves they do not. What you need to do is find audited figures proving your claim.

Quote:

---

You just gave me the out to tell you to piss off, you presumptuous twit.

I am done with you.

---

In what way? You have not furnished the facts of your 85% figure and are just desperately trying to find a way out. Resorting to insults as usual.

Oh and two more things. One, you may be done with me but I am not done with you. Put me on ignore if you want, you will just miss what other people see pointing out the lamentable lack of facts and any logic in your posts. Second, thanks for the 2nd reportable post in an hour.

*Apu voice* Come again!

I think dis provez #2.
http://www.vanderbiltorbis.com/vnews/displ...0/3fd6ab982720c

Here we g0 wit #3 proved
http://www.aegis.com/news/ips/2003/IP030911.html

Herez #4
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01...umns/052201.htm

5 here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/11.2...Tax.Repeal.htm

I think dis 1 is 6
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/009268.html

Dis is 7
http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/.../a01-61756.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@14 January 2004 - 18:42
I think dis 1 is 6
http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/009268.html

---

I thank you for leaving this in, BG:

I noticed a pattern in NPR reports, one that struck my ear and once realized, one that I listened for. Recently, Halliburton has been catching hell in the media about overcharging for gasoline delivered in Iraq, though in fact it seems to be a subsiduary that's involved. Each time that Halliburton's name was mentioned, the announcer was very careful to say, "- formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney". If any bad news about Haliburton was brought up, the announcer was careful to link Cheney's name with it, and Haliburton, though Cheney is no longer a director of the company's affairs, and the events being covered did not happen on his watch.

But, when a report on this subject came out that stated that the price was set not by the company, but by the Pentagon, and the company was not guilty of price gouging, but merely obeying the Pentagon's directives, why, that was the one time the anouncer did not link Cheney's name with Halliburton. Because, you see, this was good news, or at least, could not be made out to be politically damaging to the administration.

And then, very quietly, the subject dropped out of the media's coverage.


My apologies if 'Halliburton" is not spelled correctly - I took the spelling out of your text.

Posted by: Jrm at December 29, 2003 04:51 PM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BabyGeniuses@14 January 2004 - 18:44
Dis is 7
http://www.detnews.com/2003/schools/.../a01-61756.htm

---

No, it's not seven.

He changed his mind. ;)

BG-

I hereby invoke the license 1234 uses to label your sourcing uniformly liberal and agenda-driven. ;)

Oh, sorry-

With the exception of the Detroit News, but then it is doesn't hew to either line, and, in any case, didn't end up being correct, anyway. :)

WHAT HAPPENED??? I go away on holidays and come back to find j2k4 being SLAMMED! How did this happen? Where did this 1234 kid come from? :lol:

Personally I don't think Bush knows what he is doing, literally and figurativly (yes I am a bad speller too!) I get the feeling he says something like "I wish the health care system didn't cost so much", and some staffer gets on the phone the the Secretary for Health and says "Guess what? The Boss just cut your budget by $500 million!"

I think he really has no idea how stuff happens. He just talks and wonders why things happen like they do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@14 January 2004 - 21:18


I noticed a pattern in NPR reports, one that struck my ear and once realized, one that I listened for. Recently, Halliburton has been catching hell in the media about overcharging for gasoline delivered in Iraq, though in fact it seems to be a subsiduary that's involved. Each time that Halliburton's name was mentioned, the announcer was very careful to say, "- formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney". If any bad news about Haliburton was brought up, the announcer was careful to link Cheney's name with it, and Haliburton, though Cheney is no longer a director of the company's affairs, and the events being covered did not happen on his watch.

But, when a report on this subject came out that stated that the price was set not by the company, but by the Pentagon, and the company was not guilty of price gouging, but merely obeying the Pentagon's directives, why, that was the one time the anouncer did not link Cheney's name with Halliburton. Because, you see, this was good news, or at least, could not be made out to be politically damaging to the administration.

---

I don't listen to NPR on a regular basis, but I don't doubt that your observation is valid.
Why do you think this is, J2?

Personally, I think that Bush/Cheney get treated this way because their incredible arrogance and sense of self-entitlement has lead them to completely disregard the appearance of impropriety.

How insensitive must one be to not realize that awarding Halliburton huge contracts without competitive bidding was, at the very least, going to look/smell fishy?

The public relations disaster that has lead to the common perception that the current administration sucks up to corporate interests and is lead by big money agendas is entirely due to the fact that Bush/Cheney don't seem to give a flying f**k about dispelling that image.
A perfect example is the continued efforts of the administration to withhold information about Cheney's energy policy talks...conferences that seemed to overly populated with cronies from Big Oil and, surprise, surprise!, have lead to administration efforts to pave the way for these selfsame buddies to profit enormously from new government policies.

Whether these consultations were above board or not is irrelevant...what matters is that they sure do look bad, and instead of adopting a policy of transparency, Bush has decided to completely stonewall the questions, going so far as to ignore court orders to turn over documents related to the discussions.

Having already raised over $200 million for his reelection, Bush/Cheney seem to feel quite comfortable flipping the bird to the world...after all, the next election has pretty much already been bought, why bother with the niceties?


Edit:

Quote:

---

Where did this 1234 kid come from?

---

What leads you to suspect that 1234 is a "kid"?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@15 January 2004 - 10:37
How insensitive must one be to not realize that awarding Halliburton huge contracts without competitive bidding was, at the very least, going to look/smell fishy?

---

Halliburton?

They were in the mideast at Clinton's behest (and under Cheney's watch) for years; I don't recall it causing a problem then, do you?

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

The reason Halliburton's services were retained was their prior presence in the mideast and the perception of "expertise" in the region; they were "in place".

As the administration needed an organization that could "hit the ground running", so to speak, it was decided to forego a drawn-out bid process in the name of expedience.

Perhaps it would be fruitful for you to explore the Clinton/Cheney connection; I'm sure a conspiracy exists.

Lots of companies were in the Mideast at Clinton's behest...oddly, their prior experience and expertise didn't seem to matter, did it.
Inadvertantly ( or maybe not), you hit the nail on the head for me...

Quote:

---

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

---

no one was politically savvy enough to see that a secret contract issued without bids to Cheney's old company was going to become an issue?
Or they did see it coming and simply didn't care?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@15 January 2004 - 13:26
Lots of companies were in the Mideast at Clinton's behest...oddly, their prior experience and expertise didn't seem to matter, did it.
Inadvertantly ( or maybe not), you hit the nail on the head for me...

Quote:

---

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

---

no one was politically savvy enough to see that a secret contract issued without bids to Cheney's old company was going to become an issue?
Or they did see it coming and simply didn't care?

---

I think your last is probably pretty accurate.

This begs the next question:

Should it be an issue?

The world is, after all, a small place.

The administration is apparently willing to foment and abide a debate on the propriety of Halliburton's presence in the mideast, as well as Halliburton's prior connection with Cheney.

It would also seem they do not fear the results of such a debate.

Of course, as usual, that's only my opinion.

Quote:

---

I hereby invoke the license 1234 uses to label your sourcing uniformly liberal and agenda-driven

---

No, I pointed out that all your data relied on a definition of "poor" from a right wing think tank with an agenda. What is that definition? Who created it? If I posted a definition of rich from the Communist Party of Patagonia, wouldn't you question it?

As we were talking about govt entitlements, use govt definitions.

Of course, that once again ignores the fact the entitlement rights are written into the appropriate law and not based on a definition of poor - from think tanks or govts for that matter.

Your lack of argument is apparent to everyone, as is your use of baseless claims which you refuse to even attempt to prove. When pressed, you resort to personal insults and worse.

Btw, Cheney was still paid by Halliburton despite his claims that he was no longer on the payroll.

Still waiting for proof of 85% bureaucracy, nearly one week and counting.

Hmm, that might make a good sig :)

As this debate seems to have swung onto the relative merits of bureaucracy I thought I would add the following... simply because it amused me. Some in the UK may have seen this and to those outside the UK it may simply confirm that Monty Python was a more accurate window into our culture than they first realised.

This is reputedly a genuine letter from the Inland Revenue to an unwilling tax payer.

I am writing to you to express thanks for your more than prompt reply to our communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.

Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a 'begging letter'. It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a 'tax demand'.
This is how we, at the Inland revenue have always, for reasons of accuracy, referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the 'endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited through the letterbox onto the doormat' has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the letters to which you refer I would suggest that their being from 'pauper councils, lombardy pirate banking houses and piss-ant gas mongers' might indicate that your decision to 'file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies' is as best a little ill-advised.
In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters see you as a 'lack-wit bumpkin' or, come to that, a 'sodding charity'. More likely they see you as a citizen, with a resposibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay 'go to shore the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services', a moment's rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion the government in any way expects you to 'stump up for the whole damned party' yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's disembursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on 'junkets for Bunterish lickspittles' and 'dancing whores' whilst more is allocated to, for example, 'that box-ticking facade of a university system'.
A couple of points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don't write 'Muggins' on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system.

2. You can rest assured that 'sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give' has never been considered as a practice because even if the personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer medical logistics would make it financially unviable.

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or another, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to 'give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India' you would still owe us the money. Please forward it by Friday ...


Yours



As a (very minor) UK bureaucrat I found the above tremendously reassuring that all is well with the world :) I am sure there is something for all sides of the argument in this piece. However, I am not grinding any axes it just made me laugh.

I took this from the back of an accountancy magazine called 'PASS', for those who like sources. There it says it first appeared in the Guardian's letters page from the recipient

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234@15 January 2004 - 14:23
Still waiting for proof of 85% bureaucracy, nearly one week and counting.

Hmm, that might make a good sig :)

---

Knock yourself out.

I think I told you this once already, but just to re-affirm-

You are not due the information, simply because it is you.

Do with that fact what you will.

Please give up on the 'bated breath, too, or you will surely pass out.

Don't forget to report this post, now! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234@15 January 2004 - 14:23

Btw, Cheney was still paid by Halliburton despite his claims that he was no longer on the payroll.

---

Ah, yes.

Baseless! ;)

Quote:

---

This is reputedly a genuine letter from the Inland Revenue to an unwilling tax payer

---

We usually get copies of good letters in the PCS Inland Revenue Group magazine "Assessment"...must have missed this one ;)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Biggles & Rat,

JPaul posted that letter a few weeks ago.
I found it not to be a indictment of bureaucrats, but instead a sign that even in a spirit-crushing environment ( i.e. government servoce) a spark (indeed a bonfire) of creativity and humor can thrive.
That letter is priceless and I would happily pay taxes to the writer.

I suspect one of those chaps may have written it ;)

No names, no pack drill.

do u think j2k4 is a bush fan? ~47 posts in this thread suggest so.

J'Pol

Apologies, I missed it the first time - still it bears repeating.

Unfortunately, the letters in my department are not for external consumption, but we do endeavour to keep a flicker of creativity alive to pass the long hours. :)

Max Weber's 'dead hand of bureaucracy' seemingly hit British Gas and was unable to get back out, thankfully leaving the rest of us alone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by b4icu@15 January 2004 - 20:38
do u think j2k4 is a bush fan?

---

After a qualified fashion, though such qualification makes no difference to most. ;)

You must be VERY new here, eh? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by b4icu@16 January 2004 - 01:38
do u think j2k4 is a bush fan?  ~47 posts in this thread suggest so.

---

Why, do you think she is a homosexual.

Rarely see ~ used in a mathematical context, it is to your credit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by b4icu@16 January 2004 - 00:38
do u think j2k4 is a bush fan? ~47 posts in this thread suggest so.

---

Not sure exactly.

Although I hesitate to speak on his behalf, he appears to view Bush as a less ghastly choice than what was on offer but as far as I can tell that is no ringing endorsement.

I can only guess that the choices must have been pretty grim though :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@16 January 2004 - 01:52
J'Pol

Apologies, I missed it the first time - still it bears repeating.

Unfortunately, the letters in my department are not for external consumption, but we do endeavour to keep a flicker of creativity alive to pass the long hours. :)

Max Weber's 'dead hand of bureaucracy' seemingly hit British Gas and was unable to get back out, thankfully leaving the rest of us alone.

---

No need to apologise, I certainly didn't write it and claim no credit for posting it here. It was a chap at work who pointed it out to me

It was not my intention to mention my previous post. I am saddened that shiny bonce boy felt that he had to, however he is a fan of pedantry in the true sense of the word. So it comes as little surprise that he felt the need to demonstrate his knowledge of the banal.

I see too much drivel repeated here. To see a work of art (such as that) repeated was if anything refreshing.

Some people cannot help but demonstrate their knowledge of the trivial. If that is what makes them happy and helps them live with the fact that their dome is reminiscent of a Mosque, then who are we to judge.

Quote:

---

You are not due the information, simply because it is you.

---

It was not just me asking for the proof. You still have not proven your claims to anyone on this board.

Quote:

---

Please give up on the 'bated breath, too, or you will surely pass out.

---

Bzzt, spelling mistake again. Good job I am not as desperate as you to deflect criticisms that I would make a habit of pointing such things out.

Quote:

---

Don't forget to report this post, now!

---

But you didn't break any of the rules in this post, so no need. However, when you do ... :)

Quote:

---

Ah, yes.

Baseless!

---

Here is a link that shows otherwise. He gets $150,000 a year from them, minimum. Hardly "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years" as Cheney claimed on Meet the Press. He also still holds stock, and when faced with the evidence said he would donate some of the money to charity. Dosen't really fit with his other statement of having "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests".

Care to retort? :)

What if your source fits my definition of "liberal, left-wing...?

That store you patronize?

The one selling "blanket statements" and "broad brushes"?

They'll sell to conservatives, too. ;)

Quote:

---

What if your source fits my definition of "liberal, left-wing...?

---

My source makes no value or subjective judgements (as yours did with it's vague definition of "poor"). It merely states facts.

You are aware of facts aren't you? Those things other people use to prove a case? Oh, thought not :)

You are making yourself appear even more foolish by endlessly repeating this stance which is patently unsustainable. Not that I mind, but isn't it a tad embarassing for you? I am really concerned on your behalf :blink:

Oh as a side note, you will notice that Cheney's own spokesperson acknowledges the payments.

Doh!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1234@16 January 2004 - 12:43

Quote:

---

What if your source fits my definition of "liberal, left-wing...?

---

My source makes no value or subjective judgements (as yours did with it's vague definition of "poor"). It merely states facts.

You are aware of facts aren't you? Those things other people use to prove a case? Oh, thought not :)

You are making yourself appear even more foolish by endlessly repeating this stance which is patently unsustainable. Not that I mind, but isn't it a tad embarassing for you? I am really concerned on your behalf :blink:

Oh as a side note, you will notice that Cheney's own spokesperson acknowledges the payments.

Doh!

---

None of that matters, you see?

My new blanket covers all of it.

Glad to have finally discovered the secret of your questionable success. :)