efficient government

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I have a couple of problems with your post.

First of all, when you call the state employees non-productive and non-value adding, you are simply lying.

The state's law enforcement keeps the state safe for ALL the workers, those who produce actual products, those who provide services, and those who live off our taxes. I would call maintaining a safe environment quite a value.

The state inspectors insure that the various producers of goods do not cause harm to our people. I would certainly call that valuable.

The teachers work to educate our children are certainly adding value to our society. If you think they aren't, then try and do it for the taxes you pay and see how that works out.

The fish & game employees enforce the laws that govern our wild lands. They certainly provide value by making sure that wild game, wild habitat and wilderness are available for all our citizens.




As for the lack of competition in public utilities, there have been offers to allow private companies to join in with public utilities in certain cities. And the total lack of response has been astounding.

A city in North Carolina, a city in Tennessee, a county in Georgia, and two cities in Florida have offered companies the chance to be the video provider and telephone providers in new fiber optic systems being built by the cities.

In all those cases they were turned down cold. The city was going to build the system, and wanted partners in the operations.

Now the cities (and a county) have, or will have, state of the art fiber optic systems that blow cable and DSL systems away.

It is a common independent platitude to ridiculously claim that we could "easily" eliminate like 70% of our public servants and have an unchanged quality of life. B/C government is so bad, and USC and Good Luck are so smart they could run it perfectly. Ask them about what specifically they'd get rid of to eliminate 90% of the budget and they aren't so sure anymore.

 

[Good Luck]

It is a common independent platitude to ridiculously claim that we could "easily" eliminate like 70% of our public servants and have an unchanged quality of life. B/C government is so bad, and USC and Good Luck are so smart they could run it perfectly. Ask them about what specifically they'd get rid of to eliminate 90% of the budget and they aren't so sure anymore.

Try reading it again, I defend the majority of public servants, including military, law enforcement, public works employees etc.

What attack is government bureaucracy - specifically wasteful and useless bureaucracy of which the federal government has in huge abundance.

And no other city in the US votes consistently 90+% democratic in every election regardless of their ethnic or racial makeup.

 

[theMAJORITY]

Personally, I think things like police can be privatized. Just brain storming here a bit, but it can work. First, there has to be a consitiutional guild line that all private police companies have to follow, or they lose their business license and can no longer perform the service. Next, each small county gets to hire the company of their choice. If they don't like the way they are doing their job, they can fire the company, and hire a competitor. The will to do good police work would have to go up, because of the competition. They would still be paid by taxes, but from the people of each a county, it would be totally local, for your local needs. Why give your money to the state or federal government, to provide services local comunities can provide for themself? Control. The state could not dictate how many arrests to hand out, or what laws to push. I think the local communities can do a better job for themselfs.

Anybody think something like that may have possibilities, as far as working?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Try reading it again, I defend the majority of public servants, including military, law enforcement, public works employees etc.

What attack is government bureaucracy - specifically wasteful and useless bureaucracy of which the federal government has in huge abundance.

And no other city in the US votes consistently 90+% democratic in every election regardless of their ethnic or racial makeup.

San Fransisco? The Republicans pretty much don't exist there.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Personally, I think things like police can be privatized. Just brain storming here a bit, but it can work. First, there has to be a consitiutional guild line that all private police companies have to follow, or they lose their business license and can no longer perform the service. Next, each small county gets to hire the company of their choice. If they don't like the way they are doing their job, they can fire the company, and hire a competitor. The will to do good police work would have to go up, because of the competition. They would still be paid by taxes, but from the people of each a county, it would be totally local, for your local needs. Why give your money to the state or federal government, to provide services local comunities can provide for themself? Control. The state could not dictate how many arrests to hand out, or what laws to push. I think the local communities can do a better job for themselfs.

Anybody think something like that may have possibilities, as far as working?

No, because they're all stupid ones.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How did this myth get started that the Democrats are the extreme of their party? They're hardly extreme liberals.

That's a good question. Most Democrats are left of center or moderate, where as over a third of Republicans are at the authoritarian and reactionary extremes. It certainly is laughable when Republicans accuse Democrats of extremism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Seems you have a different definition of government efficiency than the common definition. Most people are talking about fiscal efficiency when talking about efficient government. That type of efficiency is desirable. The tax payer should get the most bang for the buck possible.

As to your definition, I agree that one party controlling both WH and congress is not a good thing. This is especially true since both parties have come to represent the extreme instead of the mainstream of their political philosophies. Extremism is not good, no matter which side it represents.

The fiscus is only one part of being efficient. Of course I expect our government to manage our tax revenue wisely and responsibly. Running up huge debts is not efficient or effective or responsible nor is over taxation.

An efficient government defends our nation appropriately and adequately. Lying to the public in order to invade another sovereign nation on spurious grounds is not only inefficient, it is extremely immoral.

An efficient government responds rapidly and humanely to domestic emergencies. The Katrina disaster response is a great example of inefficient governance at its worst.

An efficient government protects and preserves our civil liberties. It doesn't discard them because they are cowards or lazy or because it's easier.

An efficient government provides cost effective public services, such as, education, health care, infrastructure development and civil defense, that the private sector is not effective at providing.

These are just some examples of how important effective and efficient government is.

The problem with the Republican party is that a large part of it's coalition is ideologically anti-government and thus they do not govern either effectively or efficiently.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Personally, I think things like police can be privatized. Just brain storming here a bit, but it can work. First, there has to be a consitiutional guild line that all private police companies have to follow, or they lose their business license and can no longer perform the service. Next, each small county gets to hire the company of their choice. If they don't like the way they are doing their job, they can fire the company, and hire a competitor. The will to do good police work would have to go up, because of the competition. They would still be paid by taxes, but from the people of each a county, it would be totally local, for your local needs. Why give your money to the state or federal government, to provide services local comunities can provide for themself? Control. The state could not dictate how many arrests to hand out, or what laws to push. I think the local communities can do a better job for themselfs.

Anybody think something like that may have possibilities, as far as working?

That has got to be one of the stupidest suggestions I have ever heard. Talk about a recipe for tyranny.

The very function and purpose and mission of a sound civil police force is completely antithetical to privatization.

The mission of a civil police force is to protect and to serve the public interest by enforcing the law.

Their mission is not to protect and to serve the public and enforce the law at a 30% gross margin.

In other words the function of the police is to serve the public and not to earn a profit.

Privatization would be a complete conflict of interest for a civil police force and would inevitably end up in being corrupt and tyrannical.

In other words, this is an incredibly stupid idea.

 

[Cancel3]

The fiscus is only one part of being efficient. Of course I expect our government to manage our tax revenue wisely and responsibly. Running up huge debts is not efficient or effective or responsible nor is over taxation.

An efficient government defends our nation appropriately and adequately. Lying to the public in order to invade another sovereign nation on spurious grounds is not only inefficient, it is extremely immoral.

An efficient government responds rapidly and humanely to domestic emergencies. The Katrina disaster response is a great example of inefficient governance at its worst.

An efficient government protects and preserves our civil liberties. It doesn't discard them because they are cowards or lazy or because it's easier.

An efficient government provides cost effective public services, such as, education, health care, infrastructure development and civil defense, that the private sector is not effective at providing.

These are just some examples of how important effective and efficient government is.

The problem with the Republican party is that a large part of it's coalition is ideologically anti-government and thus they do not govern either effectively or efficiently.

Well said, Mottley. The government should be a servant of the people. It should exist because of the needs of the people.

It seems things have reversed over the last few decades.

 

[Timshel]

Personally, I think things like police can be privatized. Just brain storming here a bit, but it can work. First, there has to be a consitiutional guild line that all private police companies have to follow, or they lose their business license and can no longer perform the service. Next, each small county gets to hire the company of their choice. If they don't like the way they are doing their job, they can fire the company, and hire a competitor. The will to do good police work would have to go up, because of the competition. They would still be paid by taxes, but from the people of each a county, it would be totally local, for your local needs. Why give your money to the state or federal government, to provide services local comunities can provide for themself? Control. The state could not dictate how many arrests to hand out, or what laws to push. I think the local communities can do a better job for themselfs.

Anybody think something like that may have possibilities, as far as working?

That is not privatization. It would be disastrous and just a way for governments to get around the constitution. They use private businesses now as a proxy to abuse our civil liberties.

 

[Timshel]

That has got to be one of the stupidest suggestions I have ever heard. Talk about a recipe for tyranny.

The very function and purpose and mission of a sound civil police force is completely antithetical to privatization.

The mission of a civil police force is to protect and to serve the public interest by enforcing the law.

Their mission is not to protect and to serve the public and enforce the law at a 30% gross margin.

In other words the function of the police is to serve the public and not to earn a profit.

Privatization would be a complete conflict of interest for a civil police force and would inevitably end up in being corrupt and tyrannical.

In other words, this is an incredibly stupid idea.

Yeah, that sounds nice, but ignores the the realities of a government provided criminal justice system. If the criminal justice system were truly guided by protecting the public's interest they would not be engaged in railroading the innocent and engaging in commando style raids on non-criminals. The government's criminal justice system IS corrupt and tyrannical.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, that sounds nice, but ignores the the realities of a government provided criminal justice system. If the criminal justice system were truly guided by protecting the public's interest they would not be engaged in railroading the innocent and engaging in commando style raids on non-criminals. The government's criminal justice system IS corrupt and tyrannical.

Your contention that it is all ready corrupt may or may not be true but it's not even a faction as corrupt as it would be if you privitized it as a for profit institution.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Imagine how much influence peddling would happen if nearly all of the government were run by various different private corporations, each given immunity in doing their set task? Already the military-industrial complex is way too powerful, and Majority wants to make an everything-industrial complex.

 

[Epicurus]

Imagine how much influence peddling would happen if nearly all of the government were run by various different private corporations, each given immunity in doing their set task? Already the military-industrial complex is way too powerful, and Majority wants to make an everything-industrial complex.

It's already happened. We don't have to imagine.

It was NAZI corporatism.

 

[Timshel]

Your contention that it is all ready corrupt may or may not be true but it's not even a faction as corrupt as it would be if you privitized it as a for profit institution.

Again, any system that continues to finance through state enforced taxation is not a free market system. To call it privatized is a mis-characterization. This bastard system would likely be more corrupt, unless the courts demanded these proxies adhere to the constitution. But they have not done that.

The current system IS open to corruption and tyranny. It displays these tendencies frequently.

 

[Good Luck]

The current system IS open to corruption and tyranny. It displays these tendencies frequently.

There are innumerable cases of officers habitually abusing their authority.

Then along comes a governor unwilling to put up with it, and summarily fires the chief of police for not firing a corrupt officer.

And somehow the governor was in the wrong for that? At least that's what dems are claiming.

 

[Timshel]

There are innumerable cases of officers habitually abusing their authority.

Then along comes a governor unwilling to put up with it, and summarily fires the chief of police for not firing a corrupt officer.

And somehow the governor was in the wrong for that? At least that's what dems are claiming.

You are confusing some of the many different firings of Palin.

Wooten would not likely have been targeted if he had not run afoul of Palin, personally. I am sure Wooten was not the only one accused of abusing hisw power. Palin paid no special attention to the others. Your attempts to spin this are ridiculous.

 

[uscitizen]

Wasn't Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac privatized ?

 

[Good Luck]

You are confusing some of the many different firings of Palin.

Wooten would not likely have been targeted if he had not run afoul of Palin, personally. I am sure Wooten was not the only one accused of abusing hisw power. Palin paid no special attention to the others. Your attempts to spin this are ridiculous.

As usual, all you can come up with is conjecture about what would have happened if things were different.

The fact is Wooten was a corrupt cop. Fact is he deserved to get fired, and should ave been canned before Palin even came into play. Fact is Palin's actions were appropriate. Fact is you would have ZERO to point to if Wooten was not Palin's former in-law.

And you want conjecture, fine, how about this one:

If Palin was a democrat, you'd be all over her with praise for standing up to the law enforcement infrastructure in getting rid of a corrupt cop.

 

[Timshel]

So Wooten was the only bad cop in Alaska? Give me a break, there is no conjecture involved. Palin had a relationship with Wooten. That's a fact. She did not go after him in some police corruption busting crusade. If she did, then where are the rest of the cops she went after? You are attempting to spin.

I am not saying this guy did not deserve to be fired. But you trying to spin it into some good government crusade is ridiculous and dishonest.