(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.

The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.

The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

Then what would be your solution.

(10-15-2014 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.
The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

Then what would be your solution.

Accepting the fact that government solutions will typically fail for the reasons stated, and finding nongovernmental solutions to as many problems as possible. The free market provides many, but not all.

(10-15-2014 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.
The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

Then what would be your solution.

Accepting the fact that government solutions will typically fail for the reasons stated, and finding nongovernmental solutions to as many problems as possible. The free market provides many, but not all.

I wouldn't have a problem with that except for the fact that the free market always ends up getting too powerful and forces the government to regulate them.

We, as a nation, always complain that government is too big but it seems that it's necessary because unregulated capitalism makes it so.

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.
The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

Then what would be your solution.

Accepting the fact that government solutions will typically fail for the reasons stated, and finding nongovernmental solutions to as many problems as possible. The free market provides many, but not all.

I wouldn't have a problem with that except for the fact that the free market always ends up getting too powerful and forces the government to regulate them.
We, as a nation, always complain that government is too big but it seems that it's necessary because unregulated capitalism makes it so.

We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that's the problem. Without running it like a business, it's impossible to keep everyone focused on the mission instead of personal goals. And it can't be run like a business. So it will be more effective at furthering personal goals of bureaucrats than stated goals of the agency/program.
The reason it can't be run like a business is not that it has to be effective for all Americans. Businesses generally do a better job of that than government does, because meeting needs is how they make a profit. The reason it can't be run like a business is that funding is separate from performance. A business puts a crap product on the street, it makes no sales. A bureaucrat keeps getting money as long as s/he can sell it politically. Actually, doing a crap job often brings more money for the bureaucrat than doing a good job, because the problem you are supposed to be solving gets bigger.

Then what would be your solution.

Accepting the fact that government solutions will typically fail for the reasons stated, and finding nongovernmental solutions to as many problems as possible. The free market provides many, but not all.

I wouldn't have a problem with that except for the fact that the free market always ends up getting too powerful and forces the government to regulate them.
We, as a nation, always complain that government is too big but it seems that it's necessary because unregulated capitalism makes it so.

We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

(10-15-2014 06:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a hard time believing this. I can't imagine a reason why anyone would have wanted it covered up.

I posted a couple of articles about this several times. Some things I couldn't post. I think it's disengenius to say 'it was covered up'. If ANY cover up was done I would point to the Mass Media for covering the likes of Cindy Sheehan and beating the 'No WMD's' 'Bush lied, people died' mantra. When chemical weapons were found, not in large cache's but a constant trickle it went against their narrative and either dismissed or ignored.
Now, after blaming W for going to war using non existent WMD's as one of the reasons, they appear to want to blame Bush for covering up something they said WASNT there in the first place.

(10-15-2014 11:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But the government cannot be run like a business. It has to be effective for all Americans. Not just the richest ore most successful ones.

The govt is the largest corporation in the nation.

Corporations are people my friend.

The DNC, RNC, and All Union Divisions like UAW, CWA, IUE, AFLCIO are also Big Corporations. And look out for Their interests and bottom lines first and foremost.

(10-15-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

I like that line a lot.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188068-s...war-water/

When those caches of weapons were ignored for weeks and then the "bad" guys got ahold of them it would be to the detriment of both parties if it wasn't covered up. For the Republicans to admit that the "bad" guys got to the weapons before the Coalition did even though it would prove that Iraq did have them. And for the Demoncrats it would be detrimental for them to admit that they were wrong and that Bush was right and there were WMDs.

Stunning level of incompetence in the planning of the war. For a war that started at our time and choosing people need to be prosecuted for gross negligence.

It's criminal.

(10-15-2014 01:06 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:56 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We've never had unregulated capitalism. And regulation is the mechanism by which capitalist companies get too big.

I like that line a lot.

What regulations caused Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel to be too big?

(10-15-2014 02:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Stunning level of incompetence in the planning of the war. For a war that started at our time and choosing people need to be prosecuted for gross negligence.

It's criminal.

It was the exact opposite of incompetent. It was outstanding. Turkey's last minute change of heart lead to a logistical nightmare and threw a wrench into the original plans. Being able to adapt to that and still get things done was masterful. Perfect? Not by a long shot. Better than the original plan? Nope. The best they could do under the circumstances? Yep.
If you hadn't noticed I'm not a fan of the Turkish Leadership

Being able to adapt to that and still get things done was masterful.


The fact that they secured the oil rigs on day 1 and didn't even bother to secure the weapon depots that potentially housed WMD's tell you all you need to know on competency.

Nobody had any idea how the war would really end, that was the problem. They assumed they would simply turn the country into a democracy. There was no Plan B.

Turkey didn't help us there, and isn't helping us now. How exactly are they an ally of any kind? Why are they in NATO?

(10-15-2014 04:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Being able to adapt to that and still get things done was masterful.


The fact that they secured the oil rigs on day 1 and didn't even bother to secure the weapon depots that potentially housed WMD's tell you all you need to know on competency.

Maybe in your mind. Huge difference in being able to secure oil rigs and securing weapons depots. Part of that again goes to how it started. It's a tired and lame argument

That's just carrying water for the GOP. Again one day the water carriers will have a come to Jesus moment on the Iraq War.

(10-15-2014 05:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's just carrying water for the GOP. Again one day the water carriers will have a come to Jesus moment on the Iraq War.

The Iraq War in the first few phases was executed extremely well. The "now what" phase is what was the cluster.

(10-15-2014 05:27 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's just carrying water for the GOP. Again one day the water carriers will have a come to Jesus moment on the Iraq War.

How is the difference between securing an oil rig and a weapons depot carrying water for anyone?