If not now when, if not us than who?

[dmancornell]

Seriously. It's amazing that anyone born after 1900 can apologize for the social disaster that private firefighting was. When was the last time we had a Great fire that burned down a whole city like the Great Fires of Chicago? Boston? Baltimore? etc... Or even back to the Great Fires of Rome and London? What do all these have in common? Bad building regulations and private firefighters.

LOL what? Besides the fact that the Chicago fire department in 1871 was run by the city, I like how you casually tack on a completely irrelevant factor to the real culprit, poorly planned construction. Maybe big urban fires don't exist any more because of better construction techniques. Duh.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Biased Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.

Yeah and our libtarded media is once again helping the communist win the hearts and minds of the people, only this time it is the American people it is corrupting, it is this liberal/communist administration that is our real enemy. . . . against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!!!!

Zeezee, I almost agree with you 100%.
But I would reverse that and say that the media is our REAL enemy. They are the ones that have chosen to disseminate the lies and call them truth.
They can and do, by doing nothing to distribute the facts, promote lies.

Without the complicity/cooperation of the media, no admin of this ilk would ever have been elected. "He" was the media darling. So much so that the media watched silently while Hillary got screwed. Those in the media that did scream for Hillary were shouted down by the rest.

While the socialist leanings of this admin are treacherous, without media cooperation he would still be in Chicago having a smoke and a cup-o-coffee with Bill and Bernadette.
Our biggest enemy at the moment is definitely domestic though, you are right about that.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Funny how? They are identified the same way that bad government run firefighters are identified. Except government firefighters have a monopoly and cannot be held responsible for mistakes. Awesome!

Sadly many people have already been test-cased by the government's insatiable lust for power.

Can you detail where and when government employed firefighters have failed?
I'm afraid I can't recall very many reports of firefighters not doing their jobs. I do remember that it was reported in the news recently that a house burned down while firefighters stood by and watched because the homeowner hadn't paid his private fire district dues.

I'm also sure that if government paid firefighters were routinely failing to do their jobs it would be big news. Have you EVER had an original thought, or do you just parrot what you hear on the radio?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Maybe if the government didn't steal the money out of his paycheck for years, he can afford the medical bills, or perhaps could have bought health insurance?

Hey, if you're proud to help the poor, feel free to do so yourself, don't have the government force everyone else to do it at gunpoint. Let's face it, all government action is backed by threat of violence.

So exactly which government functions should the government force everyone to support at gunpoint? How about the Defense Department at $1T per year? Social Security? Welfare? Highways? Bridges? Border Patrol? Education? Let's do away with all of it. You're the all-American hero. You can provide for yourself. You don't owe anybody anything, do you? Never mind all the publicly funded education you absorbed as you were growing up. Never mind the money and lives spent by others to defend your freedoms. You don't have any obligation to repay any of that, do you? At least that's what the drug addict on the radio tells you.

 

[dmancornell]

Can you detail where and when government employed firefighters have failed?
I'm afraid I can't recall very many reports of firefighters not doing their jobs. I do remember that it was reported in the news recently that a house burned down while firefighters stood by and watched because the homeowner hadn't paid his private fire district dues.

I'm also sure that if government paid firefighters were routinely failing to do their jobs it would be big news. Have you EVER had an original thought, or do you just parrot what you hear on the radio?

If you learn how to read you'd know I never said government firefighters fail to do their jobs, routinely or not. The issue at hand is how cost-effective they are at their jobs, why the government sees fit to grant themselves a monopoly, and their culpability should they fail to do their jobs. All government run agencies (not just firefighters) fail miserably at all three points.

If you were referring to my statement on the government's lust for power, that is a general statement regarding the murderous nature of the US government, domestic and overseas.

 

[dmancornell]

So exactly which government functions should the government force everyone to support at gunpoint? How about the Defense Department at $1T per year? Social Security? Welfare? Highways? Bridges? Border Patrol? Education? Let's do away with all of it. You're the all-American hero. You can provide for yourself. You don't owe anybody anything, do you? Never mind all the publicly funded education you absorbed as you were growing up. Never mind the money and lives spent by others to defend your freedoms. You don't have any obligation to repay any of that, do you? At least that's what the drug addict on the radio tells you.

Tell me, what happens if you don't pay your taxes. The government arrests you and throws you in prison. If you resist, they kill you. That's pretty much the definition of "at gunpoint".

Nice list of stuff there, certainly let's get rid of all that crap. Especially the ponzi scheme SS, the Department of Imperialist War and the Department of Miseducation. And for your information, I went to private school.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

The healthcare system is dominated by the state via overbearing regulation, which inflates costs via excessive overhead.



Two words: unfunded liabilities. The government simply estimates (i.e. make up) the numbers as they go along, no private enterprise would get away with that kind of fraud.



You mean they'd win by cheating. The trojan horse "reform law" will regulate the government's competitiors out of business, then they fudge their own costs to fool the public into accepting a complete takeover.

When medicare was first passed, its initial 20 year cost was underestimated by at least a factor of 10. Given government's track record in controlling costs and being honest in cost projections, only the biggest fools would believe the government lies.

In other words, you have no proof of anything that you can point to, and you have no valid point to make. It just feels good to repeat the crap you hear on the radio.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And for your information, I went to private school.

That explains a lot.

 

[dmancornell]

In other words, you have no proof of anything that you can point to, and you have valid point to make. It just feels good to repeat the crap you hear on the radio.

The government openly admits medicare is an unfunded program, and the initial medicare cost estimates in 1965 are a matter of public record.

What do you have other than blind faith in a contemptuous government that has already robbed you blind? Definition of a sucker right there.

 

[dmancornell]

That explains a lot.

Indeed, I didn't have to sit through 12 years of government indoctrination. Generally makes for a healthier worldview.

 

[bugeye]

The healthcare system is dominated by the state via overbearing regulation, which inflates costs via excessive overhead.



Two words: unfunded liabilities. The government simply estimates (i.e. make up) the numbers as they go along, no private enterprise would get away with that kind of fraud.



You mean they'd win by cheating. The trojan horse "reform law" will regulate the government's competitiors out of business, then they fudge their own costs to fool the public into accepting a complete takeover.

When medicare was first passed, its initial 20 year cost was underestimated by at least a factor of 10. Given government's track record in controlling costs and being honest in cost projections, only the biggest fools would believe the government lies.

You say so, and that is all you say.

Your one opinon, that is not so terminally vague that no response is possible, has to do with projected government accounting costs vs. actuals over a 20 year period. Enron only existed as an entity for 16 years from 1985 to 2001. At the end of Enron the value of its stock was down to less than a penny from a high of $90, so that represents a change of over 900 times! In addition Enron's overestimation of its value was in real time and not a projection over 20 years. In short, your argument is nonsense, and it fits your opinons to a T.

The govs accounting practices are pretty good by comparison to any large corporation. So your argument boils down to the government lies, so you don't have to consider anything they say as reality, and this leaves you free to consult the oracle in your behind for all true knowledge?

I do want to correct something I said in a previous post though, when I said health insurance was getting a $100 a month in excess overhead from half the population. It is really more like a 100 million people and that makes 10 billion a month or 120 billion a year just in overhead, and the gov could do this for less than 40 billion, and this is simply so as they are doing it right now providing insurance to about half our population. This accounting is not in funny money it is in real dollars, the cost of running the department is in real dollars and the amount paid out is in real dollars. The facts support my case and if you can only quote your rear as a source for your arguments then you will only end up being the butt of your own joke.

 

[MikeE]

In other words, you have no proof of anything that you can point to, and you have no valid point to make. It just feels good to repeat the crap you hear on the radio.

I think, Bro, that you have put your finger on it.

 

[dmancornell]

Your one opinon, that is not so terminally vague that no response is possible, has to do with projected government accounting costs vs. actuals over a 20 year period. Enron only existed as an entity for 16 years from 1985 to 2001. At the end of Enron the value of its stock was down to less than a penny from a high of $90, so that represents a change of over 900 times! In addition Enron's overestimation of its value was in real time and not a projection over 20 years. In short, your argument is nonsense, and it fits your opinons to a T.

LOL, you actually think a company's stock value has anything to do with how much money it spends? No wonder you support government running things, you have no clue whatsoever.

That said, any private enterprise that underestimates its costs by 10 will be out of business very quickly. A government that does the same simply taxes the people more. You're fine with that?

Unlike a private company, government doesn't have to raise any capital, it simply robs the population or has the federal reserve push the magic button. They don't answer to stockholders, and they're not legally required to report on the bottom line. So how is their accounting trusthworthy in any way? You throw this overhead number around that's supposedly so much better than private enterprise, and yet the US debt is skyrocketing and medicare is the main culprit. Go figure.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

All government run agencies (not just firefighters) fail miserably at all three points.

And so you're OK with giving the "government run" department of defense $1,000,000,000,000.00 per year to spend as it sees fit.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

LOL, you actually think a company's stock value has anything to do with how much money it spends?

Um, that was sort of the whole point of the Enron scam. They hid how much money they spent in order to keep the stock price up.

 

[BigCat]

 

[AGCR]

LOL what? Besides the fact that the Chicago fire department in 1871 was run by the city, I like how you casually tack on a completely irrelevant factor to the real culprit, poorly planned construction. Maybe big urban fires don't exist any more because of better construction techniques. Duh.

Sorry, Chicago was a bad example. I apologize However, I'm interested in the big picture, not an exception in the history of catastrophic fires. And as you mention, poor construction happens to be a major hazard in the absence of proper building regulations. As a former roofer, I can tell you that building companies will cut every corner they can to make a buck and fear of violating safety codes keeps them in line. Wait, you say they are only cutting corners because they must be taxed too much? No, it's just universal human greed.
People don't think long term unless forced to. If it wasn't for strict fishing quotas, the Alaskan fisheries I work in would be as dead as the Atlantic- an example I cited earlier. I've heard fishermen who make plenty of money and write off all their taxes still wish they could break quotas. They haven't learned from history. Fortunately most of the rest of us have.

 

[bugeye]

LOL, you actually think a company's stock value has anything to do with how much money it spends? No wonder you support government running things, you have no clue whatsoever.

That said, any private enterprise that underestimates its costs by 10 will be out of business very quickly. A government that does the same simply taxes the people more. You're fine with that?

Unlike a private company, government doesn't have to raise any capital, it simply robs the population or has the federal reserve push the magic button. They don't answer to stockholders, and they're not legally required to report on the bottom line. So how is their accounting trusthworthy in any way? You throw this overhead number around that's supposedly so much better than private enterprise, and yet the US debt is skyrocketing and medicare is the main culprit. Go figure.

10 times off in cost over 20 years when inflation made the dollar worth less than half, is off by only 2.5% per year. You really want to stick with your statement?

Again, the gov is accountable moneywise check it, it balances out, they report the bottom line.

Medicare is expensive but the alternative is to let old people die in the streets, no private insurer can cover them for less, heck they don't even want the business.

The new law limits private health insurance to 20% overhead, and that is plenty, and they even agreed by not fighting the bill. They know the gov can do it cheaper so they bent with the wind.

 

[Karma]

I don't know. When I think of government ran vs. private sector, I think of USPS and UPS. USPS would be bankrupt if it wasn't the beneficiary of the Federal government's unlimited budget.

 

[elsullo]

I don't know. When I think of government ran vs. private sector, I think of USPS and UPS. USPS would be bankrupt if it wasn't the beneficiary of the Federal government's unlimited budget.

Besides falling back on accusations of their opponents liking Hitler, conservaturds always point to the US Post Office as a failure of government management---and it IS a failure! USPS is supposedly an autonomous agency, yet it is governed by a US government commission, WHICH RESTRICTS HOW MUCH IT CAN CHARGE, no matter if that is insufficient to meet reality. Every few months the USPS begs to raise postal rates to something slightly nearer to reality, and the commission usually refuses it. Then every few years it allows the rate to go up a couple of pennies. PENNIES! Not even NICKELS! We gotta fumble with PENNIES! I believe that that govenment commission is secretly devoted to making government agencies look bad!

"Hey Kid! Here's forty-four cents. Now fly this letter to Vermont, and don't be telling me that is an unrealistic cost!".............................elsullo