the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Imran Siddiqui]

The government doesn't have to worry about the consequences of inefficiency nearly as much as a corporation does because it's source of revenue is fixed, and is not tied to it's performance.

Very true. Unless you work for the government, you don't realize how inefficient and wasteful it is. You have people who are horrible at their jobs still around because you can't fire them. And just have to jump through hoops for the smallest thing.

[Q Classic]

Q3,
With universities, you are also paying for future generations, and, you keep paying for much of your life. Alumni are a constant target for donation compaigns.

again, a false analogy. donations are voluntary. taxes are not.
i can say no to a university, and they'll have to live with it. a lot of uchicago grads do that because they disagree with some policies, which is why we have one of the smaller endowments for a university our caliber. if i say no, they can't audit me; they can't take me to court; they can't garnish my wages. they can say very mean things, but whoop-de-doo, i still have my money.
taxes? i either pay or get punished.

[chequita guevara]

Sometimes the government is wasteful, sometimes it isn't. Medicare's overhead is one tenth that of an HMO. When government agencies are ineficient, it is usually because blocks have been deliberatly put in their way by Congress or the Administrations who are hostile to the purpose of the agency.

For example, the Bush Administration is hostile to government regulation, so it doesn't allow meat inspecters to do a good job. Any meat inspecter has to justify why he stopped a line, and could lose his job if the political higher-ups don't agree. New regulations allow for much higher amounts of fecal matter in our food. So now we're paying for a agency that dosn't do anything, thanks to Republican greed and Democratic spinelessness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Medicare's overhead is one tenth that of an HMO.

Funny, because HMOs were formed persuant to government legislation .

When government agencies are ineficient, it is usually because blocks have been deliberatly put in their way by Congress or the Administrations who are hostile to the purpose of the agency.

Total bull. One, it is insanely difficult to fire anyone in government service. Two, even Congressional or Administration babies have insane regulatory requirements so the government can justify spending money on programs.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Very true. Unless you work for the government, you don't realize how inefficient and wasteful it is. You have people who are horrible at their jobs still around because you can't fire them. And just have to jump through hoops for the smallest thing.

Oh, absolutely. I've only worked for the US federal courts for a couple of years, but the waste I've seen is massive. I could give hundreds of examples of wasted money, useless employees, and abuse of power. And to think I am only seeing the result of 1% of the entire federal budget.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Total bull. One, it is insanely difficult to fire anyone in government service.

Funny how the Bush Administration seems to have no problem firing internal critics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny how the Bush Administration seems to have no problem firing internal critics.

Aside from those who acted grossly wrong (ie, posting research information on personal websites without authorization), who? General incompetance is ignored in most of the government.

I mean there is someone in the office that EVERYONE knows is incompetant, even the bosses, but they can't do a damned thing about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Funny how the Bush Administration seems to have no problem firing internal critics.

Aside from those who acted grossly wrong (ie, posting research information on personal websites without authorization), who?

That wasn't a fireable offense, and you know it. Also fired was an invesitgater for the office of mine safety who blew the whistle on the failure of the department to stop a mine flood through their inaction. I could find others, if I wanted to look hard enough.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That wasn't a fireable offense, and you know it.

Of course it was. You don't act out to show up your boss.

Also fired was an invesitgater for the office of mine safety who blew the whistle on the failure of the department to stop a mine flood through their inaction.

Cite? And a balanced one, please that will give the whole story.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Now let's say that tomorrow you are struck by a falling tree and paralyzed. Would you still then argue against social security measures being used to benefit you, even though the accident wasn't your fault, or anyone else's?

actually, yes. because in that case, i should have had the foresight to have my own health insurance.

Again, you are missing the point of the argument. Private markets simply do not provide health insurance efficiently. The United States spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care than Canada, yet manages to provide a worse overall standard of care.

Public health care is simply cheaper and more effcient.

the only two forms of social security i can stand are unemployment benefits and student loans. anything else in its current form are excessive and poorly run.

Have you ever considered that this might be the best we can hope for?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That wasn't a fireable offense, and you know it.

Of course it was. You don't act out to show up your boss.

He wasn't acting out. He was doing it for about five years, well before Bush became his boss. They fired him because it contradicted Bush's lies. Maybe the President should be lying, instead of firing people who are posting government reasearch.

Also fired was an invesitgater for the office of mine safety who blew the whistle on the failure of the department to stop a mine flood through their inaction.

Cite? And a balanced one, please that will give the whole story.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/11/13/slurry_coverup/index.html

Read it before you condemn it.

[Q Classic]

public health care is cheaper? sorta. less upfront cost, higher taxes.
more efficient? ever been to the dmv? and it's my understanding that in canada, you do have to wait quite a while to get some things done.

as for if this is the best we can do:
i return to a proverb i posted earlier:
it is better to have not married than it is to have married badly.

[chequita guevara]

Marrying badly is a compromise position. Not marrying is a radical extreme.

[Q Classic]

not quite.

if your parents and society force you to marry, yes. if your society doesn't, not so much. besides, the thrust of the proverb isn't really about marriage.

[chequita guevara]

Well, fortunately you ive in a society where liberals allow you to marry or not marry who you want, provided they consent, are of age, and are of the opposite gender.