Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

[DaShi]

As far as the inefficiency of the government bureaucracy (the part that is blamed on the federal government), a significant portion of it is due to the congressional part.

Maybe even the majority.

A lot of the rules that hamper the bureaucrats that I know, and keep them inefficient, are put in place by congress.

JM

The contractor system is also to blame. There are no bigger rent-seekers than government contractors.

[Sava]

As opposed to the other definitions which referred to bureaucracy as an abstract concept. The first one is a description of an actual concrete thing and actually appropriate for determining who is or isn't a bureaucrat.. Moron.

Are you this stupid? The structure of a corporation is a bureaucracy. A rotary club is a bureaucracy. THOSE ARE REAL THINGS MORON

[giblets]

Are you this stupid? The structure of a corporation is a bureaucracy. A rotary club is a bureaucracy. THOSE ARE REAL THINGS MORON

And...? You've still failed to give us a good reason to bypass the first definition, the one that pertains directly to the government, when talking about the government. Remember, the whole argument was over whether Congress is part of "the federal bureaucracy".

[Sava]

Wtf? A good reason to bypass the first definition?

And it's not an argument. It's two guys not knowing the meaning of a word. Congress is part of "the federal bureaucracy"... by definition.

I'm done with this threadjack. You are hopelessly brain dead.

[giblets]

I'm glad you're giving up and admitting defeat

[Sava]

Yes. You are victorious in being wrong.

My bad for trying to raise your IQ into the triple digits. The old saying is true, you just can't fix stupid.

[Tupac Shakur]

Who do you think your congresspeople pay more attention to? You and your fellow constituents, or the NRA/Teacher's Unions/UAW/name-a-bank-here/etc etc etc

Gun owners, teachers, auto workers, and banksters aren't constituents? They're merely more effectively organized than constituents without an interest group representing them, which probably explains why congresspeople pay more attention to their views.

One of the big lies of American political discourse is the idea of nefarious "special interest groups" who are undermining the will of the people. Interest groups are the people, and a populace that wants change so long as it doesn't affect their own interests (which is every interest, in the aggregate) is getting exactly what it wants.

[Tupac Shakur]

I think you need to go away and relearn what the words federal and bureaucracy mean.

You should take your own advice, dumb****...

A bureaucracy is a group of non-elected officials within a government or other institution that implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of their institution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Congress is a body of elected officials that creates the laws that the federal bureaucracy implements.

[Tupac Shakur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Will you ***** please do me a favor and kill yourselves?

This post will be getting my thanks once I get it back.

[Tupac Shakur]

God Sava, your performance in this thread was so disappointing...

[-Jrabbit]

Gun owners, teachers, auto workers, and banksters aren't constituents? They're merely more effectively organized than constituents without an interest group representing them, which probably explains why congresspeople pay more attention to their views.

One of the big lies of American political discourse is the idea of nefarious "special interest groups" who are undermining the will of the people. Interest groups are the people, and a populace that wants change so long as it doesn't affect their own interests (which is every interest, in the aggregate) is getting exactly what it wants.

So the failure of background checks to pass congress despite 90%-ish approval rating is... the fault of the people who favor these checks, because they're not "effectively organized"?? Nice.

Your conceit -- that the totality of special interest groups somehow magically define the interests of people as a whole -- is disingenuous at best. This "let the market decide" approach to politics, while intellectually appealing on some level, just does not pass the sniff test, because most people are not that organized, and don't have disposable income to contribute to a "lobby for regular Joes." And amazingly, that does not mean that their opinion shouldn't count.

The simple fact is, those who scream the loudest, distribute the most money (lobbying, bribes, etc), and who threaten and deliver retribution for slights, are the ones most likely to get their legislative way.

[kentonio]

You should take your own advice, dumb****...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy

Congress is a body of elected officials that creates the laws that the federal bureaucracy implements.

What a surprise, another dumb **** who thinks Wikipedia is the font of all human knowledge. At least you're consistently dumb.

[Tupac Shakur]

I could quote James Q. Wilson at you, but why waste time on a **** who won't admit when he's wrong?

[giblets]

In 2005, it finally felt a little better saying you got your information from Wikipedia. In a study in the journal Nature, researchers chose articles from a wide range of topics from both Wikipedia and the knowledge standard-bearer, Encyclopedia Britannica. The experts sent those entries to "relevant" field experts for peer review. The verdict? The journal found eight serious errors in the articles — four from each side. However, they also discovered many more minor factual errors, like omissions and misleading statements — 162 in Wikipedia and 123 in Britannica. Even though Britannica pointed to those minor errors as proof it's the more reliable source, Wikipedia took the study as somewhat of a victory after much press criticism over the accuracy of its entries.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2042333_2042334_2042491,00.html

Wow Wikipedia is such a terrible source of information!!!

[Tupac Shakur]

So the failure of background checks to pass congress despite 90%-ish approval rating is... the fault of the people who favor these checks, because they're not "effectively organized"?? Nice.

I don't see the need to assign blame in this case unless you're trying to set up a retarded strawman. It's pretty obvious why the NRA got its way while the 90% of the populace who support stricter background checks didn't, though; the members of the NRA care a lot about gun legislation and are very well organized to oppose it, while the vast majority of the 90% doesn't feel strongly about gun legislation and those that do aren't well organized to support it.