Jump to content

American Politics: the Lost Generation


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

FLoW,

Sure. OTOH, I thought that it wasn't about reducing entitlement spending, but was instead a leg in a strategy to reduce healthcare costs. Such a connection I can certainly surmise but definitely prefer to have spelled out.

I did. I initially did not make that connection explicit, and someone said they didn't understand the point. I then apologised for seeming "random", and specifically said I was referring to cost control of entitlements, not private insurance. I had no objection to clarifying that point. But the poster then claimed he still didn't understand the point, and that's when I punted. I've since realized that the ignore function won't work, so I suppose I'll just go manual.

But to circle back around to the substance, a fair number of people seem to believe that deficit spending by the feds is reaching a point of major concern. And I think that's one reason so many people question the wisdom of the government creating a new entitlement program.

We can still sell our debt right now, but if the willingness to buy U.S. debt declines appreciably, we could be in for a world of hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, there IS a lot of waste. Most of it in the US military (which every economist I've heard of claims to be one of the most innefficient organizations in the country, mainly with regards to "basic" supplies, not wepaons, but say, milk, or boots)

Well, obviously, we should apply the model of privatization here. If we allow each soldier the decision-making power of purchasing their boots and weapons, why, the market forces will pick up the slag and out-perform the centralized planning that is causing this inefficiency. I hear, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, you vehemently argued that we shouldn't tinker with the health care system because of we just don't know how it would turn out and therefore we shouldn't do it .............. where did all that consistency against the unknowable future went?

I've never been against the unknowable future. I'm against the government betting the fiscal farm and health care system on that future because of the loss of flexibility created by legal mandates. I'm against putting all eggs in one basket, so to speak, because I think the more complicated the issue, the more likely legislators are to fuck it up.

Of course, some people view it differently and think it better if we all follow the lead of the supposedly smartest people rather than letting stupid people mess things up on their own. I understand that difference of opinion, and certainly don't expect to resolve that here. I'm just trying to present how the "other side" tends to look at these things from a not completely irrational perspective.

What I offered here was just the possibility of an additional side benefit of expanding HSA's for those who are employed, but whose employers don't offer insurance. If that additional benefit materializes, great. If not, it still makes sense for those whose employers don't offer insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Maricopa County news Joe Arpaio's BFF County Attorney Andrew Thomas is also now under federal grand jury investigation for prosecution of political opponents.

Also "Police Women of Maricopa County" is among the most odious defecations to ever come out of a television.

I hear its running neck and neck with Steven Seagal -- Lawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, there IS a lot of waste. Most of it in the US military (which every economist I've heard of claims to be one of the most innefficient organizations in the country, mainly with regards to "basic" supplies, not wepaons, but say, milk, or boots)

Defense Contracting is actually worse then the Military itself. The horror stories I've heard would have any fiscal conservative waking up at night screaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense Contracting is actually worse then the Military itself. The horror stories I've heard would have any fiscal conservative waking up at night screaming.

I seem to remember a story a few years back about the military being overcharged millions for something really mundane like staple food and drink supplies. Can't remember the details but it caused a very brief and minor shitstorm before disappearing into the ether.

There must not be a very good/thorough tendering process for military logistics and supplies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defense Contracting is actually worse then the Military itself. The horror stories I've heard would have any fiscal conservative waking up at night screaming.

No question there is a ton of "waste" in the defense budget. Why is that? I mean, we've had Presidents railing against it for more than a half-century, and Congress doing the same. Yet no matter who we elect, it doesn't seem to get fixed. TrackerNeil really hit the nail on the head upthread when he pointed out that there isn't a pie chart from which you can just easily sever out this "waste".

I think it is an inherent part of the political process, and that's why that process can't solve it. I don't think any President wants waste, and nor does Congress as an entity. Though again, you're back to Tracker's point that one person's "waste" is another person's "I want the contractor in my district to get this business."

We obviously should try to fight waste, and reduce it where possible, and the military really does have systems in place to try to ferret it out. That's how a lot of this stuff comes out in the birst place. But I think any claims that we can somehow make huge strides and recover that money are just pipedreams. It's a core government function, and you can't fully privatize it, so we're just kind of stuck with doing the best we can, unfortunately. The only real way to reduce significantly the amount of waste would be to reduce the overall military budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question there is a ton of "waste" in the defense budget. Why is that? I mean, we've had Presidents railing against it for more than a half-century, and Congress doing the same. Yet no matter who we elect, it doesn't seem to get fixed. TrackerNeil really hit the nail on the head upthread when he pointed out that there isn't a pie chart from which you can just easily sever out this "waste".

I think it is an inherent part of the political process, and that's why that process can't solve it. I don't think any President wants waste, and nor does Congress as an entity. Though again, you're back to Tracker's point that one person's "waste" is another person's "I want the contractor in my district to get this business."

We obviously should try to fight waste, and reduce it where possible, and the military really does have systems in place to try to ferret it out. That's how a lot of this stuff comes out in the birst place. But I think any claims that we can somehow make huge strides and recover that money are just pipedreams. It's a core government function, and you can't fully privatize it, so we're just kind of stuck with doing the best we can, unfortunately. The only real way to reduce significantly the amount of waste would be to reduce the overall military budget.

You are right in a sense. It IS part of the political process. The US political system is set up to perpetuate this sort of thing.

Senators and House Members vote to pay for enourmous, vaguely defined, probably superfluous projects full of gee-whiz sci-fi technology. They demand that these things be built and researched in THERE area so that they can bring home jobs and get re-elected. Also, they are getting lobbyed by all sorts of powerful military defense contracting companies who want some of that sweet, sweet government teat.

And so, next thing you know, you've got parts for the F-22 getting built in 46 different states.

But that's not where it stops, you see politicians change and only a mild amount of progress is made on the actual project (mostly because it's ill-defined and/or sci-fi crazy and thus undoable really) and then the parameters of the project gets changed and they start from scratch basically. Or the whole thing gets canceled and the US has spent billions on nothing.

Then said companies take the money the government paid them for nothing and use it to lobby for another bunch of fancy projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some Change that Republicans can believe in...

Washington (CNN) -- White House advisers are considering recommending alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a military court instead of a civilian one in New York City, a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.

Time to break out the flip-flops again?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/05/911.trial/index.html?hpt=T1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempra,

That was an interesting and relevant article you linked to.

But I'm not sure what you're going for with this comment here:

Time to break out the flip-flops again?

If its meant to sort of quote from the article, fine. But if its meant as mockery, then I think it does a disservice to a very real quandry of principle vs. pragmatism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington (CNN) -- White House advisers are considering recommending alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a military court instead of a civilian one in New York City, a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.

Obama: totally different than Bush. Really.

They probably should try him in military court, seeing as all the evidence against the guy is inadmissable in civillian court because it was obtained under torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempra,

That was an interesting and relevant article you linked to.

But I'm not sure what you're going for with this comment here:

If its meant to sort of quote from the article, fine. But if its meant as mockery, then I think it does a disservice to a very real quandry of principle vs. pragmatism.

Our current President ran a campaign systematically disparaging GWB's War on Terror policies and claiming that he would not go down that path. Well he has, in virtually all respects,gone down that path by maintaining GWB's War on Terror policies, such as rendition, indefinite detention, and wiretaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our current President ran a campaign systematically disparaging GWB's War on Terror policies and claiming that he would not go down that path. Well he has, in virtually all respects,gone down that path by maintaining GWB's War on Terror policies, such as rendition, indefinite detention, and wiretaps.

I'm sorry, are we still torturing people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, are we still torturing people?

Who knows? Obama, despite campaigning against Bush's use, is a strong advocate of the "state secrets" doctrine, which forecloses us from fully discovering the truth of what the government does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows? Obama, despite campaigning against Bush's use, is a strong advocate of the "state secrets" doctrine, which forecloses us from fully discovering the truth of what the government does.

Well, not torturing is a pretty key difference, in fact probably one of the most important, since its causing the mess you linked to. I'd be really shocked if water-boarding interrogation was still going on.

I admit to being disappointed about the state secrets, but at the same time recognize that almost no administration in the history of the US (with the exception of one that I can think of) has voluntarily given up acquired executive powers. Its a decision I disagree with, but one I'm not surprised that a principled pragmatist might unfortunately make.

In any event, I think when implying that the two administrations are behaving exactly the same in this area, you're either being disingenuous, using hyperbole, or not considering all of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not torturing is a pretty key difference, in fact probably one of the most important, since its causing the mess you linked to. I'd be really shocked if water-boarding interrogation was still going on.

If they're still using rendition, and shipping people to places where they will be tortured, is there much of a difference? Honest question.

In any event, I think when implying that the two administrations are behaving exactly the same in this area, you're either being disingenuous, using hyperbole, or not considering all of the facts.

I tend to agree with this, and I'm someone who doesn't oppose waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques in some circustances and against certain people. I think there are things that tend to grab headlines, and if they look similar to other things, we tend to assume that nothing has changed. But I know some folks who have had some involvment with some of this stuff, and I've been told that there definitely is a different tone and shorter "leash" in the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, not torturing is a pretty key difference, in fact probably one of the most important, since its causing the mess you linked to. I'd be really shocked if water-boarding interrogation was still going on.

I admit to being disappointed about the state secrets, but at the same time recognize that almost no administration in the history of the US (with the exception of one that I can think of) has voluntarily given up acquired executive powers. Its a decision I disagree with, but one I'm not surprised that a principled pragmatist might unfortunately make.

In any event, I think when implying that the two administrations are behaving exactly the same in this area, you're either being disingenuous, using hyperbole, or not considering all of the facts.

Didn't water boarding actually stop before he was elected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're still using rendition, and shipping people to places where they will be tortured, is there much of a difference? Honest question.

I don't think there's a difference. I think there's always going to be "black ops" type stuff we don't know about, but my hope is that president will work to stop it. But I recognize that we live in an imperfect world.

I tend to agree with this, and I'm someone who doesn't oppose waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques in some circustances and against certain people. I think there are things that tend to grab headlines, and if they look similar to other things, we tend to assume that nothing has changed. But I know some folks who have had some involvment with some of this stuff, and I've been told that there definitely is a different tone and shorter "leash" in the field.

Interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. My ex's older brother was an army interrogator. He was stationed in Korea before being deployed to Iraq. He never got into specifics but usually hinted that more accurate info could be gotten with straight mental interrogation rather than physical pain. He liked both McCain and Obama, but favored McCain because of his military service, but said that he was happy that no matter what the result, water-boarding and such would be abolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...