Part of the failure of government lies with there seeming inability to reevaluate

[donttread]

In contrast to everyone from family budgeters too small businesses to major corporations the federal government appears wholly unable to stop beating ( and funding) dead horses. One of the fundementals of human intelligence is the ability to learn from our mistakes.
Our government appears completely unable to do this however.

1) War on Drugs
2) War on poverty
3) War on terror for examples are all huge failures unless when the US government says "war on" they really mean lets increase.
Deficit spending, illegal immigration there are almost as many examples as there are government programs.
Why are we as a nation devoid of the ability to say, for example, prohibition has failed: It funds organized crime , causes deaths and incarcerates a generation we must find another way?

[Common Sense]

This is true. Quite often it seems if the policy isn't working, their rationale is that they just haven't spent enough money on it. All three are great examples of that.

[Chris]

Or throw enough brains at it.


Here's my theory. First I don't accept that big corporations are easy to change. People will be protective of even failing ideas because reputations are at stake, and jobs. Look how long it took US automakers to stop making big cars for just one example. So I would argue the bigger the organization, and government is probably the biggest, at least in the US, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to change, to learn, to stop beating dead horses.

[donttread]

This is true. Quite often it seems if the policy isn't working, their rationale is that they just haven't spent enough money on it. All three are great examples of that.

You are exactly right, when they first find out a program is broken they simply increase funding and scope never asking why the program is failing

[donttread]

Or throw enough brains at it.


Here's my theory. First I don't accept that big corporations are easy to change. People will be protective of even failing ideas because reputations are at stake, and jobs. Look how long it took US automakers to stop making big cars for just one example. So I would argue the bigger the organization, and government is probably the biggest, at least in the US, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to change, to learn, to stop beating dead horses.

I see that to a point but imagine if Detroit had NEVER changed. The war on drugs has been an abject failure for decades. At some point the corporation will change or go broke whereas the government will continue to borrow money to fail with

[Chris]

I see that to a point but imagine if Detroit had NEVER changed. The war on drugs has been an abject failure for decades. At some point the corporation will change or go broke whereas the government will continue to borrow money to fail with

Yes, US automanufacturers did finally change. Their jobs were at stake. What do failer politicians do but become lobbyists, still part of government.

[Captain Obvious]

If it begins with "war on" you can immediately dismiss it as a farce.

Try it out, really.

[Mainecoons]

Incompetence is endemic to government everywhere. The only solution is to keep it as small and limited as possible.

The Founders understood this. Somehow, from the beginning of the 1900's we lost sight of that basic fact.

[Chris]

Even when they lose their jobs nothing changes, Consider, The Strange Case Of The Congressman Who Resigned And Never Left (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/the-strange-case-of-the-congressman-who-resigned-and-never-l): "In 2011, he resigned in disgrace. So why is former Rep. David Wu still wandering the halls of Congress?"

I once contracted at a large corporation. This was in prep for the y2k scare. We would have meeting with various groups in the business about their concerns and then go back and work on potential problems. After a while I started noticing the same face showing up. So I approached him one day and asked what was up. He calmly explained hed been a contractor, and his contract had expired 6 months before, so he left, but he kept getting paid, so he decided to come in each day, wander the halls, go to meetings, as long as he got paid, what they hell. The group of developers I worked with had a big laugh about that. The buy stopped showing up at meetings. Someone must have reported him. Oh, well, Matt 6:3.

[donttread]

Even when they lose their jobs nothing changes, Consider, The Strange Case Of The Congressman Who Resigned And Never Left (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/the-strange-case-of-the-congressman-who-resigned-and-never-l): "In 2011, he resigned in disgrace. So why is former Rep. David Wu still wandering the halls of Congress?"

I once contracted at a large corporation. This was in prep for the y2k scare. We would have meeting with various groups in the business about their concerns and then go back and work on potential problems. After a while I started noticing the same face showing up. So I approached him one day and asked what was up. He calmly explained hed been a contractor, and his contract had expired 6 months before, so he left, but he kept getting paid, so he decided to come in each day, wander the halls, go to meetings, as long as he got paid, what they hell. The group of developers I worked with had a big laugh about that. The buy stopped showing up at meetings. Someone must have reported him. Oh, well, Matt 6:3.

That's because we insist on hiring from the same two employment agencies that have sent us nothing but corruption and failure for decades. Its mind numbing

[donttread]

In reality the Donkephant has gone from dysfunctional to non-functional

[lynn]

It has not been a failure to the government's viewpoint for it justified in spending more of our taxes on expanding their employee payroll and capitalizing off of these so-called "wars"

[countryboy]

In contrast to everyone from family budgeters too small businesses to major corporations the federal government appears wholly unable to stop beating ( and funding) dead horses. One of the fundementals of human intelligence is the ability to learn from our mistakes.
Our government appears completely unable to do this however.

1) War on Drugs
2) War on poverty
3) War on terror for examples are all huge failures unless when the US government says "war on" they really mean lets increase.
Deficit spending, illegal immigration there are almost as many examples as there are government programs.
Why are we as a nation devoid of the ability to say, for example, prohibition has failed: It funds organized crime , causes deaths and incarcerates a generation we must find another way?
The reason they cannot reevaluate is because of the layers upon layers of bureaucracy. And yet when the conservative right calls for limited government, the left says, meh. And so it goes. No offense, but you are a big part of the problem.

[donttread]

It has not been a failure to the government's viewpoint for it justified in spending more of our taxes on expanding their employee payroll and capitalizing off of these so-called "wars"

Yes, there actions make sense for them once you view them as the one party they really are

[Mainecoons]

Discussed on another thread but definitely worth a read here:


The consequences of unequal distribution of wealth in the world is becoming the tipping point argued and funded by governments to blame the rich – never government. Nobody seems to be doing the math that if you confiscate all that wealth you end up with communism with taxation and government just keeps growing until it consumes everything. We borrow with no intent of paying anything back and that about 70% of the national debts is all interest that built no schools, reduced nobody’s tax bills, and did nothing for the middle class. This is fairly consistent in all major countries. Governments are trying to push interest rates exceptionally lower to reduce their deficits exploiting the middle class creating a disincentive to save even for retirement when it pays next to nothing.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-18/oecd-fears-middle-class-civil-unrest-coming

[donttread]

The reason they cannot reevaluate is because of the layers upon layers of bureaucracy. And yet when the conservative right calls for limited government, the left says, meh. And so it goes. No offense, but you are a big part of the problem.

There is a fiscally conservative right which wants smaller government but there are only two of them in DC

[countryboy]

There is a fiscally conservative right which wants smaller government but there are only two of them in DC
I'm talking about rank and file rights and lefts like you and I.

Just curious, who are the only two? And how many leftists in congress are proponents of limited government?

[lynn]

We are never going to get a smaller government out of our current one. It must totally collapse first.

[TheInternet]

There is a fiscally conservative right which wants smaller government but there are only two of them in DC

Rand Paul and Thomas Massie come to mind. Who else were you thinking?

[Peter1469]

We are never going to get a smaller government out of our current one. It must totally collapse first.

It is unwittingly setting its own collapse with its fiscal policies.

[donttread]

I'm talking about rank and file rights and lefts like you and I.

Just curious, who are the only two? And how many leftists in congress are proponents of limited government?

The Pauls. You don't think big government Bohner wants to downsize do you?

[lynn]

It is unwittingly setting its own collapse with its fiscal policies.


They have to be aware of it so why are they intentionally destroying the U.S. economy?

[Peter1469]

They have to be aware of it so why are they intentionally destroying the U.S. economy?

Because they don't like the alternative.

We have too much debt. And are annual budget is too large to cut enough to matter without pissing off voters. So they kick the can down the road and whistle past the grave yard.

[Bob]

Or throw enough brains at it.


Here's my theory. First I don't accept that big corporations are easy to change. People will be protective of even failing ideas because reputations are at stake, and jobs. Look how long it took US automakers to stop making big cars for just one example. So I would argue the bigger the organization, and government is probably the biggest, at least in the US, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to change, to learn, to stop beating dead horses.

It cost a lot to downsize automobiles. Safety was compromised.

[countryboy]

The Pauls. You don't think big government Bohner wants to downsize do you?
Oh, that's right. I forgot you claim to be a pseudo-LIB-er-tarian. Bohner is a career politician who is just about worthless, kinda like Ron Paul. Gimme a freakin' break already.

[Peter1469]

Oh, that's right. I forgot you claim to be a pseudo-LIB-er-tarian. Bohner is a career politician who is just about worthless, kinda like Ron Paul. Gimme a freakin' break already.

Paul is pro-freedom. If you get to Congress and you don't play ball at least a little, you end up like LTC West. Out of Congress. We need to flood Congress with LTC West's and Paul. Then we can change things. In the mean time if you shit the bed over Paul, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[countryboy]

Paul is pro-freedom. If you get to Congress and you don't play ball at least a little, you end up like LTC West. Out of Congress. We need to flood Congress with LTC West's and Paul. Then we can change things. In the mean time if you shit the bed over Paul, you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Yes, Ron Paul sounds good on paper, but is nothing more than a career politician who has accomplished little during his tenure. He is the very thing he preaches against. How can one take him seriously?

[Peter1469]

Yes, Ron Paul sounds good on paper, but is nothing more than a career politician who has accomplished little during his tenure. He is the very thing he preaches against. How can one take him seriously?

Paul is one of 435 members. If he doesn't bend it is impossible for him to accomplish anything. Think.

[countryboy]

Paul is one of 435 members. If he doesn't bend it is impossible for him to accomplish anything. Think.
That's the thing. What has he accomplished?

[donttread]

Yes, Ron Paul sounds good on paper, but is nothing more than a career politician who has accomplished little during his tenure. He is the very thing he preaches against. How can one take him seriously?

No he's alone and stands his ground. What is your solution , your half of the statist?

[Peter1469]

That's the thing. What has he accomplished?

Point flew over your head. :smiley:

Maybe you are right. He should have passed several bills even if the other 434 members voted no.

[countryboy]

Point flew over your head. :smiley:

Maybe you are right. He should have passed several bills even if the other 434 members voted no.

I'm just being a contrarian Pete. I think Ron Paul is a good man, I just don't worship him like so many libertarians do. And, I have an aversion to career politicians. I get your point.