Jump to content

when government programs systems are abused.......


Dhug
 Share

Recommended Posts

when government programs systems are abused(esp financially).......should we just get rid of them all together?

......or perhaps we could discuss them and reform them?

Can government programs actually be perfected over time?

I ask these questions because I see complaints about how certain government programs are abused and when those programs are abused, I see lots of people calling for those programs to be discontinued as a whole. ........but is that the way we should be thinking? If so......why does that not apply to all government programs?

Earlier this week, I found out that there were several government programs and entities that abused the system. These government programs abused the system in place for financial gain.....wasting tax payers' money.....should we scrap them?

1:25 in......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FXeNEPGgc8k

From what I read, these are the programs in question:

Agriculture Department

NASA

U.S. Postal Service

The Pentagon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/10/2008)
when government programs systems are abused(esp financially).......should we just get rid of them all together?

......or perhaps we could discuss them and reform them?

Can government programs actually be perfected over time?

I ask these questions because I see complaints about how certain government programs are abused and when those programs are abused, I see lots of people calling for those programs to be discontinued as a whole. ........but is that the way we should be thinking? If so......why does that not apply to all government programs?

Earlier this week, I found out that there were several government programs and entities that abused the system. These government programs abused the system in place for financial gain.....wasting tax payers' money.....should we scrap them?

1:25 in......

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FXeNEPGgc8k

From what I read, these are the programs in question:

Agriculture Department

NASA

U.S. Postal Service

The Pentagon

Anarchy!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of a government program should be to facilitate it's own demise; help create a n environment where that program is no longer necessary. That said, I don't think any current government programs actually do that, they all seem to be band aids that give bailouts to individuals and businesses that should probably be allowed to fail, and forced to learn from their mistakes. The only exception that I can think of would be the sort of large scale technological development programs that are not feasibly profitable in the free market. NASA would fall into that category. Still, even NASA is mismanaged and needs tweaking.

It would be catastrophic to simply cut these programs all together, and countless individuals and businesses who have been used to relying on them would suffer, but there does need to be major overhaul of the system with the stated goal of not wasting any more of our money. Too bad no candidate will really push for that.

I read something a while back that made me think:

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the

public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is

always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;

3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;

6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. From dependence back into bondage"

Individuals and businesses are going to vote for the candidate who will give them more, not necessarily the candidate who will do what is best for them and society as a whole. I firmly believe that there is maybe 5% of the voting population who truly vote, or would if given the chance, for the person they felt would do what is best for them via doing what is best for society. These people are not confined to one ideology; they are not simply all on the left or the right. Sadly, most people will vote for whoever gives them the best prize. And eventually corporations, individuals, or more likely some combination of both are going to bankrupt this country of wealth and talent. Wow, that was kind of a rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

morphy (4/11/2008)
By principal, and by the original political philosophy of the United States of America, the government should not have the power to take away the property of one person and give it to another unless a crime or civil transgression has taken place.

I am not talking about principal here......talking about reality and as you know, the reality of the US is not of the same quality and mold of it's principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/11/2008)
morphy (4/11/2008)
By principal, and by the original political philosophy of the United States of America, the government should not have the power to take away the property of one person and give it to another unless a crime or civil transgression has taken place.

I am not talking about principal here......talking about reality and as you know, the reality of the US is not of the same quality and mold of it's principals.

"its"?

Just say "us", as in "all of us". The nation is a reflection of its people. It's not a separate entity unto itself. When the citizenry doesn't respect (or know) the principals of its own country, then how can anyone speak on flawed principalities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statick (4/11/2008)

"its"?

Just say "us", as in "all of us". The nation is a reflection of its people. It's not a separate entity unto itself.

"It's not a separate entity unto itself".

You fault me for using "it's" and then you do it it yourself? :w00t:

When the citizenry doesn'trespect (or know)the principals of its own country, then how can anyone speak on flawed principalities?

Who said anything about the citizenry respecting, not respecting, knowing or not knowing about the principals? You also just used "it's" again to represent America and it's citizens. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/11/2008)
morphy (4/11/2008)
By principal, and by the original political philosophy of the United States of America, the government should not have the power to take away the property of one person and give it to another unless a crime or civil transgression has taken place.

So we should give back the land and tear up the railroads and highways?

I love this argument.  The Indians stole the land too.  They stole it from other Indians, and animals.  The animals stole it from the plants, who stole it from microscopic organisms.  So who do we exactly give the land back to?  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhug (4/11/2008)
Statick (4/11/2008)

"its"?

Just say "us", as in "all of us". The nation is a reflection of its people. It's not a separate entity unto itself.

"It's not a separate entity unto itself".

You fault me for using "it's" and then you do it it yourself? :w00t:

When the citizenry doesn'trespect (or know)the principals of its own country, then how can anyone speak on flawed principalities?

Who said anything about the citizenry respecting, not respecting, knowing or not knowing about the principals? You also just used "it's" again to represent America and it's citizens. :w00t:

The gist is we should fault ourselves for screwing stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grendel (4/11/2008)
kicker23 (4/11/2008)
grendel (4/11/2008)
morphy (4/11/2008)
By principal, and by the original political philosophy of the United States of America, the government should not have the power to take away the property of one person and give it to another unless a crime or civil transgression has taken place.

So we should give back the land and tear up the railroads and highways?

I love this argument. The Indians stole the land too. They stole it from other Indians, and animals. The animals stole it from the plants, who stole it from microscopic organisms. So who do we exactly give the land back to? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I was talking about Imminent Domain, as should have been plain by my reference to railroads and highways.

I apologize.  I don t necessarily think of imminent domain uses from railroads, I was thinking of the transcontinental railroad and the settlement that took place because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...