Reminds me of my job the other day.  (for the government).  Doing the Census.  Security only allowed 2 people up with them at a time.  So the government sent 12 people and had then take turns.

The smart thing of course being.. send 2 people.

It's more Apathy then anything else.

Government run operations can't go out of buisness so it's a matter of getting things done while getting your people paid as much as possible.

I'm not complaining cause I need the money... but if the census was being run by a private firm it'd already be done at a 10th of the cost.

You don't take peoples social security away.  You still pay them while stop collecting for social security and then you stop owing people social security.  Furthermore you offer a refund to those who have paid in but not reached SS age.

Social Security is worse then private investing for everybody... except those who can't afford to save... in which case they could use the money anyway... as many of them don't end up qualifing for social security and are much more likely to die before collecting it.

State department could likely take a huge cut.

Department of Defense could be cut as well by getting rid of useless bases in places like Europe.

Medicare as already stated could be changed so people don't benefit from illegally sneaking in the country and having kids.  (Really being born in the country making you a citizen should be gotten rid of in general anyway.)

The "global war on terror" is pretty pointless, probably could cut most of that depending on what that entails.

The Deparment of Education... can be completly eliminated probably need to keep some of it's spending but just get rid of the whole department.  Delegate education to the states.  Competing agaisnt each other to have the best schools, education and smartest population for economic advantages is enough motivation.  the DoE hinders education more then it helps it as far as i can see.

Discesinary spending... likely could be cut quite a bit.

Housing and Urban development could likey accomplish more for less by liscensing out more.

Department of Agricutlute.... farm subsidies actually hurt the US economy if it's covered here... and all should be gotten rid of.   It's basically us paying for our food to cost more... for the benefit of factor farms.

Government here functions as good, better than and worse than society as a whole depending on what function you're talking about. We have government organisations which turn a profit, we have schools which are better than the equivalent private institution and its not because private schools aren't funded by the government as well. Our equivalent of a DMV takes around 5 minutes to do and more than that is outside the norm. Like I said, it depends.

Functionally the American government is set up to fail because its a two party representative democracy where the representatives have as much if not more in many cases incentive to represent those who are paying the bills given the abundance of safe seats and lack of electoral competition. Like I said before, its more because the U.S. system sucks rather than anything else which causes the problems.

Anyway I've seen private charity break down into bickering and excess. I was a part of a few charities where that happened.

People aren't going to spontaneously become responsible again when they have no real reason to do so. Fortunately for everyone who wants government off of his or her back, the government is broke and will have no choice but to fuck off. It's a matter of when, not if. And yes, it's too bad for everyone who bought into the pack of lies that is the nanny state and came to depend on it, but the word "unsustainable" really does mean something.

Then, and only then, will people start acting as neighbors again, because they won't have much of a choice.

There is a long chain of linking interdependencies in a modern society, which prevent people from seeing the direct result of their actions and inactions, in the big scheme of things.  Therefore, the end result is that people won't do what is needed to make changes, as you have stated.  And this needed responsibility isn't just that people take care of themselves either.  There is a case of being a good neighbor also, and taking care of those in need.

Again, I go back to what Is said, and why I believe libertarians have it backwards.  While it is true that government can make things worse, it is more true that we have more government, because people fail to take care of problems without government.  Consider the BP oil spill for example.  Please remind me exactly what part of the government causes the spill to happen.  Was there regulations on the part of government that made them mess up like that?  Show me where.  But, guess what happens next?  Well, the spill will wipe people out, and their livelihoods.  Just like with Katrina, they are facing a disaster that will change their lives.  I guess you say sue them, and make BP pay for everyone.  BUT, what happens when the end result is the company can't pay?  I guess life is hard, and you see, people should of known.  Why have government in here?

And the banking industry being idiots, and also corporations who decide they can outsource and layoff Americans in large numbers, causing people to not pay their student loans?  Well, I guess it is the fault of people who took those loans out, and their fault for trusting what they were told by industries as to where the jobs would be.  In short, everyone is to blame for everything that goes wrong in their life, including people who made their livelihoods in New Orleans.   That is how the game works.

Anyhow, I will say it is backwards.  Want less government?  Well, then do more NOW, and then argue the case it is superior to people.  Prevent problems from popping up to begin with.  Self-organize and do it.  As of now, as a person who is getting money from family, I am out of the system, and really don't care what they do.  I have no vested interest in more or less government, because I am on less than a shoe string here, and just trying to survive, without help from anyone (outside of family) to ANY degree at all, to get ahead.  That is life.  I certain see no reason to vote this election either.

Being that the "Assets" backing Social Security are (essentially) a bunch of IOUs from a government which is rapidly approaching bankruptcy, what makes you think that Social Security isn't going to disappear? How does the return on investment of Social Security look compared to (pretty much) any private investment? In what way is Social Security any different than a Ponzie Scheme?

There are ways to achieve the goals of Social Security without having the government manage the program for everyone. While this wouldn’t be my first choice, the government could mandate that an individual must invest 5% of their income (through a payroll deduction) into a registered retirement fund, people would have a choice on where they invested it, there could be a default fund set up for people who didn’t want to manage their own money, and this investment could be tax-deductible up to a certain value (say $20,000 per household). While for low income earners this might not completely cover their living expenses, I’m positive for someone who worked for 40 years it would produce a larger payment than Social Security.

Medicare and Medicaid will be interesting to see, because by the 2016 (or 2020) election these systems will be facing a crisis because their expenses will have increased much more rapidly than government revenues; and the government will be collapsing under its own weight.

1) Considering that oil companies are blocked from drilling in the safer shallow waters, and are instead pushed out to sea in deeper and more dangerous deep water? Yes, government regulation did seem to have played a role here.  Drilling in 5000 ft of water is significantly more dangerous than that of 1000 ft, but more importantly it also has a much higher potential risk of catastrophe as we are now witnessing. So in the sense that the government forced them to the deeper water where problems were more likely to occur and harder to deal with when they do, yes I think government regulations are a cause here.

This hardly absolves BP in even a small way though, as they did accept this risk by choosing to drill there. It does, however, illustrate how government intervention can inject the disastrous risk factors that create the justification people will then use to advocate for yet even more government intervention.  Stunning really.

As for your question about what if a company can't pay for it's mistake?  Well then every last penny of their assets will go towards paying for the damages they caused and the American people, charitable souls that they have time and time again proven themselves to be, will help cover the rest.  This sense from you that you view the government as this paternal figure that steps in when things go wrong, is precisely the kind of mentality that was referred to in the Grover Cleveland quote from earlier.  This BP disaster fits the situation almost perfectly.  So let me just close with that again, only this time I'll quote a bit more of it:

"Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people's needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed-grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

2)  I'm not really sure what your point here is honestly so I'll just give my thoughts.

Yes, it is the responsibility of people who take out a loan to ensure they will have the means to pay it, but it is also the responsibility of the lender to do the same in order to manage their risk.  If that person well and truly cannot repay their loan they may have to consider bankruptcy, but more likely they can repay their loan and don't want to take the kind of jobs that are readily available to them.  Sometimes you have to take a crap job below your education level while you look for a good job and people aren't always willing to do that.

Should the lender be stuck with the loan of an individual who truly cannot pay, they should be able to absorb the loss fairly readily as risk management is a basic aspect of lending.  They count on a certain portion of people not repaying their loan and if they've managed their risk right it's not an issue.  If they managed their risk wrong and they have a lot of those loans, then yes they may well be about to go under due to their own poor decisions.

Put simply: Yes, people are to blame for their choices, which includes the vast majority of the things that go wrong in their lives.  And the same is true of business.

PS - I think you missed my last reply.

Sqrl,

I just want to add that heavy-weight environmental regulations are actually making the oil spill much worse in the gulf. Many countries have equipment that effectively sucks up oil from the surface of the ocean, separates the oil from the water, and returns the mostly-clean water back to the ocean. The water that is returned to the ocean still contains some oil, but as the water and oil separate that oil will be captured in a future pass on the oil spill.

With the way environmental regulations are written, these ships can not operate in the gulf because they're returning "Dirty" water to the ocean; and as a result the skimmers are capturing 90% to 95% water, and taking 10 times as many trips to capture as much oil as one of these other ships can. As a result of this regulation, about 10% of the oil that could potentially be captured is being captured, and a massive amount of damage is done to the environment (supposedly) in order to protect the environment.

Blah. I hate VGC. I responded to Richards 'what would you change' post, and clicked outside the box, and removed all my text... :-

I worked for the State of Ohio, so I learned how atrocious Social Security is.

1) First off, every state employee is OPTED OUT of social security. How the heck is that fair that as a private citizen, I am forced in most jobs to pay in, yet am opted out of every government job?

2) I earned 7-10% APR for every year I was in OPERS. That is 2-3x greater than the IOUs by SS. Social Security was built to fail from the get go. You really can't blame the system for under-performing, when it was built to fail by FDR and those that built the system. You see, 0% of that money is invested into anything external that is interest bearing. Comparatively, OPERS is not that way...My money was invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, mutual funds, and all kinds of stuff. It's been earning 7-10% for decades, through busts and booms. Guess what? When my dad retired via SS, he got $1,000 a month. My buddy on OPERS earning similarly made $3,000. That is why social security needs to go.

3) You can solve the problem by allowing me and my generation to pay in a much smaller amount to SS to keep the sytem afloat for those getting benefits today, and within the next 10 years. Eventually, you can sunset the entire program without a loss of services. The truth is, I could spend about  4-5% on retirement, and get the same benefit as 8.5% through the government. That extra 3.5-4.5% of savings could be huge for a generation or two down the line.

4) Social security will be doomed, one way or the other, Richard. If we keep it the way it is today, 20 years from now,  we will have to make hard choices like reduction of benefits, or increasing the retirement age. These are things you argue will be 'bad' if government is reduced...The truth is, these are realities even if government is left to be large.