|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 13, 2010 13:51:27 GMT -8
There is no freedom without economic freedom, which includes the freedom to leave your money to your children. Our founding fathers didn't like monarchies and inherited power, true, but they also wanted a system that allowed people to keep the money they earned and to do with it what they chose to do - a big part of which was leaving whatever money was left in their estate to their children. They would have been horrified at the thought of the government stepping in and taking a large percentage of that money, and rightly so. Anyone can become successful in this country. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc, etc, etc - none of those guys were born rich. They all had a drive and a work ethic coupled with insight and/or foresight that allowed them to make money. Good for them. What was the topic again? Oh, yeah - wasteful spending at the DOD. There's wasteful spending - big time - in every branch or arm of the government. Each and every part of the government is wasteful and blows a lot of money on needless middle management, outdated or inefficient systems and procedures, etc. The DOD is no exception. Let me in there and I'll cut 20% right off the top of each and every governmental budget without the people even noticing a difference. I'd be able to implement the same kind of efficiency processes that the company I work for uses. Simplify workflows, eliminate needless steps, and increase productivity and you need less people to do the same amount of work. Government, unfortunately, does it the opposite way. They complicate workflows, add needless steps, and decrease productivity requiring more employees to get the same amount of work done. I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things.
If you find yourself in the position to leave that kind of money to your kids, I would like to ask for a small loan.  "Anyone can become successful in this country. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc, etc, etc - none of those guys were born rich. They all had a drive and a work ethic coupled with insight and/or foresight that allowed them to make money. Good for them."By and large this trope is a bill of goods. The likelihood is that you will never come close to realizing this dream. Wealth tends to become more concentrated and the same families who had money in the 1890s still have it. Bill Gates comes from a very well to do family and timing (read luck)as well as talent were instrumental in his success. I do not know much about Buffet, but he said that If we (the rich) are at war with the rest of society, we are winning. I don't care who makes what, but since they benefit from our society and the infrastructure much more than the rest of us they should pay too. I am not saying we should pauperize them, just make them pay their way. Fetishizing the rich serves no purpose. "I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things."I don't know why you hate what was constituted by your and your fellow citizen's power. "Oh, yeah - wasteful spending at the DOD. There's wasteful spending - big time - in every branch or arm of the government. Each and every part of the government is wasteful and blows a lot of money on needless middle management, outdated or inefficient systems and procedures, etc. The DOD is no exception."And so does private industry. So what is your point? Bureaucracies exist in business to the same degree they do in government. "Let me in there and I'll cut 20% right off the top of each and every governmental budget without the people even noticing a difference. I'd be able to implement the same kind of efficiency processes that the company I work for uses. Simplify workflows, eliminate needless steps, and increase productivity and you need less people to do the same amount of work. Government, unfortunately, does it the opposite way. They complicate workflows, add needless steps, and decrease productivity requiring more employees to get the same amount of work done."This is an unrealistic comment. And there is no explanation of just where the efficiencies you suggest exist. Your company may or may not serve as a useful example of anything. I am getting bored again. I am out of here. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Nov 13, 2010 17:42:35 GMT -8
>>>"Oh, yeah - wasteful spending at the DOD. There's wasteful spending - big time - in every branch or arm of the government. Each and every part of the government is wasteful and blows a lot of money on needless middle management, outdated or inefficient systems and procedures, etc. The DOD is no exception."<<< him
>>>And so does private industry. So what is your point? Bureaucracies exist in business to the same degree they do in government.<<< you
I think maybe when wasteful spending occurs in "business", those businesses tend to end up going out of "business".
The gummint, on the other hand, just squeezes more out of the citizens to make up for their inefficiencies.
We're about to find out how well the gummint's approach will work in California.
I'm hoping praying for a total collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 13, 2010 19:46:25 GMT -8
In business they try every way possible to squeeze out the wasteful spending. They have a bottom line to meet - their goal is to make a profit, where the government's goal is, well, nebulous at best.
The idea that there is as much bureaucracy in business as there is in government is ludicrous. Government has no incentive to be efficient. In fact, the people handling the day to day operations in government have an incentive to NOT be efficient (it's called job security - if they push for greater efficiency the jobs lost may be their own).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 13, 2010 20:23:13 GMT -8
There is no freedom without economic freedom, which includes the freedom to leave your money to your children. Our founding fathers didn't like monarchies and inherited power, true, but they also wanted a system that allowed people to keep the money they earned and to do with it what they chose to do - a big part of which was leaving whatever money was left in their estate to their children. ... I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things. According to the Republicans we have to pay off this national debt, therefore as a damn good BAL, I propose that all estates escheat to the Federal Government. Each generation can build their OWN estates if they want, but when they die the wealth returns to the Feudal Lord (Federal Government) to pay off the debt generated by Republican approved policies of excessive spending. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecron on Nov 13, 2010 22:27:00 GMT -8
All good points for consideration, but I take exception to the following quote "In my opinion the hereditary passage of wealth creates a class of people who are out of touch with our values. I think that they should have to accumulate their own assets like the rest of us. " The first is what are our values? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't want the government telling my kids that no matter what your parents have done for your future, we think it's better that you start at the bottom so you can accumulate your own assets like the rest of us. My wife's culture is the parents do everything they can in their power to raise great kids, provide education and potential, and then pass on the fruits of our hard work to heirs when we pass. My culture growing up was poor, poor, poor. I don't want my kids to have to feel what I felt when growing up, ever. There's simply no need for anyone to intervene in my affairs and tell me what I can and cannot leave to my kids. Specially if it will cause them even greater stress in that period of loss. It sounds like the paragraph I quote from your post is simply a matter of putting people in their place, for lack of a better term. Just my thoughts, I really appreciate the explanations by all, on all sides of this subject. Our national narrative is best described by the Horatio Alger story. One of the things our founding fathers hated was hereditary power. All of those Kings and royalty they rebelled against were hereditary, were they not? (Hereditary power also meant hereditary wealth). There is considerable pressure in this country to be useful. Conservatives, for example have little use for people who are not economically useful. Those who are not useful are put down-hard. What is the first thing you think of when you hear about Paris Hilton, for example? ". . .but I don't want the government telling my kids that no matter what your parents have done for your future,. . . ""There's simply no need for anyone to intervene in my affairs and tell me what I can and cannot leave to my kids."These comments indicate that you do have a fully formed point of view and it is strongly held. Interesting. We aren't run by a hereditary monarchy and my kids aren't Paris Hilton. That's what I meant earlier when I mentioned I felt like it was a punishment of sorts. I'm held up against the actions of others, but not my own? I'm not sure why her actions or the actions of others are held against my ability to pass down my earnings and savings to my kids without further taxing of my already taxed money and assets. You have an interesting take on the Estate Tax. Not sure I agree with it, but I get your point. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 14, 2010 8:01:14 GMT -8
There is no freedom without economic freedom, which includes the freedom to leave your money to your children. Our founding fathers didn't like monarchies and inherited power, true, but they also wanted a system that allowed people to keep the money they earned and to do with it what they chose to do - a big part of which was leaving whatever money was left in their estate to their children. ... I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things. According to the Republicans we have to pay off this national debt, therefore as a damn good BAL, I propose that all estates escheat to the Federal Government. Each generation can build their OWN estates if they want, but when they die the wealth returns to the Feudal Lord (Federal Government) to pay off the debt generated by Republican approved policies of excessive spending. You won't like the source, but this column by Frank Rich probably explains my orientation pretty well. It speaks to my comment about our national trope and its fallacy. It also speaks to the damage done by concentrating income. Enjoy! Well don't gag. www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=1&hpIf the conservatives can quote Breibart I can quote Rich. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 14, 2010 12:51:08 GMT -8
There is no freedom without economic freedom, which includes the freedom to leave your money to your children. Our founding fathers didn't like monarchies and inherited power, true, but they also wanted a system that allowed people to keep the money they earned and to do with it what they chose to do - a big part of which was leaving whatever money was left in their estate to their children. They would have been horrified at the thought of the government stepping in and taking a large percentage of that money, and rightly so. Anyone can become successful in this country. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, etc, etc, etc - none of those guys were born rich. They all had a drive and a work ethic coupled with insight and/or foresight that allowed them to make money. Good for them. What was the topic again? Oh, yeah - wasteful spending at the DOD. There's wasteful spending - big time - in every branch or arm of the government. Each and every part of the government is wasteful and blows a lot of money on needless middle management, outdated or inefficient systems and procedures, etc. The DOD is no exception. Let me in there and I'll cut 20% right off the top of each and every governmental budget without the people even noticing a difference. I'd be able to implement the same kind of efficiency processes that the company I work for uses. Simplify workflows, eliminate needless steps, and increase productivity and you need less people to do the same amount of work. Government, unfortunately, does it the opposite way. They complicate workflows, add needless steps, and decrease productivity requiring more employees to get the same amount of work done. I don't know why anyone would trust government to do anything important well besides kill people and break things. This strikes me as funny in a strange way. I would say we need to teach government to be very good at killing people and breaking things. You would be revolted by seeing what happens when you ask some entrenched government workers to do more for the same price. There are many examples that I could describe. One is when my office was a Contracting Officers Technical Representative. We had three or four people qualified to not only monitor the work, but to also do it. I suggested that we minimize the use of the contractor and do most of the work ourselves. We had the time and the manpower so why not give the taxpayer a break. Well, it took over a year to get that concept and practice in place and it caused lots of hard feelings in the beginning. Later it became accepted and we were able to do a lot more work for the same money. The sad thing was I was never able to get our organization to stop the practice of "protecting" our budget by last minute spending. I did improve the functionality of the year end purchases however. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 14, 2010 12:54:48 GMT -8
In business they try every way possible to squeeze out the wasteful spending. They have a bottom line to meet - their goal is to make a profit, where the government's goal is, well, nebulous at best. The idea that there is as much bureaucracy in business as there is in government is ludicrous. Government has no incentive to be efficient. In fact, the people handling the day to day operations in government have an incentive to NOT be efficient (it's called job security - if they push for greater efficiency the jobs lost may be their own). Sad, but almost universally true. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 15, 2010 8:49:35 GMT -8
In business they try every way possible to squeeze out the wasteful spending. They have a bottom line to meet - their goal is to make a profit, where the government's goal is, well, nebulous at best. The idea that there is as much bureaucracy in business as there is in government is ludicrous. Government has no incentive to be efficient. In fact, the people handling the day to day operations in government have an incentive to NOT be efficient (it's called job security - if they push for greater efficiency the jobs lost may be their own). Untrue comment. Many corporations are run by executives who use corporate assets to do nothing but enrich themselves. I have seen it firsthand. These guys care nothing about the shareholder. I would go as far as to say this attitude at the top is the norm rather than the exception. The only watchdog is their board of directors which, by the way, is made up of close friends who are just like them. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Nov 18, 2010 15:51:22 GMT -8
How do you respond to a person who wants to eliminate the department of Education? Not provided for in the Constitution. . . . If we took the constitution verbatim, you would still be leading a donkey to the public well to draw water. I know that you are an intelligent man, but do you ever think critically about what your people are saying to you?  What the Department of Education has done to elevate the quality of education in this country is on par with what the Department of Energy has done to make our nation energy independent. Since their inceptions, both have failed their charter. I know, I know...... if we can just give them a bit more tax payer funding, they could turn the corner and really do a good job....  Ah, now there's the classic change of conversation. Am I mistaken that you work in the defense industry? I really don't know, but I seem to recall you do. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 12:08:24 GMT -8
In business they try every way possible to squeeze out the wasteful spending. They have a bottom line to meet - their goal is to make a profit, where the government's goal is, well, nebulous at best. The idea that there is as much bureaucracy in business as there is in government is ludicrous. Government has no incentive to be efficient. In fact, the people handling the day to day operations in government have an incentive to NOT be efficient (it's called job security - if they push for greater efficiency the jobs lost may be their own). Untrue comment. Many corporations are run by executives who use corporate assets to do nothing but enrich themselves. I have seen it firsthand. These guys care nothing about the shareholder. I would go as far as to say this attitude at the top is the norm rather than the exception. The only watchdog is their board of directors which, by the way, is made up of close friends who are just like them. Name a publicly held and traded corporation that does this today. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 12:11:41 GMT -8
What the Department of Education has done to elevate the quality of education in this country is on par with what the Department of Energy has done to make our nation energy independent. Since their inceptions, both have failed their charter. I know, I know...... if we can just give them a bit more tax payer funding, they could turn the corner and really do a good job.... Ah, now there's the classic change of conversation. Am I mistaken that you work in the defense industry? I really don't know, but I seem to recall you do. =Bob He makes a valid point. What does where he works have to with the conversation? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 19, 2010 13:40:12 GMT -8
Untrue comment. Many corporations are run by executives who use corporate assets to do nothing but enrich themselves. I have seen it firsthand. These guys care nothing about the shareholder. I would go as far as to say this attitude at the top is the norm rather than the exception. The only watchdog is their board of directors which, by the way, is made up of close friends who are just like them. Name a publicly held and traded corporation that does this today. You can start with any of the big banks and wall street outfits. Next go to any of the healthcare insurance companies. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 16:56:22 GMT -8
Name a publicly held and traded corporation that does this today. You can start with any of the big banks and wall street outfits. Next go to any of the healthcare insurance companies. Name one! Include details and on what facts you base your allegation. I will pass your comments to their investor relations office for comment and possible reply. If it is a company that I own, I will be even more aggressive. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 7:19:35 GMT -8
Name a publicly held and traded corporation that does this today. You can start with any of the big banks and wall street outfits. Next go to any of the healthcare insurance companies. Wrong. I work for a BIG insurance company (and have for 14 years). The CEO does not enrich himself. In fact, last year he took steps to make sure that the employees got profit sharing. He does a great job, but does not live exorbitantly (he literally started in the mailroom). The company is amazingly efficient, and is always looking to improve efficiency in every way possible. Insurance is an extremely competitive market. If you have people at the top wasting money on themselves the company will not be competitive when it comes to premiums (to be profitable they'd have to make up for that excessive pay by raising premiums) - and companies that have higher premiums across the board cannot compete in the market as it's evovled over the last two decades. You clearly do not know what you're talking about. |
|
