Successful Governement Run Projects?

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
But all of these programs continue to overrun their budgets and need additional money each year. If they were so successful then why can't they sustain themselves on their own. Or get private investment to funnel in some money. I guess its the same reason no private investor would put up any money for the expansion into the fast rail systems. They saw the plan, current ridership the revenue and overall there is no opportunity it to make money nor sustain itself without additional government funding.

In the real world if a project or department can no longer sustain itself what happens? Its terminated pretty simple.

You're entirely correct on this point.

Governments love spending other people's money. The fact that some good is done (& a lot of it in some cases), doesn't override the fact that they over spend, f*ck it up, yet can't go to the wall, because they can charge people who have no choice but to pay.

In the UK you only have to look at Defence spending. All the new RAF Nimrod fleet to be scrapped, new aircraft carriers scrapped - afew years back, all the new state of the art helicopters scrapped -the IT didn't work, & now we have aircraft carriers - that DONT have planes! All of that was about £60BN down the pan.

Scottish Parliament building - budget £45M - cost £405M!

Health service, Courts, Csa, Tax IT systems - scrapped -£30BN!

In fact - virtually all government capital projects cost 3TIMES their original budget!

Patient care - innumerable numbers of double, triple, & quadruple diagnosis, after doctors failed to register having seen patients, or having not left any notes that could be found - cost £1-2BN annually.

Incorrect flu/Sars/smallpox vaccines -£1BN.

Lack of checking on working tax credits £3BN annually, CSA overpayments £2BN.

And that's just some. The point is,there is a civil service which effectively runs the country - & none of the senior heads ever roll. Balls up, after balls up - nada.

That doesn't happen in the private sector - because you'd go bust.

The private sector isn't perfect (hell no)- but there is a survival instinct lacking in the public sector, which is why it's been reported, that with many public sector jobs going in the UK, they're really unlikely to get a job in the private sector.

http://redecision.co/blog/?p=308
 
Last edited:

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
I mentioned in another thread that there are some things that need to be provided as "public goods" because the free market doesn't supply them efficiently due to market failure. By definition, these programs can't be "self-sustaining," "profitable," or attract private capital. If the goverment doesn't step in to provide them, then they won't get provided - or at least not efficiently. Those inefficiencies, in turn, create a drag on the economy which hurts everybody in the long run.

Technological innovations, such as the high speed rail system, are similar to public goods. Right now, the US transportation system is autocentric (by design - US automakers lobbied for the interstate highway system and zoning regulations that kept homes and shops separate in order to boost auto sales after WWII), so in the current market it's not profitable for companies to pursue alternatives. Government spending on the high speed rail system thus provides incentives to innovate that the market currently does not (because it has been manipulated). Eventually, however, outside forces - such as declining resources and political instability in oil-producing regions - will force the market to change. So we can either innovate now and be ready for the eventual change, or we can pursue "business as usual" and risk getting caught off guard.

To me, it seems that many conservatives think that pursuing short-term profits regardless of the long-term costs is in their self-interest; it's not. Adam Smith never said that "greed is good"; in fact, he said that truly self-interested proprietors (he wasn't fond of corporations) should invest in the long-term stability of their communities (even though it might mean sacrificing a bit of short-term profit) because ultimately they would benefit from the resulting prosperity. Contributing to the public coffers so that the goverment can supply public goods and fund currently unprofitable innovations is part of that.

With that said, there's a lot of government spending that has nothing to do with providing public goods or core services, and there are plenty of inefficiencies and redundancies built into the system (Department of Redundancy Department anyone?). These also act as drags on the economy and should be eliminated.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Government is best when extremely limited -- as was the plan of our Founding Fathers

Medicare and Medicaid are the two biggest drags on the national economy,and the primary reason access to health care has become so expensive (because they distort the pricing mechanism), making it unaffordable to a growing number of Americans

Our welfare programs begun under President Johnson only resulted in a massive dependent unterklassen, who growing up fatherless, created an explosion of the prison population, and massive numbers of disenfranchised

EEOC has only resulted in white females getting degrees who otherwise wouldn't, and huge numbers of males who more deserving, not getting theirs

For the sake of the nation, and the future, out they should go
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The biggest drag on our economy right now is Defense spending and our war in the Middle East. Medicare & Medicaid may be a bigger expense, but it essentially benefits many more people in our country than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Statistics as well as simplistic cause & effect illustrates this. Anyone thinking otherwise have absolutely no clue.
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Medicare/Medicaid as they are currently implemented do create a drag on the economy, but, as VB mentioned, that drag is outweighed by their benefits - not that those are perfect. Reform, however, is certainly something that should be considered.

Instead of using payroll taxes to fund a pay-as-you-go system, it would be simpler and cheaper for the government to implement a risk-pool similiar to private insurance - just without the profit motive. This risk-pool would have a distinct advantage over private insurance because the risks would be spread out over everyone whereas private insurance pools cover only fractions of the population. Since any given private insurer can't cover everyone (because there are multiple private insurers each with their own clients), each private insurer has to charge higher premiums to compensate for spreading the risk over fewer people. This is a built-in inefficiency in the way insurance coverage is currently provided. Add in the profit motive on top of that, and private insurers create a major economic drag that is only partially offset by the benefits they pay - when they choose to pay them.

A single non-profit-based risk pool (whether government run, or run by a private not-for-profit corporation) would reduce insurance costs for everyone because everyone is enrolled. The government would then pay the premiums on this lower cost plan out of general revenue. This would guarantee that any US citizen could go to any doctor, clinic, or hospital anywhere in the country and receive whatever medically necessary treatments are required (elective treatments would be paid out-of-pocket) at either no cost or for a small co-pay. (Prescription drugs would probably be handled with a co-pay.) As an added benefit, people who are unemployed through no fault of their own would not lose insurance coverage when they lose their jobs.

Of course, adopting a single risk pool would cause massive layoffs in the private insurance sector unless the government adopted a two-tier system: public insurance that focuses on preventive care and essential medical treatments, with private, for-profit supplemental insurance to cover premium services as an option for those who choose to pay for it.

As for defense spending, we need to distinguish between true "defense" spending - something that protects the country from attack - and "offense" spending - such as engaging in unnecessary wars that haven't done anything to make the country more secure. True defense spending is a public good that everyone benefits from: safe borders mean more stability, more stability promotes greater prosperity; "offense" spending, however, only benefits profit-driven so-called "defense" contractors at the expense of the larger economy. Eliminating "offense" spending (where we attack other people) and focusing instead on programs that actually keep the country prepared in the event that someone attacks us (and ideally preventing that attack before it happens) would go along way to reducing this drag.
 

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
...Without public transit, cities like Chicago, San Francisco, New York and Boston (to say nothing of Paris, London, Barcelona or Tokyo) simply could not exist, and makes places like Portland, OR infinitely more livable and civilized. The US also enjoys an exceptionally well-designed and -maintained system of public highways without which we simply couldn't function as a society.

I also take exception to the "failures" listed in the OP: government does not operate on a profit motive. In fact, it provides services unavailable in the private sector specifically because they are both unprofitable and necessary. There is no other apparatus in existence to do such things.

Excellent points. If a balanced budget was the government's ultimate goal, then anything that was considered "fat" would be trimmed in the name of staying in the black, needs of the people be damned. Can we even imagine a society where that happened (especially when it's taken into consideration that we pay far less taxes than many other countries)?
 

B_Alt33

Just Browsing
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Posts
112
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Location
NY
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Hence the problem we can not spend more than we bring in. Period! All needs to be cut including stopping the wars cutting medicare and medicad and ss. This may be hard on some but this is the nature of where this country is now. As I mentioned in a previous post tax payers should ever year when filling their tax have the option of allocating their taxes as they see fit. Once government receives all tax filings they can allocated the budget according to the aggrigated % of allocations. Those that can not be funded are cut the rest need to work within the allocation until the next year. I am tired of paying for others
 

B_OtterJoq

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
163
Location
Minneapolis
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I am tired of paying for others

Me too. I'm tired of paying for corporate tax breaks, tired of covering for lost revenue from inequitable tax codes, and tired of idiocy.

Time to get back to being productive and creating jobs for others.

That's what just how I roll, Alt. I know it's Saturday, but self-starters like me don't like to pass up these little chunks of time. I can get so much done on days like this, and feel refreshed and renewed after a little jousting with you.

So...uh...thanks?
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
But all of these programs continue to overrun their budgets and need additional money each year. If they were so successful then why can't they sustain themselves on their own. Or get private investment to funnel in some money. I guess its the same reason no private investor would put up any money for the expansion into the fast rail systems. They saw the plan, current ridership the revenue and overall there is no opportunity it to make money nor sustain itself without additional government funding.

In the real world if a project or department can no longer sustain itself what happens? Its terminated pretty simple.

Government is not a business. Many things are more efficient for governments to run than private industry, yet these things do not make money.

Government is precisely the thing you want running things that are not moneymakers. If the government didn't fund the USPS, you'd have private companies that either didn't run the unprofitable routes, or they'd be charging a hefty premium for the pain in the ass routes. The USPS, instead, offers the same rate for letters anywhere, and at a price that doesn't even really keep up with inflation.

Mass transit is another example you bring up. A well run mass transit system will almost never make money directly. It's a benefit to all the businesses serviced by it, so it is of course a net gain for the society.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Hence the problem we can not spend more than we bring in. Period!

Yes, governments can. They're not like your personal or business finances. Government budgets can and will run deficits. It's not preferred, but sometimes it's better than the alternatives, such as during a recession.

All needs to be cut including stopping the wars cutting medicare and medicad and ss.

No, Medicare and SS do not need to be cut, as their issues have little to do with being poorly run.

Social Security could easily be fixed by a few minor revisions to the payroll tax cap.

Medicare's main issue is the inability to negotiate prespription drug prices, which you can thank the lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry for.

This may be hard on some but this is the nature of where this country is now.

Or we could, you know, raise taxes a tiny bit on the top 10% and stop giving massive subsidies to already rich industries.

As I mentioned in a previous post tax payers should ever year when filling their tax have the option of allocating their taxes as they see fit. Once government receives all tax filings they can allocated the budget according to the aggrigated % of allocations. Those that can not be funded are cut the rest need to work within the allocation until the next year.

That's quite naive, and a terrible idea. If you can't see why I don't know what to tell you.

I am tired of paying for others

Then move to Somalia.

If you participate in a society, you are paying for others, and they are paying for you. There is no way around this, there never will be. It's the entire point of organized society and government.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Social Security, Medicare, et al, have no viability, indeed, were never intended to "work".
They were Bismarckian in intent and design, socialistic sops to avert public discontent, as the corporate Fascists (inter alia FD Roosevelt, patron saint to the muslim african immigrant) implemented the foundations for the corporate Fascist state.

If left in place, their effect would be the destruction of the American economy, as their required funding grows beyond the capacity to sustain the programs (
a la the Soviet Union):


The financial outlook for the Medicare program continues to raise serious concerns, and a “Medicare funding warning” is triggered again by the findings of this report. Total Medicare expenditures were $432 billion in 2007 and are expected to increase in future years at a faster pace than either workers’ earnings or the economy overall. As a percentage of GDP, expenditures are projected to increase from 3.2 percent in 2007 to 10.8 percent by 2082 (based on our intermediate set of assumptions). Growth of this magnitude, if realized, would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal Budget.

http://www.cms.gov/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2008.pdf

I am not surprised the anti-American left is so eager to keep it in place; Indeed, I'm surprised Peter Schiller and NPR haven't devoted a series of broadcasts on how "ignorant, uneducated, racist" Americans are not actively trying to amplify the effects
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I am not surprised the anti-American left is so eager to keep it in place; Indeed, I'm surprised Peter Schiller and NPR haven't devoted a series of broadcasts on how "ignorant, uneducated, racist" Americans are not actively trying to amplify the effects

That's because not all Conservatives are ignorant, uneducated or racist.
Then again, only those individuals who are would ever worry about such an outrageous thing to ever happen on public radio.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
As our government intrudes more and more into the private lives of its citizens I'm curious "What has the government run successfully?" (excluding police, fire and military) Considering that Amtrak if a failure, the post office is a failure, social security if a failure, medicare is a failure. What are your thoughts?

Measurement of success: Fiscally is the project able to operate within its defined budget or does it continually need additional money? Has it really benefited the people as a whole including the people that pay the taxes for it?

If you feel like most do you wonder why if the government continues to fail we keep putting more faith into the same failures?

Your state must not receive any FEDERAL highway funds (or disaster relief!!) Pell grants for education. Federal matching funds for building programs??
 
Last edited:

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
But all of these programs continue to overrun their budgets and need additional money each year. If they were so successful then why can't they sustain themselves on their own. Or get private investment to funnel in some money. I guess its the same reason no private investor would put up any money for the expansion into the fast rail systems. They saw the plan, current ridership the revenue and overall there is no opportunity it to make money nor sustain itself without additional government funding.

In the real world if a project or department can no longer sustain itself what happens? Its terminated pretty simple.

Gee --- I guess you've never heard of "over-runs" on lots of building projects conducted in various states!! (private contractors mind you!)
 

earllogjam

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
4,917
Media
0
Likes
179
Points
193
Sexuality
No Response
I think our National Parks are wonderful! Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon - wonderfully maintained for the enjoyment of all.

California Coastal Commission has kept the coast of this state as pristine and unspoiled as possible compared to tragic places with ruined coastlines like Florida or even the Oregon coast that have just been junked up and ruined by greedy developers.
 

D_Davy_Downspout

Account Disabled
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Posts
1,136
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
183
Social Security, Medicare, et al, have no viability, indeed, were never intended to "work"


Actually both of them work great.

They were Bismarckian in intent and design, socialistic sops to avert public discontent, as the corporate Fascists (inter alia FD Roosevelt, patron saint to the muslim african immigrant) implemented the foundations for the corporate Fascist state.


LOL, you don't even know what these words mean, do you. You think this sounds intelligent?

If left in place, their effect would be the destruction of the American economy, as their required funding grows beyond the capacity to sustain the programs (
a la the Soviet Union):

No, both are pretty easily fixed. Social Security would be solvent with minor adjustments to the outdated payroll cap. Or if the trust fund hadn't been raided by previous administrations looking for quick cash.

The financial outlook for the Medicare program continues to raise serious concerns, and a “Medicare funding warning” is triggered again by the findings of this report. Total Medicare expenditures were $432 billion in 2007 and are expected to increase in future years at a faster pace than either workers’ earnings or the economy overall. As a percentage of GDP, expenditures are projected to increase from 3.2 percent in 2007 to 10.8 percent by 2082 (based on our intermediate set of assumptions). Growth of this magnitude, if realized, would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal Budget.

http://www.cms.gov/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2008.pdf

Medicare's stem from our unregulated pharmaceutical industry. Simply allowing us to negotiate prices of pharmaceuticals would go a long way towards holding down costs.

I am not surprised the anti-American left is so eager to keep it in place; Indeed, I'm surprised Peter Schiller and NPR haven't devoted a series of broadcasts on how "ignorant, uneducated, racist" Americans are not actively trying to amplify the effects


You've never listened to NPR once, have you? This comment is bizarre and ridiculous to anyone who has. It's the most boring straightforward news imaginable.

The most liberal thing you'll find is "Wait, Wait, Don't tell Me" which is a comedy show on weekends.
 

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Social Security, Medicare, et al, have no viability, indeed, were never intended to "work".
They were Bismarckian in intent and design, socialistic sops to avert public discontent, as the corporate Fascists (inter alia FD Roosevelt, patron saint to the muslim african immigrant) implemented the foundations for the corporate Fascist state.
I'm curious, but how exactly do you see Medicare/Social Security as part of the "corporate Fascist state"? Those programs would have to be administered by private, for-profit corporate oligarchies or (ideally) monopolies in order for that argument to hold water, but the primary conservative argument against them (and one which you made in the quote above) is that they are socialist in nature.

The term "Fascism" is properly defined as the merging of state and corporate interests, i.e. a corporatocracy, or rule by the infamous "military-industrial complex." It is a radical, hard-right, authoritarian, nationalist political position that takes the view that "common people" don't know how to elect governments, so business and military elites should be given complete control.

Yeah, that sounds exactly like FDR to me! :rolleyes: Oh, wait, I meant Dick Cheney...
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
^ The rightwing authoritarian corporatist mouthpieces and their unwitting, ignorant, mini-Constitution packing footsoldiers like to throw out as many scary sounding disparaging ideological (and ethnic) labels as possible at every opportunity, e.g., Communist, Fascist, Socialist, America-hating, Libtard, Immigrant, Alien, African, Kenyan, Nazi, etc. Why? The stupid ones don't have a clue what most of those words mean. The smart ones know that fear is a great motivator, and they know that attaching scary words preemptively, including words that ought accurately apply to themselves, undercuts the opposition from rightly labeling them in turn.

Of course the irony and the absurdity of RWA corporatist tools like Beck, Hannity, Palin, Limbaugh & Co. and their devoted minions calling anyone on "the left" a "fascist" is off the charts. But then, factual truth is irrelevant to them, hypocrisy and absurdity is their stock and trade, and they just don't get irony at all.
 

parr

Just Browsing
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Posts
433
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
51
Age
71
Location
Florida
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
^ The rightwing authoritarian corporatist mouthpieces and their unwitting, ignorant, mini-Constitution packing footsoldiers like to throw out as many scary sounding disparaging ideological (and ethnic) labels as possible at every opportunity, e.g., Communist, Fascist, Socialist, America-hating, Libtard, Immigrant, Alien, African, Kenyan, Nazi, etc. Why? The stupid ones don't have a clue what most of those words mean. The smart ones know that fear is a great motivator, and they know that attaching scary words preemptively, including words that ought accurately apply to themselves, undercuts the opposition from rightly labeling them in turn.

Of course the irony and the absurdity of RWA corporatist tools like Beck, Hannity, Palin, Limbaugh & Co. and their devoted minions calling anyone on "the left" a "fascist" is off the charts. But then, factual truth is irrelevant to them, hypocrisy and absurdity is their stock and trade, and they just don't get irony at all.

Libtard, hmmmm can't find that in Websters, Could you have misspelled it.