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.
...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.
I am tired of paying for others
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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 nations 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
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.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.
^ 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.