Do you think that the government can expand

[Aunt Sponge]

Without f'ing anything up?

The list of failed, failing, bankrupt or corrupt government-started ___ and ___ is long and getting longer. (Social Security is going bankrupt, the FDIC is in the red and pulling out their own "loan" as well as Fannie and Freddie, and the TARP that was formed at the end of last year isn't 1/2 over - and funds are still being funneled out)

Does anyone have faith that the government can continue to expand, reorganize, refine and start new things without continuing their long-record of failure?

Do you think our current government has this issue as a priority?

Anything been a success that they've started? (as in - hasn't gone bankrupt, hasn't needed a bail-out loan of their own, hasn't completely collapsed, etc)

[ashley5]

I don't feel like the government can expand and control itself at the same time. To me, the government is like a power-addict and the more freedom they have the crazier they go. Got their hands in too many cookie jars if you ask me-- and I don't see any good out of them meddling with anything else.

[Aunt Sponge]

I agree completely.

I think they need to make a storng effort - and have success - at getting organized, controlling whta they HAVE already, before they continue to add to their list of "things to do"

[Viva]

The only reason I think those programs are failures is because Republicans love to starve programs that they don't agree with. Like Medicaid. They don't get funding because that is what politicians do when they don't like a policy, but can't do anything about it. They stop funding it. And then when it goes to **** they point and say "IT FAILED, I TOLD YOU SO!"

You don't see the military "failing" do you? They get their funding, don't they? Do you realize that the military takes up more of our budget than any other single program? Like 35% of our budget. Its about priorities, not capability.

And I trust the government more than I trust large corporations. At least at this point when corporate America is sucking us dry.

[ashley5]

Originally Posted by Aunt Sponge I agree completely. I think they need to make a storng effort - and have success - at getting organized, controlling whta they HAVE already, before they continue to add to their list of "things to do"

There is a lot of mismanagement, even in the military. Waste is a big issue. They need to run efficiently and balance their books every year so to speak before they try taking on more things.

Throwing more/a bunch of money at a problem doesn't fix it. So even if they OVERfunded programs there would be ridiculous amounts of waste.

I think it's funny that a lot of times people end up playing the "blame game" instead of getting down to the issues at hand. If it was up to me I'd fire everyone at the top levels of government and replace them with people that are more in touch with us, ya know... the citizens that have been forgotten about!!

[Aunt Sponge]

Originally Posted by vivalacrap The only reason I think those programs are failures is because Republicans love to starve programs that they don't agree with. Like Medicaid. They don't get funding because that is what politicians do when they don't like a policy, but can't do anything about it. They stop funding it. And then when it goes to **** they point and say "IT FAILED, I TOLD YOU SO!" You don't see the military "failing" do you? They get their funding, don't they? Do you realize that the military takes up more of our budget than any other single program? Like 35% of our budget. Its about priorities, not capability. And I trust the government more than I trust large corporations. At least at this point when corporate America is sucking us dry.

I disagree - I don't think that a lack of funding is the cause of failure.
However, it depends on WHAT it is, really.

Like cash for clunkers - it had a lot of funding! Was funded twice! But the government cut it short because of the hectic non-funding issues that came up.

I think part of the 'funding lack' issue comes from a very common "use it or lose it" mentality.
Like - at hte end of the fiscal year a unit will spend days firing off their remaining rounds of ammoo ... because if they don't use it up before htey recount for the next years budget they will not get at lesat that SAME amount of money - so they make an effort to come in AT or OVER budget to ensure budget isn't a problem for hte following year.

So I think that funding is a two-way street - it's based on how the money is spent BY the people directly in charge (how organized and together they are with their finances, etc) and how much money is given to fund it.

[Viva]

Originally Posted by Aunt Sponge I disagree - I don't think that a lack of funding is the cause of failure. However, it depends on WHAT it is, really. Like cash for clunkers - it had a lot of funding! Was funded twice! But the government cut it short because of the hectic non-funding issues that came up. I think part of the 'funding lack' issue comes from a very common "use it or lose it" mentality. Like - at hte end of the fiscal year a unit will spend days firing off their remaining rounds of ammoo ... because if they don't use it up before htey recount for the next years budget they will not get at lesat that SAME amount of money - so they make an effort to come in AT or OVER budget to ensure budget isn't a problem for hte following year. So I think that funding is a two-way street - it's based on how the money is spent BY the people directly in charge (how organized and together they are with their finances, etc) and how much money is given to fund it.

I agree that use it or lose it is a problem in the military. However, the military is not underfunded. And while there are many ways they could cut costs, they function reasonably well. You can't consider the military an "unsuccessful program" but it is funded. So this actually proves my point. Successful programs= the ones that have sufficient funding.

Use it or lose it is a ****ty concept and it should be abolished. It encourages waste. I'm pretty sure the failing programs don't have "use it or lose it" policies.

Cash for Clunkers was an amazing success. It had plenty of funding that was drained because of the unexpected demand for the program. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this one. It was a temporary program, thrown together in haste. And all in all, I'd say it worked out pretty well. In any case, since it is not a long term program it doesn't serve as a very good example.

The programs that are often billed as failures - Medicaid for example, are underfunded. Social Security is a "failure" because congress borrowed the SS money to pay for other shizz and never paid it back. Programs need money to be a success. EVERYTHING does.

[Eye]

As my momma would say,"Robbing Peter to pay Paul".

[Aunt Sponge]

Originally Posted by vivalacrap I agree that use it or lose it is a problem in the military. However, the military is not underfunded. And while there are many ways they could cut costs, they function reasonably well. You can't consider the military an "unsuccessful program" but it is funded. So this actually proves my point. Successful programs= the ones that have sufficient funding. Use it or lose it is a ****ty concept and it should be abolished. It encourages waste. I'm pretty sure the failing programs don't have "use it or lose it" policies. Cash for Clunkers was an amazing success. It had plenty of funding that was drained because of the unexpected demand for the program. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this one. It was a temporary program, thrown together in haste. And all in all, I'd say it worked out pretty well. In any case, since it is not a long term program it doesn't serve as a very good example. The programs that are often billed as failures - Medicaid for example, are underfunded. Social Security is a "failure" because congress borrowed the SS money to pay for other shizz and never paid it back. Programs need money to be a success. EVERYTHING does.

I just used the military as an example because we are all familiar with it - every SINGLE branch, organization or extension of government functions with the "use it or lose it" ... even non-government businesses and so on do the same thing. It's a widespread mentality that helps undo anything, really.

Exactly (about cash for clunkers) it was a temporary program thrown together in haste - thus it had a lot of problems that are, actually, similar to the problems of other programs. However, it was not essential so our very liberal government decided to nip it in the bud.

So - what ensurance do we have that future programs of any nature will not be started and then succumb to the same falacies of "failure."

I think that poor planning and a lack of forsight and careful considerations is what has brought (or is bringing) countless things to ruin and bankruptcy.

Like the old Theater i managed for years - it wasn't a lack of profit that began to bring it down, it was the hectic management in the years past that brought it to an end (theft, lack of oversight and maintenance in the theaters left many unhappy customers as they couldn't watch the rest of their movie, poor consideration and upkeep of the building and equipment) ... all these things drove away the customers (aka - funding) and made people less and less of supporting it as necessary.

As in the other thread about Acorn - What took away their funding isn't people's opinions against them, it's their own actions. Their poor management, lack of direction and self-control. They brought their own selves down, it just took a long time for someone to finally decide to do it.

And good ridance.

Your point is just the nail in the coffin - but programs, to lose funding and support, have to be in some seriously deep ****.