Ron Paul trending #10 on Yahoo Search
-
Almost dead on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Basically... "Hey, we see you guys in Iowa are in trouble... Here's a ton of people, a lot of financial support, and all the machinery and communication networks you need... "
Add the following at the end. "Here's where to put it best, if you think otherwise we will get that figured out and we will help with anything you need." The best reason to have FEMA is that the sort of things that require them to come in would be a HUGE financial drain on every state. Having that equipment available "just in case" you get a 100 year flood sucks. But having a federal version makes sense. Someone is bound to have a disaster needing this sort of equipment, manpower and logistics support pretty much every year or close enough in the 50 states. So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
, I think the extra regulation (FDA-style)
I think laws requiring accuracy in dosing, purity, and potency are needed, but I don't see how the FDA would be able to enforce it. The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity. The FDA as it is now is just an over-bloated bureaucracy designed to line the pockets of the corporate entities that influence the bureaucracy. Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity.
Which is pretty much what the FDA does with other products, with the minor difference that it takes these samples BEFORE they hit the store shelves.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
josda1000 wrote:
(which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...)
Homeland Security was created as a sort of bubble around lots of other agencies, including FEMA, the FBI, NSA, etc... FEMA doesn't need Homeland Security in order to continue its existence.
josda1000 wrote:
I would make it a state thing, personally
I think the point rag is trying to make is that FEMA eliminates redundancy. Instead of 50 small stockpiles of manpower/equipment/funding, you have one big pot. That way, when a big disaster hits (Katrina, the Iowa flooding rag mentioned, etc), you have an entire country's worth of resources available, instead of having to go out to individual states and ask for help. On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready. Think of it as a big insurance policy. Every state buys into it (Well, all the people do, through taxes), and when disaster hits, you collect on your policy and get FEMA's help.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
So, do you expect local governments to have the necessary extra gear to handle major emergencies on their budget and not get used very often at all, so it is a drain? Or do you spread it out, make it available to every state and have that gear get used consistantly so it is an asset?
I would make it a state thing, personally. Here's one way to kill two birds with one stone: Knock out FEMA (which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...), and cut back on the federal income tax, since it wouldn't exist any longer. Since Ian and I are on the same page with Homeland Security at the very least, let's knock out that entire organization. We would cut back on the income tax at the same time as well, saving money, resources, and a lot of other things. That would reboost the power of all of the states at once, possibly upping each state's income tax, but at least it would be more relative to the people living in each state. The states can decide how to handle it more appropriately to each population. If any state felt they should, they could even spread it out even more and have each county delegated power in this regard.
This still makes states spend way more than they need to. For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to. A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil. They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally. Major disasters are one of these things. When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up. Hurrican destroys a city + a few hundred miles of coast in 3 states, FEMA. Wildfire in 3 states covering hundreds of miles of forest? FEMA helps out. Drop the rest of Homeland Security, sure, but keep it so that an entity that can help 3-4 states at once when they are all suffering a disaster they can't handle can do its job. Local control doesn't always mean better control.
-
josda1000 wrote:
(which is part of Homeland Security, if Ian reads this...)
Homeland Security was created as a sort of bubble around lots of other agencies, including FEMA, the FBI, NSA, etc... FEMA doesn't need Homeland Security in order to continue its existence.
josda1000 wrote:
I would make it a state thing, personally
I think the point rag is trying to make is that FEMA eliminates redundancy. Instead of 50 small stockpiles of manpower/equipment/funding, you have one big pot. That way, when a big disaster hits (Katrina, the Iowa flooding rag mentioned, etc), you have an entire country's worth of resources available, instead of having to go out to individual states and ask for help. On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready. Think of it as a big insurance policy. Every state buys into it (Well, all the people do, through taxes), and when disaster hits, you collect on your policy and get FEMA's help.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
On the other side, how often does one state have a disaster like that? Once a decade? Do you keep all of that equipment around for 10 years, just so you'll have it for that one week it's needed? Probably not... You might start to cut funding after a while, figuring it's not necessary. Then when the disaster hits, you're screwed. FEMA works nationally, and there's ALWAYS going to be SOME kind of disaster in a given year, in a country this big... So they can keep up to date and keep their equipment ready.
That's one of my biggest points. Your state pays for a piece of equipment to handle a flood that happens once a century and gets to use it... once a century. The fed does it and gets to use it there that year, and in the other 2-4 states dealing with that flooding. A few years later they do it somewhere else that just got this kind of flooding. Instead of being wasted and collecting dust while rusting the stuff is being used. Taxpayer money is used more efficiently. I'd rather pay the Federal government $5/year for some equipment that gets used every few years (even if it is not for me) than $3/year for equipment that gets used once every decade.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it.
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe. As to your religious views, this is just a matter of life. Most people have a belief of theism or atheism, period. Either you have to get over it, or realize that all charities mean well, since they actually exist to benefit others, not themselves. You have a view of atheism, which is fine. I suggest that you either contribute to a cause you deem worthy, or find an atheistic charity, or both. Because you will not find a charity, I'm betting, in which at least 90% of the people contributing have a view they hold strongly, no matter the issue. This is, of course, if you feel you want to contribute. I don't; I'm in debt up my ass.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the price increases are mainly inflation.
I have to agree. Damned Federal Reserve... lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there were multiple carriers, would you have a separate box for each one?
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time. I'm guessing that you could use a flag or sticker or something and put it on your box, telling the certain company you wish to use to take the mail, as opposed to having a different colored flag for a different company; Red could be FedEx, Brown for UPS, Blue for USPS, something to that effect. As for postage, idk. I'm just making this up as I go. There's another thing: the private sector breeds creativity, while the public sector doesn't, because of all the rules and the suction of capital through taxe
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)...
So you are against government sponsored taxpayer funded charities.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Examples, from the DOJ in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Corporations are in it for profit, and only donate for the publicity.
Yeah, but I'm not talking about them.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Individuals donate out of pure philanthropy, sure, but unless a certain cause gets a big media backing, people might not even know about it.
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Too many charity organizations are based on religion (Sorry, but I refuse to donate to these - Even if there was an anti-religion one that preached atheism, I would still refuse) or very inefficient/corrupt (15% to the starving, 85% to the administrators?)
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe. As to your religious views, this is just a matter of life. Most people have a belief of theism or atheism, period. Either you have to get over it, or realize that all charities mean well, since they actually exist to benefit others, not themselves. You have a view of atheism, which is fine. I suggest that you either contribute to a cause you deem worthy, or find an atheistic charity, or both. Because you will not find a charity, I'm betting, in which at least 90% of the people contributing have a view they hold strongly, no matter the issue. This is, of course, if you feel you want to contribute. I don't; I'm in debt up my ass.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I think the price increases are mainly inflation.
I have to agree. Damned Federal Reserve... lol
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If there were multiple carriers, would you have a separate box for each one?
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time. I'm guessing that you could use a flag or sticker or something and put it on your box, telling the certain company you wish to use to take the mail, as opposed to having a different colored flag for a different company; Red could be FedEx, Brown for UPS, Blue for USPS, something to that effect. As for postage, idk. I'm just making this up as I go. There's another thing: the private sector breeds creativity, while the public sector doesn't, because of all the rules and the suction of capital through taxe
Oh wow, actually... I thought that 85%/15% was a huge exaggeration, but I just did some quick research, and apparently some are even worse! Check out this list from the Department of Justice in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^] All but the last four kept MORE than 85% as administrative costs...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
(With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Correct. This used to be done in house but like so much of the military has been contracted out for the sake of "efficiency." The result has been slower mail and a higher incidence of damaged or opened packages.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
I don't think you really appreciate the stress of the office of president of the USA.
I think I do. I see Obama turning gray already... is he too old now? lol jk
Bob Emmett wrote:
The only thing I rated Obama on was his age: i.e. he was young enough to undertake the office of president.
To me, this is kind of a backstab to the Constitution as well. The Constitution says that the President must be 35 years of age or older, there's no maximum age. But you're still not laying down what I think you should: isn't there more to a man than just age? How about experience in politics, or life in general? Obama had almost no experience whatsoever in politics, though he was a professor and a Senator. As for Paul, he's been around since the seventies. He knows politics, and he knows the Constitution.
josda1000 wrote:
But you're still not laying down what I think you should: isn't there more to a man than just age? How about experience in politics, or life in general?
Yes, when I am voting for a Member of Parliament (MP), I judge the candidates on similar criteria, not their party, nor their party's manifesto*. Consequently, I have voted Labour, Conservative, Liberal, even Welsh Nationalist, just to get a good constituency MP. Fortunately, we do not have an elected Head of State, and the Prime Minister can be any MP who can get sufficient support to form a Government, which is usually the Leader of the majority party. * Only in as much as they give you a general indication of a party's intentions. Manifestos are generally shredded, metaphorically speaking, once power is attained.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
This still makes states spend way more than they need to. For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to. A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil. They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally. Major disasters are one of these things. When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up. Hurrican destroys a city + a few hundred miles of coast in 3 states, FEMA. Wildfire in 3 states covering hundreds of miles of forest? FEMA helps out. Drop the rest of Homeland Security, sure, but keep it so that an entity that can help 3-4 states at once when they are all suffering a disaster they can't handle can do its job. Local control doesn't always mean better control.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Local control doesn't always mean better control.
I have to agree, if that guy in New Orleans really did what you said. My God, what an idiot. Anyway...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to.
Yes, because that's what you see today. If things were in the hands of the states, we'd see things very different, I'd say. States would send a lot less money to the federal government, costing taxpayers a lot less, for the very fact that there would be fewer employees to pay with the taxes. FEMA could obviously afford things, but the states could decide for themselves what to buy, what not to, what's needed, what's not, that sort of thing. States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil.
You got that right lol
ragnaroknrol wrote:
They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally.
Big disagreement here. The federal government is made to create a union. Each state was its own nation-state before the federal government was made. In effect, each state had its own currency, its own militia, its own government (which still exists today of course). All of these things are now on the federal level.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up.
Sure, but why can't each state have its own FEMA type doohicky?
-
josda1000 wrote:
Agreed, but they can research if they really want to donate for a specific cause they deem worthy.
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
josda1000 wrote:
Where did you get this stat? I find this hard to believe.
Intentionally exaggerated. Just making a point. If I donate $1,000 to a charity, I want as much of that $1,000 as possible to actually go towards helping people. Some charities have tons and tons of overhead. I'm not saying I want a charity full of non-religious people... Just a charity that isn't in any way financially, politically, or organizationally linked to a religion. I don't want my money being used to send missionaries to convert people in Africa.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm guessing not. Think of when you ship a box: you choose either FedEx or UPS. And I'm guessing that you choose the same company every time.
Shipping a package is something most people do once in a blue moon, so driving to the nearest FedEx/UPS office is alright. Sending letters, such as monthly bills, greeting cards, business mailers, etc... That stuff is every day, and in large quantities. I'm not saying the private sector couldn't do it, but I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works. Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems. (With the exception of the Army Post and such, which I'm assuming use some military funds)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Intentionally exaggerated.
But proven right, to some degree. Wow, what a find that you posted... that sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some charities have tons and tons of overhead.
Just like bureaucracies in general, such as governments. CSS has that spot on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works.
How do you know? You haven't seen it in action, ever. How about we try it out and see what happens for a year? I'm betting that the positives would outweigh the negatives, but we just will never know, will we, until we try it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems.
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Local control doesn't always mean better control.
I have to agree, if that guy in New Orleans really did what you said. My God, what an idiot. Anyway...
ragnaroknrol wrote:
For all the stuff a state would normally have to deal with, they already have the infrastructure and equipment. FEMA comes in with the big guns, stuff no state can afford on their own that they would need access to.
Yes, because that's what you see today. If things were in the hands of the states, we'd see things very different, I'd say. States would send a lot less money to the federal government, costing taxpayers a lot less, for the very fact that there would be fewer employees to pay with the taxes. FEMA could obviously afford things, but the states could decide for themselves what to buy, what not to, what's needed, what's not, that sort of thing. States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
A lot of people see the federal government as some sort of evil.
You got that right lol
ragnaroknrol wrote:
They made it for a reason. It is there to handle things that are on a scope that can't be handled locally.
Big disagreement here. The federal government is made to create a union. Each state was its own nation-state before the federal government was made. In effect, each state had its own currency, its own militia, its own government (which still exists today of course). All of these things are now on the federal level.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When 3+ states see tons of flooding, FEMA shows up.
Sure, but why can't each state have its own FEMA type doohicky?
josda1000 wrote:
States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
Using simple numbers as an example... Option 1 - No FEMA: Texas collects income taxes... Say $1M of it goes into their Texas Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), just for a nice round number. Now they have $1M to go out and buy equipment, hire extra people, prepare supplies, etc. Of course, this stuff is going to sit around unused for a long time, so mostly they're paying people to sit around and wait for a phone call. When disaster does hit, they've got $1M worth of funding... Could be some local flooding, could be a hurricane, could be an earthquake. Option 2 - FEMA: Texas collects income taxes, but instead of keeping the $1M for their TEMA, they forward it to the federal government to fund FEMA (Ok, the state never actually sees that money, but that's irrelevant). All of the other states are doing the same thing. Now FEMA has $50M worth of cash to work with. They can afford the best equipment, skilled workers, efficient communication systems... Basically, they're ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum. Now a disaster hits Texas and four neighboring states. They call FEMA, and FEMA flies in $10M worth of hardware and manpower to each of the 5 affected states, all of which is well-maintained, because they use it 50 times as often as any individual state would. Sure, they could afford their own, but with FEMA, they're paying the same amount and getting 10-50 times as much help. Or you could think about it the other way... Instead of each state spending, say, $25M for their own agency, each state chips in $1M for one big collective agency.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
In an ideal world, that might work... But in this world, people don't know about things unless the media tells them. Therefore, only causes with good publicity would get help.
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Intentionally exaggerated.
But proven right, to some degree. Wow, what a find that you posted... that sucks.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some charities have tons and tons of overhead.
Just like bureaucracies in general, such as governments. CSS has that spot on.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm saying it adds a LOT of complexity to a system that already works.
How do you know? You haven't seen it in action, ever. How about we try it out and see what happens for a year? I'm betting that the positives would outweigh the negatives, but we just will never know, will we, until we try it.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Also, you should know that the US Postal Service is NOT funded by taxes. Hasn't been since around 1980. That's why they're having budget problems.
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
josda1000 wrote:
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ok, I shouldn't speak in such absolutes. But you have to admit the less "popular" causes would get MUCH less funding. I mean look how these things go nowadays. One year, tons and tons of people want to donate to cancer. One year it's AIDS, one year it's world hunger... What about the ones that are unpopular this year? The government is still putting down the money.
josda1000 wrote:
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much :) ), in that it's operated like a private company, but with special government-granted privileges: 1) The President and Senate appoint nine of the 11-person board of directors. That board then appoints a Postmaster General (CEO) and Deputy Postmaster General (COO). 2) It has sovereign immunity - It can't be sued or prosecuted (Unless the federal government allows it) 3) It can exert eminent domain 4) It can make postal treaties with other countries to deliver mail to them 5) And of course it gets a monopoly on first-class and third-class mail Interestingly enough, according to WP, there's only one company in the US that employs more people than the Postal Service..... Wait for it.... here it comes........ Walmart.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
josda1000 wrote:
States could definitely afford these things if the money just stayed in the state in the first place.
Using simple numbers as an example... Option 1 - No FEMA: Texas collects income taxes... Say $1M of it goes into their Texas Emergency Management Agency (TEMA), just for a nice round number. Now they have $1M to go out and buy equipment, hire extra people, prepare supplies, etc. Of course, this stuff is going to sit around unused for a long time, so mostly they're paying people to sit around and wait for a phone call. When disaster does hit, they've got $1M worth of funding... Could be some local flooding, could be a hurricane, could be an earthquake. Option 2 - FEMA: Texas collects income taxes, but instead of keeping the $1M for their TEMA, they forward it to the federal government to fund FEMA (Ok, the state never actually sees that money, but that's irrelevant). All of the other states are doing the same thing. Now FEMA has $50M worth of cash to work with. They can afford the best equipment, skilled workers, efficient communication systems... Basically, they're ready to kick ass and chew bubble gum. Now a disaster hits Texas and four neighboring states. They call FEMA, and FEMA flies in $10M worth of hardware and manpower to each of the 5 affected states, all of which is well-maintained, because they use it 50 times as often as any individual state would. Sure, they could afford their own, but with FEMA, they're paying the same amount and getting 10-50 times as much help. Or you could think about it the other way... Instead of each state spending, say, $25M for their own agency, each state chips in $1M for one big collective agency.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)yes, but think of it this way: all that money goes into a pot, again, to help people that you don't know, out in california or iowa for example, while you may never get any of that money in the state of new york. say i lived in texas and they had that TEMA. if i were to help out the pot in my state alone, they could stop the aggregation to that pot once they figured it got to a good level, and drop taxes a bit for say, ten years. once disaster hits, they have the equipement and people ready to fight it, even after lowering taxes for ten years, because they don't need to spend any more than they already had ten years ago. now after the hit, they raise taxes for two years, "filling the pot" if necessary, and then lower it again when it's all set. the mandatory contribution to FEMA is a waste for people like me, here in the massachusetts. i mean don't get me wrong, it's great that FEMA gets used for helping people in new york, louisiana, michigan and iowa. but honestly, i don't remember any kind of instance where FEMA has helped us in an emergency setting. therefore, i would personally suggest that massachusetts set up a MEMA type deal, and opt out of FEMA, because it's never helped. The whole thing is that it costs taxpayers, and it helps nobody here. If we set up our own 10M dollar thing (or whatever we decide), it would be more efficient if the day ever arises, and it would cost less over the long run.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The only solution would be to take random samples of the end product directly from the store shelves, and then test for accuracy of labeling and purity.
Which is pretty much what the FDA does with other products, with the minor difference that it takes these samples BEFORE they hit the store shelves.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Simple basic laws and categorizations are the only things such agency is to enforce.
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
My point is that the FDA is known to engage in corruption, approving drugs that shouldn't go onto the market for the profits of specific corporations, and purposely sabotaging competing business by refusing to approve products that qualify to be approved or forcing repeated delays in the process. Its called the "revolving door" where certain special interest individuals work for the FDA, and then after their "job" is complete, they go work for the corporation that they helped while they were in the FDA.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Not necessarily. It's never "only" this or "only" that. There are always small organizations. What about sabbaticals? What about missions of churches and such?
Ok, I shouldn't speak in such absolutes. But you have to admit the less "popular" causes would get MUCH less funding. I mean look how these things go nowadays. One year, tons and tons of people want to donate to cancer. One year it's AIDS, one year it's world hunger... What about the ones that are unpopular this year? The government is still putting down the money.
josda1000 wrote:
I did not know this, but I definitely understand that now. I might have to concede this point then, though I wouldn't mind trying a private sector postal service.
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much :) ), in that it's operated like a private company, but with special government-granted privileges: 1) The President and Senate appoint nine of the 11-person board of directors. That board then appoints a Postmaster General (CEO) and Deputy Postmaster General (COO). 2) It has sovereign immunity - It can't be sued or prosecuted (Unless the federal government allows it) 3) It can exert eminent domain 4) It can make postal treaties with other countries to deliver mail to them 5) And of course it gets a monopoly on first-class and third-class mail Interestingly enough, according to WP, there's only one company in the US that employs more people than the Postal Service..... Wait for it.... here it comes........ Walmart.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right now, it looks like the Postal Service is operating kind of like the Fed (Which you loathe so much Smile )
damned right lol yeah i knew all of that, and i really dislike it, it's actually pretty scary. it looks like the post office could be even more powerful than the fed in a way... ah well. someday i shall grab power... and... and... muahahaha! lol
-
Examples, from the DOJ in Oregon: http://www.doj.state.or.us/charigroup/pdf/oregons_20_worst_charities.pdf[^]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Don't donate to them. It's that simple. You are going to get more corruption, fraud, and inefficiencies when your money is forcibly confiscated and you have no control what is done with it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right... That's what the FDA enforces... What's your point?
My point is that the FDA is known to engage in corruption, approving drugs that shouldn't go onto the market for the profits of specific corporations, and purposely sabotaging competing business by refusing to approve products that qualify to be approved or forcing repeated delays in the process. Its called the "revolving door" where certain special interest individuals work for the FDA, and then after their "job" is complete, they go work for the corporation that they helped while they were in the FDA.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Then the solution is to fix the FDA, not abolish it. Just as I try, most of the time, to actually talk some sense into you, instead of just cursing at or ignoring you. If something doesn't work, you try to fix it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
yes, but think of it this way: all that money goes into a pot, again, to help people that you don't know, out in california or iowa for example, while you may never get any of that money in the state of new york. say i lived in texas and they had that TEMA. if i were to help out the pot in my state alone, they could stop the aggregation to that pot once they figured it got to a good level, and drop taxes a bit for say, ten years. once disaster hits, they have the equipement and people ready to fight it, even after lowering taxes for ten years, because they don't need to spend any more than they already had ten years ago. now after the hit, they raise taxes for two years, "filling the pot" if necessary, and then lower it again when it's all set. the mandatory contribution to FEMA is a waste for people like me, here in the massachusetts. i mean don't get me wrong, it's great that FEMA gets used for helping people in new york, louisiana, michigan and iowa. but honestly, i don't remember any kind of instance where FEMA has helped us in an emergency setting. therefore, i would personally suggest that massachusetts set up a MEMA type deal, and opt out of FEMA, because it's never helped. The whole thing is that it costs taxpayers, and it helps nobody here. If we set up our own 10M dollar thing (or whatever we decide), it would be more efficient if the day ever arises, and it would cost less over the long run.
It's like health or auto insurance. You pay into it, because you never know what might happen. Don't forget that something like an EMA would require continuous funding... The equipment gets purchased, sure, but it has to be maintained and kept up to date. The staff has to be paid and well-trained. The technology has to be kept current enough to be useful. FEMA can do all of these things, because it's large enough to make the overhead costs lower on a relative basis. Your solution might work, of course. I don't know the actual numbers going into this thing... I would guess that FEMA is only sized to be able to handle a couple big disasters at a time, so it's not fifty times as large as a state one would be. If that's true, then it's likely that each state is only paying 1/10th or 1/20th what it would cost to set up their own. It really comes down to a numbers game.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)