Is it harder to cut corporate welfare, historically, than anything else?

[Dan_Grelinger]

Not agreed. There surely were some with the intent to provide for the common good, I’ll grant you that. But there are a lot more with the intent to swindle the public for the benefit of favored campaign contributors and friends. No amount of hand waving from you or anybody will alter the foolishness of spending a billion dollars on a dam project, getting back only a few million in revenue and putting naturally viable farms out of business in the process. It’s graft and corruption, not public benefit. It got done because the Senators from California met with their heavy contributors and received their marching orders. They made deals to fund the pet projects of other Senators if they’d fund theirs and off we went: corporate welfare.

Was the purpose to make money off this project? I doubt that was anybody’s goal. The goal for any dam project is to ensure a consistent water supply, provide flood mitigation and protection, create a recreation site, and possibly create an electrical generating capacity, and possibly increase aragable land. I am aware of no dam project that ever returned a net profit back to the federatl government. I have benefited from many of these projects, and as I know they were created for the public good, I don’t have a problem with them. I have seen many people explain things they do not understand as a conspiracy. That is a mightly bold claim and for it to be taken seriously should have a healthy dose of evidence to back it up.

If it truly benefitted the public overall, then the irrigation revenue should be able to cover the cost. If it can’t, it’s because it’s a payoff to political constituents.

No. That is not how the government works. You make an assumption that if it does not make money then it must be corrupt. That is an incorrect assumption.

Same goes for the ethanol. Studies have shown that corn ethanol (other sources hold more promise) has very little net reduction on oil imports due to the energy required to plant, harvest, transport, distill, refine, transport and distribute the finished ethanol (until recentl efficiency gains, it created a net INCREASE in total oil usage). Fuel goes into each one of those activities and by the time it gets to the pump uses up most of the gas ‘saved’ in the E10 blend. Account for the lower gas mileage people get on E10 versus regular gas and there is almost no net reduction of oil usage.

Sorry, but that’s corporate welfare. I have to wonder if those arguing that it isn’t don’t work for ADM…

If the corn was not used for ethanol, would the corn not be grown? Would the land lie idle? That would have to be your suggestion for your assertions to make sense. If corn was grown anyway (for a myriad of other uses) then the same energy is consumed as if it was grown for ethanol and the same pollution created. That needs an explanation.

 

[manualman]

That is a mightly bold claim and for it to be taken seriously should have a healthy dose of evidence to back it up. No. That is not how the government works. You make an assumption that if it does not make money then it must be corrupt. That is an incorrect assumption.

I should mention that I’m a professional civil engineer trained and certified to design and build dams. This is a well studied field and there are established evaluation techniques whereby the cost / benefit ratio of such projects can be determined. Projects simply should not move forward if they can’t meet or beat a 1.0 cost/benefit ratio over the projected lifespan of the project. When the C/B is worse than 1.0 (as many of the dams I cite above were), it is a quantitative demonstration of the government providing a benefit to a select group at the expense of the overall taxpayers. aka “corporate welfare” when that select group of beneficiaries are corporate farming operations. A lot of these BuRec dams had terrible C/B ratios and were built anyways for political reasons.

The one making assumptions here is you. I’m merely reporting facts based on my professional knowledge and experience. You are assuming (rather naively, I assert) that all government expenditures are intended to provide net positive goods for the populace as a whole. Have you ever met a politician?

 

[austenbosten]

I should mention that I’m a professional civil engineer trained and certified to design and build dams. This is a well studied field and there are established evaluation techniques whereby the cost / benefit ratio of such projects can be determined. Projects simply should not move forward if they can’t meet or beat a 1.0 cost/benefit ratio over the projected lifespan of the project. When the C/B is worse than 1.0 (as many of the dams I cite above were), it is a quantitative demonstration of the government providing a benefit to a select group at the expense of the overall taxpayers. aka “corporate welfare” when that select group of beneficiaries are corporate farming operations. A lot of these BuRec dams had terrible C/B ratios and were built anyways for political reasons.

The one making assumptions here is you. I’m merely reporting facts based on my professional knowledge and experience. You are assuming (rather naively, I assert) that all government expenditures are intended to provide net positive goods for the populace as a whole. Have you ever met a politician?

Manualman I think it’s safe to assume Dan Is a politician. Every fact he is given he refutes “Oh well, that cannot be right…perhaps you misjudged.” You could show Dan 90% of all government subsidies result in waste and ineffeciency and Dan will respond with “Well what about the other 10%, the 10% proves my point.”

Dan has an agenda and that’s to keep hammering away that government spending is good…Lotta good it did for Soviet Russia.

 

[epan]

Is it harder to cut corporate welfare, historically, than anything else (from a budget point of view)?

It is very difficult for several practical reasons. Companies (and people) make plans based on current law. Think of what would happen if the tax laws where changed to disallow mortgage interest. The biggest reason on the corporate side is that it is the heads of the corporations who decide who much to spend to lobby our congress and administration officials. In the case of the USDA and the FDA, it is not lobbying anymore. Many of the top level officials are actual employees of the companies who would seek their favor. This has been going on since the last president. These people are actually paid large amounts of money to be expert consultants to industry, in the areas that they are regulating. Add to this mess of immorality, that it is illegal for the owner of a corporation (the stockholders), to determine compensation of the executives. The same people who decide for the stock holders how to influence the congress have also lobbied to prevent the stock holders power over them. Nice, huh?

 

[epan]

Not agreed. There surely were some with the intent to provide for the common good, I’ll grant you that. But there are a lot more with the intent to swindle the public for the benefit of favored campaign contributors and friends. No amount of hand waving from you or anybody will alter the foolishness of spending a billion dollars on a dam project, getting back only a few million in revenue and putting naturally viable farms out of business in the process. It’s graft and corruption, not public benefit. It got done because the Senators from California met with their heavy contributors and received their marching orders. They made deals to fund the pet projects of other Senators if they’d fund theirs and off we went: corporate welfare. If it truly benefitted the public overall, then the irrigation revenue should be able to cover the cost. If it can’t, it’s because it’s a payoff to political constituents.

Same goes for the ethanol. Studies have shown that corn ethanol (other sources hold more promise) has very little net reduction on oil imports due to the energy required to plant, harvest, transport, distill, refine, transport and distribute the finished ethanol (until recentl efficiency gains, it created a net INCREASE in total oil usage). Fuel goes into each one of those activities and by the time it gets to the pump uses up most of the gas ‘saved’ in the E10 blend. Account for the lower gas mileage people get on E10 versus regular gas and there is almost no net reduction of oil usage.

Sorry, but that’s corporate welfare. I have to wonder if those arguing that it isn’t don’t work for ADM…

Try Obamacare. Clear example of an original idea for the public good being used by corporate lobbyists to benefit themselves.

I am going to make the following “public good” assumptions (which you may disagree with). (1) It is good to have high quality medical care for our entire population. (2) healthcare should not depend on employment, because when you can no longer work due to injury or illness, is precisely when you need it. (3) Better aggregate health for all is preferable to excellence healthcare for a percentage of the population, with little or none for a substantial minority. (4) Spending less on healthcare is good.

We know that health levels by objective measure are better, everyone is covered, and the cost is substantially less in places like Germany and Japan than in the US. The best model we know to meet the stated goals above, is a public healthcare system.

Obama’s plan did include an option to have a public competitor to the private sector, in order to allow market forces the make the private sector more competitive. Eliminating this from the plan, and also adding in the requirement that health care coverage be enforced by the IRS, is a huge boon to the insurance companies. Imagine running a business, and the IRS is making sure that every person in the US does business with you. Yet, this also achieves many of the objectives stated above. Sometimes corporate welfare also improves the public good.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I should mention that I’m a professional civil engineer trained and certified to design and build dams. This is a well studied field and there are established evaluation techniques whereby the cost / benefit ratio of such projects can be determined. Projects simply should not move forward if they can’t meet or beat a 1.0 cost/benefit ratio over the projected lifespan of the project. When the C/B is worse than 1.0 (as many of the dams I cite above were), it is a quantitative demonstration of the government providing a benefit to a select group at the expense of the overall taxpayers. aka “corporate welfare” when that select group of beneficiaries are corporate farming operations. A lot of these BuRec dams had terrible C/B ratios and were built anyways for political reasons.

The one making assumptions here is you. I’m merely reporting facts based on my professional knowledge and experience. You are assuming (rather naively, I assert) that all government expenditures are intended to provide net positive goods for the populace as a whole. Have you ever met a politician?

I am also an engineer, mechanical and electrical by education.

Your pasts posts indicate that the only benefit you included in your assessment was water revenues. I listed many more, but for some reason you ignored them. When you ignore benefits to the public, your cost/benefit analysis will become skewed.

Your definition of ‘corporate welfare’ does not seem to be consistent with a definition of corporate. If there is no corporation involved, I don’t know why you would call it corporate welfare. Engineers tend to use precise definitions. I do.

And you assume that all government activities are conspiracies. Yes, I have met many good politicians. And I know of many bad ones. You generalize all politicians into demons, it appears. I try to make more rational judgements.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Manualman I think it’s safe to assume Dan Is a politician. Every fact he is given he refutes “Oh well, that cannot be right…perhaps you misjudged.” You could show Dan 90% of all government subsidies result in waste and ineffeciency and Dan will respond with “Well what about the other 10%, the 10% proves my point.”

Dan has an agenda and that’s to keep hammering away that government spending is good…Lotta good it did for Soviet Russia.

Are you ready to admit that your ‘safe assumptions’ are incorrect? What proof do you need?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Add to this mess of immorality, that it is illegal for the owner of a corporation (the stockholders), to determine compensation of the executives.

Reference for that law, please.

 

[austenbosten]

Try Obamacare. Clear example of an original idea for the public good being used by corporate lobbyists to benefit themselves.

I am going to make the following “public good” assumptions (which you may disagree with). (1) It is good to have high quality medical care for our entire population. (2) healthcare should not depend on employment, because when you can no longer work due to injury or illness, is precisely when you need it. (3) Better aggregate health for all is preferable to excellence healthcare for a percentage of the population, with little or none for a substantial minority. (4) Spending less on healthcare is good.

We know that health levels by objective measure are better, everyone is covered, and the cost is substantially less in places like Germany and Japan than in the US. The best model we know to meet the stated goals above, is a public healthcare system.

Obama’s plan did include an option to have a public competitor to the private sector, in order to allow market forces the make the private sector more competitive. Eliminating this from the plan, and also adding in the requirement that health care coverage be enforced by the IRS, is a huge boon to the insurance companies. Imagine running a business, and the IRS is making sure that every person in the US does business with you. Yet, this also achieves many of the objectives stated above. Sometimes corporate welfare also improves the public good.

Dan what you fail to realize with your logic, is that the problem is government always has the best intentions with it’s policies, but they never can execute it right, because of the fact that they seek to control which is not controllable.

One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
~ Milton Friedman, Economist Nobel Laureate

You believe Obamacare was good but was ruined by corporate lobbyists, but ask yourself…why are corporate lobbyists so interested in petitioning to the government instead of the consumer…perhaps it’s because government seeks to control Health Care and he who controls the system makes all the rules and hold all the cards. In response to your points.

(1) By what definition is “good quality medical care”? Medical care is an evolving process, not a static commodity. What was considered “good quality medical care” 30 years ago would not be considered the same today…how can you write a law that will keep up with such specific demands?

(2) I agree, but that specific problem arose because of government policy. The government in the 1940s prevented businesses from hiring new talent, by freezing wages. So businesses had to look to alternative means and offered health insurance as a ‘fringe benefit’. Government was the cause of this massive employer-health insurance situation, and you seek the cause of the problem to fix it? You don’t put out a fire with more fires.

(3) And how do you determine who gets health care and who doesn’t? If Socialized health-care is better, tell me why not provide free food to all…or free cars?

(4) What does that mean spending less on healthcare is good? So we shouldn’t devote money to finding cures for debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s or cancer…we need to spend less. Tell me Dan, you can have a cheaper grocery budget by buying Ramen noodles instead of organic fruits and vegetables…Does that mean Ramen noodles is better than fruits and veggies? If spending less on Health Care is good, then perhaps you should not see a doctor when you have a heart attack, but an acupuncturist. As for me, there is no price too high for my life.

Dan what you call for is pure Socialism. Maybe you should put down the works of Marx and pick up and economics textbook. You speak of objectivity but everything in your statements screams of anything but. You say “well it’s good everyone should have health care” well everyone does in this country. When you go to the ER no one turns you away…you get health care. What you want is Socialism and it has been a proven failure.

 

[austenbosten]

Are you ready to admit that your ‘safe assumptions’ are incorrect? What proof do you need?

After that last post I have all the proof you are a Socialist, whether you are a declared one or not. Your political-economic views are in lockstep with Socialism.

 

[epan]

Dan what you fail to realize with your logic, is that the problem is government always has the best intentions with it’s policies, but they never can execute it right, because of the fact that they seek to control which is not controllable.

You believe Obamacare was good but was ruined by corporate lobbyists, but ask yourself…why are corporate lobbyists so interested in petitioning to the government instead of the consumer…perhaps it’s because government seeks to control Health Care and he who controls the system makes all the rules and hold all the cards. In response to your points.

(1) By what definition is “good quality medical care”? Medical care is an evolving process, not a static commodity. What was considered “good quality medical care” 30 years ago would not be considered the same today…how can you write a law that will keep up with such specific demands?

(2) I agree, but that specific problem arose because of government policy. The government in the 1940s prevented businesses from hiring new talent, by freezing wages. So businesses had to look to alternative means and offered health insurance as a ‘fringe benefit’. Government was the cause of this massive employer-health insurance situation, and you seek the cause of the problem to fix it? You don’t put out a fire with more fires.

(3) And how do you determine who gets health care and who doesn’t? If Socialized health-care is better, tell me why not provide free food to all…or free cars?

(4) What does that mean spending less on healthcare is good? So we shouldn’t devote money to finding cures for debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s or cancer…we need to spend less. Tell me Dan, you can have a cheaper grocery budget by buying Ramen noodles instead of organic fruits and vegetables…Does that mean Ramen noodles is better than fruits and veggies? If spending less on Health Care is good, then perhaps you should not see a doctor when you have a heart attack, but an acupuncturist. As for me, there is no price too high for my life.

Dan what you call for is pure Socialism. Maybe you should put down the works of Marx and pick up and economics textbook. You speak of objectivity but everything in your statements screams of anything but. You say “well it’s good everyone should have health care” well everyone does in this country. When you go to the ER no one turns you away…you get health care. What you want is Socialism and it has been a proven failure.

1. Longevity. Infant mortality. Morbidity figures. The rule is pretty much that societies with more evenly distributed incomes, and with public health care are healthier and happier by nearly every measure, ranging from health statistics, social mobility, levels of education achieved, child welfare by every know standard, and the list goes on. Even the wealthy do better in such societies by all these measures than the wealthy do in a country with large disparity. It is no coincidence that the US performs the worst in all these areas. It is also the country with the most disparate income distribution among the “advanced” countries.
2. Easy to fix. Take the responsibility back from the employer. Public healthcare. That would put the fire out completely. We are lucky that there are enough good systems in Europe and Asia, that we can design a good system by learning from their mistakes and their successes.
3. Easy. Everyone gets it. A big part of the reason for doing it is to reduce healthcare costs, while improving care. I am not opposed to giving basic food commodities to people in need. I think we already do that with food stamps.
4. You make my point for me. If we can provide better health care at a lower cost, while covering the entire population, then if we keep spending levels where they are now, that money could be put into research. It is well known that open source research which comes out of Universities, and other public research, has a tremendous synergistic effect, while private research restricts the dissemination of idea, and the benefits to society.

Well, if you call Germany and Japan socialist countries, maybe I am proposing socialism by your definition. But I mine would put Toyota down as an example of a Company in a capitalist country.

If you go to an ER, they are legally required to stabilize your condition. Nothing more. Whether a hospital decides to do more than that, is a matter of charity - well not charity, it is paid for by health insurance premiums by everyone else. The legal requirement does not constitute adequate medical care.

Finally, I can prove my statements to my satisfaction with objective data. If you want to check it out, just google “health quality statistics”, “mortality rates”, “age of death”, “infant mortality”… anything you can think of related to measuring medical care. Then google “health care costs as a percentage of GDP”.

What you will find is that the countries with the best records in health care by objective measure all have public health care systems, and all spend substantially less than the US as a percentage of GDP.

What they don’t have is large insurance companies manipulating the market to maximize their profits, while they don’t provide a service which excludes large percentages of the population, such as those with pre-existing conditions (until the obama plan).

 

[austenbosten]

Oy Vey! The level of economic illiteracy is staggering. Okay let’s work on this.

1. Longevity. Infant mortality. Morbidity figures.

*First of all, statistics like: longevity, infant mortality and morbidity do not tell the whole story, that is like using GDP to determine which nation is more prosperous, by that logic Cuba has a larger economy than Bermuda by a factor of 20. Yet it doesn’t take a economic genius to see that Bermudians are vastly more prosperous than Cubans. Statistics like longevity have little to do with a nation’s health care system and more to do with a general populace’s lifestyle choices. Even such, some of those statistics are muddy because of different methods in recording. Canada and Europe have more stricter definitions in regards as what constitutes as a “live birth”. In the UK, they don’t record babies born before 24 weeks. In France one needs a certificate of live birth, if the child died immediately after birth it is not counted. Mortality rate is also a weak argument, considering that the majority in America is due to homicides and accidents…kinda hard to measure a HC system when they are already dead.

If you wish to use statistics, use one that involves the point of medical intervention. Using the study from CONCORD, Americans have a 73.8% 5-year relative survival rate to various cancers. The highest among nations*

The rule is pretty much that societies with more evenly distributed incomes, and with public health care are healthier and happier by nearly every measure, ranging from health statistics, social mobility, levels of education achieved, child welfare by every know standard, and the list goes on.

This is probably the most ignorant statement I have read. If that were true…North Korea would be the happiest healthiest place in the world, for they have the lowest Gini coefficients and public healthcare, yet they are starving to death.

Even the wealthy do better in such societies by all these measures than the wealthy do in a country with large disparity.

*So by your logic, the wealthy --who are trying to flee from China, and are non-existent in places like Cuba and DPRK unless they are bureaucrats or generals-- do better in nations that tax them to pay for other people’s lives. If that were true, why is in Britain millionaires declined by 50% in 2009, compared to 39% in US…despite the epicenter happening in US? *

It is no coincidence that the US performs the worst in all these areas. It is also the country with the most disparate income distribution among the “advanced” countries.
Just abject statements with faulty logic and careless use of statistics *

1. Easy to fix. Take the responsibility back from the employer. Public healthcare. That would put the fire out completely. We are lucky that there are enough good systems in Europe and Asia, that we can design a good system by learning from their mistakes and their successes.

If that were true, why is Medicare and Medicaid (which are public healthcare systems) going bankrupt and the government hasn’t* fixed them yet?

1. Easy. Everyone gets it. A big part of the reason for doing it is to reduce healthcare costs, while improving care. I am not opposed to giving basic food commodities to people in need. I think we already do that with food stamps.

Wow another reason why we don’t need economic illiterates trivializing the dangers of Socialized medicine by spouting abject nonsense. First off, you cannot create a high-quality mass-produce product cheap…if you could, we would all be driving Lamborghinis. Second government DOES NOT create wealth, it can only re-distribute it. So the only way government can reduce costs is through price controls by artificially lowering the costs of healthcare which would lead to shortages and rationing because demand will necessarily skyrocket.

1. You make my point for me. If we can provide better health care at a lower cost, while covering the entire population,

Impossible, you are asking everyone to drive Lamborghinis for the price of a Ford.

then if we keep spending levels where they are now, that money could be put into research.

So what happens when the population increases? Anyone who can do basic arithmetic knows more people will mean less resources for everyone…also by that logic, if we kept Medicare spending levels at 1966 levels, the nation would only be spending $3 billion on health care for everyone…which reminds me back in that year the government estimated that by 1990 Medicare would only cost $12 billion, they were off by $95,000,000,000 dollars…and you want a government that can’t even amortize to be in charge of our health care? Oh by the way did I mention we have $34 Trillion in unfunded liabilities? How are we gonna pay that off?

It is well known that open source research which comes out of Universities, and other public research, has a tremendous synergistic effect, while private research restricts the dissemination of idea, and the benefits to society.

The place where I saw the least innovation was a university…last time I checked it was a individual not a uni that created facebook…it was Apple Inc that created the iPods, Pad ect. It was companies like AOL and Netscape that opened us up to the web, it was GM that created an electric car, it was Exxon Mobil that learned how to drill more oil out of wells that were deemed “dry” not universities…BTW who do you think pays for a lot of the grants to universities? Private business.

Well, if you call Germany and Japan socialist countries, maybe I am proposing socialism by your definition. But I mine would put Toyota down as an example of a Company in a capitalist country.

Yes you proposing Socialism.

If you go to an ER, they are legally required to stabilize your condition. Nothing more. Whether a hospital decides to do more than that, is a matter of charity - well not charity, it is paid for by health insurance premiums by everyone else. The legal requirement does not constitute adequate medical care.

Yes, that’s health care!

Finally, I can prove my statements to my satisfaction with objective data. If you want to check it out, just google “health quality statistics”, “mortality rates”, “age of death”, “infant mortality”… anything you can think of related to measuring medical care. Then google “health care costs as a percentage of GDP”.
*
Sadly the only thing you proved unfortunately was just how illiterate you are about economics.*

What you will find is that the countries with the best records in health care by objective measure all have public health care systems, and all spend substantially less than the US as a percentage of GDP.

Wrong!

What they don’t have is large insurance companies manipulating the market to maximize their profits, while they don’t provide a service which excludes large percentages of the population, such as those with pre-existing conditions (until the obama plan).

Yes those evil insurance companies are manipulating the market…it’s not like the government doesn’t do it when they artificially manipulate the cost of food or gasoline. What you seem to forget, is that Private insurers only constitute 60%, while the other 30% is through Single-payer government insurance

I understand that it seems best to provide free healthcare, but what you don’t realize is most of the medical innovations come out of America and not nations that have public healthcare, because Socialized HC is only concerned with access to HC, while Private HC is concerned with quality. Arguing for Socialized medicine is absolutely no different from arguing Socialized cars. You can either afford a Chevy, Buick, or Cadillac and get it instantly? or you can wait years for a Trabant.

Epan I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just saying the logic in your argument is vastly flawed and your understanding of economics is cloudy.

 

[Crescentinus]

I wish entitlement programs would go back to what they originally were: temporary and not a lifestyle.

Welfare has been a general failure all around because there is no incentive to get off of it.

Indeed.
Sadly, there are those in the Occupy Movement who love getting tons of entitlements for life.

 

[manualman]

I am also an engineer, mechanical and electrical by education.

Your pasts posts indicate that the only benefit you included in your assessment was water revenues. I listed many more, but for some reason you ignored them. When you ignore benefits to the public, your cost/benefit analysis will become skewed.

I find it hard to believe that you seem to believe that I’m the one who authored the cost benefit studies that objectively demonstrated these dams to be unfeasible projects. Such intransigence is not worth my further (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Manualman I think it’s safe to assume Dan Is a politician. Every fact he is given he refutes “Oh well, that cannot be right…perhaps you misjudged.” You could show Dan 90% of all government subsidies result in waste and ineffeciency and Dan will respond with “Well what about the other 10%, the 10% proves my point.”

Dan has an agenda and that’s to keep hammering away that government spending is good…Lotta good it did for Soviet Russia.

Austenbosten, you jump to conclusions way to easily, and you end up being wrong.

I am not a politician. If I was, you should be able to find all the evidence you need on the internet to prove your assumption. Have you looked, or do you just make irresponsible assumptions?

I also know that there are a lot more conspiracy theories than there are actual conspiracies. It is way too easy to call everything a conspiracy. I would love to fact check this dam project, if I could get actual details, rather than just broad accusations. Why don’t you join me in a fact finding mission?

You do me further disservice when you suggest that I have the agenda that you say I do. If you know so much about my agenda, then see if you can pick the statement that best describes my conclusions on government spending:

1. Government spending is always bad.
2. Government spending is always good.
3. Government spending can sometimes be good and it can sometimes be bad.

Your statement would suggest that you would pick 2 as my conclusion, correct?

Are you an anarchist?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I should mention that I’m a professional civil engineer trained and certified to design and build dams. This is a well studied field and there are established evaluation techniques whereby the cost / benefit ratio of such projects can be determined. Projects simply should not move forward if they can’t meet or beat a 1.0 cost/benefit ratio over the projected lifespan of the project. When the C/B is worse than 1.0 (as many of the dams I cite above were), it is a quantitative demonstration of the government providing a benefit to a select group at the expense of the overall taxpayers. aka “corporate welfare” when that select group of beneficiaries are corporate farming operations. A lot of these BuRec dams had terrible C/B ratios and were built anyways for political reasons.

The one making assumptions here is you. I’m merely reporting facts based on my professional knowledge and experience. You are assuming (rather naively, I assert) that all government expenditures are intended to provide net positive goods for the populace as a whole. Have you ever met a politician?

I’d like to fact check your story. What is the name of the project that you reference, please?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Dan what you fail to realize with your logic, is that the problem is government always has the best intentions with it’s policies, but they never can execute it right, because of the fact that they seek to control which is not controllable.

Wrong.

1. It would be much more accurate to say that my logic indicates that the government GENERALLY has what it believes are good intentions concerning it’s policies and actions, not always.
2. It would be mor accurate to say that my logic indicates that government CAN execute it right, but not all the time. If you believe what you way, and that government can NEVER work, wouldn’t that make you an anarchist.

You believe Obamacare was good but was ruined by corporate lobbyists, but ask yourself…why are corporate lobbyists so interested in petitioning to the government instead of the consumer…perhaps it’s because government seeks to control Health Care and he who controls the system makes all the rules and hold all the cards. In response to your points.

(1) By what definition is “good quality medical care”? Medical care is an evolving process, not a static commodity. What was considered “good quality medical care” 30 years ago would not be considered the same today…how can you write a law that will keep up with such specific demands?

(2) I agree, but that specific problem arose because of government policy. The government in the 1940s prevented businesses from hiring new talent, by freezing wages. So businesses had to look to alternative means and offered health insurance as a ‘fringe benefit’. Government was the cause of this massive employer-health insurance situation, and you seek the cause of the problem to fix it? You don’t put out a fire with more fires.

(3) And how do you determine who gets health care and who doesn’t? If Socialized health-care is better, tell me why not provide free food to all…or free cars?

(4) What does that mean spending less on healthcare is good? So we shouldn’t devote money to finding cures for debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s or cancer…we need to spend less. Tell me Dan, you can have a cheaper grocery budget by buying Ramen noodles instead of organic fruits and vegetables…Does that mean Ramen noodles is better than fruits and veggies? If spending less on Health Care is good, then perhaps you should not see a doctor when you have a heart attack, but an acupuncturist. As for me, there is no price too high for my life.

Dan what you call for is pure Socialism. Maybe you should put down the works of Marx and pick up and economics textbook. You speak of objectivity but everything in your statements screams of anything but. You say “well it’s good everyone should have health care” well everyone does in this country. When you go to the ER no one turns you away…you get health care. What you want is Socialism and it has been a proven failure.

What the heck are you saying? Do you realize how utterly confused you are? You read someone else’s post and thought it was me!

May I have an apology?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

After that last post I have all the proof you are a Socialist, whether you are a declared one or not. Your political-economic views are in lockstep with Socialism.

What?!?!?!?

You must have me confused with someone else! How in the world could you think that about me from what I said? Perhaps it is time for you to reread my posts.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I find it hard to believe that you seem to believe that I’m the one who authored the cost benefit studies that objectively demonstrated these dams to be unfeasible projects. Such intransigence is not worth my further (name removed by moderator)ut.

What?

You either have made an analysis, or you have not.

If you did, and you post your conclusions, why get so defensive if they are challenged? Those with a solid analysis are proud to share their detailed results.

If you did not, they wouldn’t that make your conclusions pretty weak?

 

[austenbosten]

What?!?!?!?

You must have me confused with someone else! How in the world could you think that about me from what I said? Perhaps it is time for you to reread my posts.

I did confuse you with epan and for that I am sorry. As for your other question, I am a limited-government Conservative, most certainly not an Anarchist.