RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State

RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 7:29:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri No, that is not reason enough. Penalize the providers and you are blaming them for all that, when they may not be to blame for all that. Some could make an argument that Federal regulations and intrusions are behind much of the high costs, so penalizing providers certainly isn't proper. If that's the argument they would make, then it should be pretty easy for them to prove, shouldn't it? They wouldn't be penalized if they would just come clean and be honest about how they arrive at their pricing figures and what they think services and occupations are worth. If they do things above-board and honestly, they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Coming down on the health care industry would almost necessitate coming down on every other sector of industry, wouldn't it? You have to apply laws fairly. It may be "easy" to prove, but it may be so time-consuming that the penalties take their toll and other decisions are made in lieu. You aren't going to let me charge enough to recover cost for MedX? Fine. I won't offer MedX at all. Let some other provider take the loss. That could be a response (might not be a smart one, but it could be one). Physicians and providers decide that government reimbursements aren't enough, so they stop taking payment from government altogether. And, if government puts a cap on the charge completely (meaning that they can't charge anyone more than that), they could decide that they've made enough money to retire and leave the practice. This has already been a potential issue. This is one reason they continually pass a "Doc Fix" bill. quote: quote: Low skill workers don't deserve scorn or ridicule. Period. It is a fair assessment that if they do not have anything but the minimum of skills, there has to be a reason, and that certainly does include choices they themselves have made. If Joe Schmuckatelli doesn't want to hire a kid because of the profanity that comes out of the kid's mouth, who's to blame for his not getting that first job from Joe? Obviously, some blame does rest on that kid for his actions. If the kid is a super genius who could've made Joe a million dollars, then Joe would have to be a pretty bad businessman to not hire him for that reason. I don't think it's a fair assessment to judge someone solely based on the job they hold without at least having some background knowledge about the individual. You say "there has to be a reason," but how do you know what the reason is? How do you know it's due to choices they made? If a person only has a minimum of skills, there does have to be a reason why that person only has a minimum of skills. In the case of someone just entering the workforce (like teens), there is an obvious reason. Why do you think applications include sections about previous employment? An employer doesn't know for absolute certain why someone has a minimum of skills. That's not even something they have to "know" for sure. Hiring someone is a risk an employer takes. They have to devote time and money into training the employee to do the job. Some jobs require more training than others. There is always the possibility that the employee's performance will lead to more costs if done wrong. The employer is taking a risk. It's up to HR to make some sort of decision as to what the likelihood of the risk being too high or not. You also have to take into account the culture of your organization and whether or not the applicant is likely to fit. quote: quote: Loyalty, though, is something that needs to be developed. I have tended to work at places I liked, and preferred. When my stint at my sales job ended, I had opportunities to go to competitors (beyond my one-year do not compete clause), but chose to not pursue them because I didn't like those companies. It doesn't appear that loyalty is as valued in the business world as it once was. Gone are the days that people would begin and end their careers with the same company and stay for decades. 1. Is there something wrong with fewer people spending their career with one employer? 2. What is causing it? quote: quote: Bingo! The employer decides how much that employee's production is worth. If a hospital decides a Dr. is worth $250k, then that Dr. is worth $250k, not $100k. Yes, but as we discussed above, the hospital is also deciding how much an MRI is worth and how much it costs for a single tablet of Tylenol. If they're making these kinds of arbitrary and frivolous decisions while people's lives and America's fiscal health hang in the balance, then isn't that something we should be looking at? We were examining the issue of "true costs," but how do we arrive at that figure if we simply concede that it's "whatever the hospital decides"? What other industry are you going to do this with? Realty? Food? If they can do this for medical care, where does it stop?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 8:00:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Limited Government? The thing that you cant define, right? You did say that a few pages back, DS. I seem to recall asking you to define it in real and exact terms. An you could not deliver on that question. You're right. I can't define it in exact terms. There is no exactitude when it comes to government. Plus, as the needs of the nation change, the size of government should change. Thirteen States vs. 50 States means the Federal Government has to be larger to exercise it's authorities for the Nation. A growing population might also cause an increase. You tell a bunch of people you can build them a bridge so that the flow of goods and people can cross a chasm in a much easier and efficient manner. So the people ask "Ok, what are your plans for this bridge?" is rather fair to state. When you come back with "well, I can not define it in an exact way, you'll just have to trust me". Unfortunately, I've known TO MANY CONSERVATIVES whom don't have a dime of knowledge on anything more technical then a cereal box. When you come back and say essentially the same thing, why should I or anyone else take you seriously? You want this 'Limited Government' yet can not define it in any real way. How do we know once we have it? We don't! According to you. So why should we seek, create, forge, or build that which can not be define in any 'real world terms'? I don't give a fuck how many conservative you may or may not know. The amount of government necessary is only definable as "enough;" enough to efficiently and effectively exercise it's granted authorities. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do you understand the phrase Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution? Yes its code for "us conservative will take the country over by force and set the document as we decide". Which will either result in a Theocracy or a Dictatorship (or both) before long. You forget that not EVERYONE in the country wants that concept. A 'conservative' understanding of the 2nd amendment has been shown to ignore the first half of the amendment and corrupt the hell out of the second half. The end result looks nothing like the original intent of the amendment. Want to try that with the 4th or 8th amendments? What would happen if we ignored the first half of the 8th amendment and corrupted the second half. Do you even know what the 8th amendment is about BEFORE looking it up? You disagree with how the 2nd Amendment is being applied. I get that. I disagree with your analysis of the 2nd Amendment. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." You can not define "Limited Government' and now you want things define as 'A Conservative Interpretation of the US Constitution'? You cant even define that EITHER! So why should Americas jump onto a band wagon that is not fully define? Since I have no reason what is exactly define as 'limited government' and/or 'conservative interpretation of the US Constitution', then its fair to throw both things out. You and others bash the ACA without reading the damn law and want it removed (and its spelled out in black. white and defined). By your own 'logic', we should throw out 'limited government' and 'conservative interpretation of the US Constitution' as both have LESS material than the ACA. It's not fair to thrown either thing out. The ACA isn't even spelled out in black and white. It's been defined, changed, and adapted since it was written. And, it's not even being applied as written. "More material" isn't even a legitimate metric. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. You made an argument and then run and hide when someone challenges you on the specifics. I got a chuckle with that 'junior high school' comment at the end. That is rather typical of the conservative mentality these days you do realize? It states volumes that you have no really stopped and tried to define either concept. That they are just buzz words or sound bits. Neither of which holds up to scrutiny or investigation very long. I have asked you to define 'Limited Government' several times now. Is it seriously THAT hard to define? Obviously, it is "THAT hard" to define. "Junior high school" comment? You mean, a joke? "Limited Government" is such a broad idea and topic that defining it exactly would take a lot of time and relies on so many different things that are fluid in and of themselves, that an exact definition is about as easy and accurate as defining the speed and location of an electron at the exact same moment.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 8:03:58 AM)
One would think that in the roughly 232 years of the tocsin sound of 'limited government', there would be some sort of defining treatise that would flesh it out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 8:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys How about eliminating NSA spying on American citizens. closing down all over sea bases. Eliminating federal income tax. Ending the Fed. closing numerous agencies. That's just for starters. DS probably knew throwing out ideas would just give you a path to attack lol.. that's what you wanted right? Anyway start with those. those alone would fix a lot of financial problems caused by government. Of course you probably think we can continue to print money our economy doesn't have which just pile debt onto every American alive at present and next generations as well.... maybe the real question is wtf do YOU think we should cut limit. I'm good with eliminating the NSA, or, at the very least, limiting it's scope. Closing overseas bases? I'd be okay with keeping a few, but the majority need to be shuttered, IMO. Ending the Fed? I'm on board. Before we do that, though, we need a full depth audit. I'm sure we can close and/or combine many agencies and reduce the manpower used. I'm not in favor of ending the Federal income tax yet. Ultimately, I'd like to see it moved to a consumption tax, but that would have to be a process.

mnottertail -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 8:08:22 AM)
And what would be the replacement for the Fed? A continuous series of uncontrolled economic panics?

cloudboy -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 12:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail One would think that in the roughly 232 years of the tocsin sound of 'limited government', there would be some sort of defining treatise that would flesh it out. All the real world examples are disasters: Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. So, the idea put forth by the ultra-right wing here is really just an unproven, risky, utopian theory and or / a subterfuge for Business to create more profits for itself by throwing off all external costs on the general population (like China.) Limited government ideas also give a free pass to right wingers --- to not seek "better government."

Icarys -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 7:40:11 PM)
"Better government" is oxymoronic. There is no such beast. Now, the lack thereof, is where it's at. I think most of you parrot the ideas you've either heard on TV or around the watercoolers concerning "ultra right wingers " How is it that a right winger such as "I" also supports an individuals right to smoke pot, do drugs in general and be antiwar... I mean aren't those left wing talking points? If it were me, I'd study what it was I was talking about at least a little before I spouted something like the opinions posted here about libertarians. we aren't 'right wing" just because the MSN says so.

Icarys -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/14/2013 7:49:25 PM)
A conservative in favor if taxes...ain't that new these days. How do you ever really expect to shrink government without cutting it's blood supply off.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 3:07:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I disagree that we should raise the minimum wage because it provides a lower standard of living than those on welfare. IMO, it's a perverse thought for one to choose welfare over work, even if it will provide a better standard of living. Welfare increases are significantly more limited than work wage increases. Please note that this applies to those who have the ability and capability to actually have a choice between work or welfare. Those who do not have the capacity to work should be provided for via charity and/or welfare. The difference is that welfare is determined by need, whereas wages are determined by the employer's estimation of the value of the work. But then, we're also talking about true costs, so measuring the needs of the workers and how much money they should get to meet those needs also comes down to true costs of labor. Strictly speaking, in terms of dollars and cents, people on welfare provide even less value to society and employers than those who work low-wage jobs. Whether they have the choice to work or go on welfare makes no difference as to their overall value to a business or to society in general. A person who works will still have more overall value than a person who doesn't work, regardless of the choices one makes or whether an individual even has a choice. Up until now, we've been talking about this as a purely business decision, where the employer supposedly makes a determination as to how much an individual's work is actually worth. We've been talking about skill sets and how people who choose to better themselves and offer better skills to an employer deserve to earn more money than those who seemingly made other choices in life which limits the skills they an offer. But the employer (and by extension, society overall) should really only be interested in the bottom line of how much value there is in the individual's work. But when you talk about paying people based on their choices (or lack of choice), it sounds like something closer to social engineering than an actual sound business decision based solely on the value of labor (or lack of labor). quote: Please note that I am not calling anyone "dumb." There are plenty of smart people who have chosen to rely on the social welfare system. They aren't dumb, but, IMO, their decision is dumb. The programs aren't dumb. The people aren't necessarily dumb. The choosing to rely on it, though, is dumb (again, this implies that there is a choice to be made between working and welfare) It depends on how you define "dumb." It may be considered more honorable to work than to take welfare, but if you look at the end result of what one receives, if you're still at the same standard of living by working as you would be from taking welfare, then it doesn't seem all that dumb at all. This is especially true if one has kids. Wal-Mart won't give people raises based on the number of kids they have, but the welfare system will do that. And what difference does it make whether there is a choice between working and welfare? If we're looking at this purely from the standpoint of capitalism and free-market economics, the "choice" here should make no difference at all in terms of one's value in the marketplace. If we're talking about punishing people for making the wrong choice (i.e. lazy, unambitious, but not obviously disabled), while saying that those who are truly disabled and don't have a choice deserve compassion and as much as they "need" to survive, then seems more a matter of social engineering and legislating morality. It's a policy that does not follow the tenets of free-market capitalism and seems disingenuous and fraught with double standards. When you say that people should take responsibility for their own choices (which I agree with, btw), that's a value judgment, not strictly a tenet of capitalism or free-market economics. It's not a sound business decision, but rather, a moral judgment of other people's character. One could even argue that putting one's own personal feelings ahead of sound business principles would actually be bad for business. quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know it's not all that exact. That was my point, and that's not acceptable - as yet - to Joether. That's not my problem, but his. The problem we have run into is in the altering of definitions and meanings of words within the Constitution. To get back to a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't require an Amendment, but a reverting back to the original intent and meanings of the words used. The only reason an Amendment could be useful, is in defining the oft-reinterpreted words. Could you give me an example or two of the kinds of words you’re referring to? "General Welfare of the United States" "Interstate Commerce" I can see what you mean about "General Welfare" being vague and hard to define, although "Interstate Commerce" seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 3:58:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Coming down on the health care industry would almost necessitate coming down on every other sector of industry, wouldn't it? You have to apply laws fairly. Absolutely. quote: It may be "easy" to prove, but it may be so time-consuming that the penalties take their toll and other decisions are made in lieu. Well, they already took the time to set the prices in the first place, didn't they? Did they actually take time to sit down and do the math? If they did, then it's merely a matter of showing their notes (unless they're going to claim that their dog ate their homework). If they didn't actually do the math and instead just threw darts at a dartboard to reach their figures, then that would justify coming down on them, wouldn't it? quote: You aren't going to let me charge enough to recover cost for MedX? Fine. I won't offer MedX at all. Let some other provider take the loss. That could be a response (might not be a smart one, but it could be one). Physicians and providers decide that government reimbursements aren't enough, so they stop taking payment from government altogether. And, if government puts a cap on the charge completely (meaning that they can't charge anyone more than that), they could decide that they've made enough money to retire and leave the practice. This has already been a potential issue. This is one reason they continually pass a "Doc Fix" bill. In this hypothetical you're outlining, the main problem with it is that the hospitals wouldn't need to charge extra to recover the costs of MedX, since the price of MedX would also be controlled. quote: If a person only has a minimum of skills, there does have to be a reason why that person only has a minimum of skills. In the case of someone just entering the workforce (like teens), there is an obvious reason. Perhaps, but what difference should it make what the reason is? What difference should it make to the business owner, and what difference should it make to society at large? quote: Why do you think applications include sections about previous employment? An employer doesn't know for absolute certain why someone has a minimum of skills. That's not even something they have to "know" for sure. Hiring someone is a risk an employer takes. They have to devote time and money into training the employee to do the job. Some jobs require more training than others. There is always the possibility that the employee's performance will lead to more costs if done wrong. The employer is taking a risk. It's up to HR to make some sort of decision as to what the likelihood of the risk being too high or not. You also have to take into account the culture of your organization and whether or not the applicant is likely to fit. I have years of experience hiring and firing people, so I know what you're talking about. Sure it's a risk, but it also depends on the job in question. The "previous employment" section seems more a formality these days, since their previous employers probably won't be able to give much information about an applicant (due to fears of being sued over a negative reference). HR departments seem far more worried about possibly getting sued than they are about finding the best applicant for a job. There's a greater risk than just hiring an employee with poor work skills. quote: 1. Is there something wrong with fewer people spending their career with one employer? 2. What is causing it? I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it. It's just an observation I was making. It doesn't seem to make much sense from a business standpoint to discourage people from staying with one employer. An experienced, reliable, loyal, long-time employee should be viewed as an asset to any organization, so I would question a management style or corporate culture which views employees as more disposable and treats them as less than human beings. As far as what's causing it, my guess is that the business leaders of this country have lost faith in the system and seem to believe that it's going to fail someday. So, their general tendency has been towards gaining as much as they can in the short-term at the expense of long-term investment. It's an element in our culture, the drive towards instant gratification, rather than saving and building for the future. We have a short attention-span in this country. While other countries think 50-100 years ahead, we can barely think past the next fiscal year. This collective myopia has had consequences. quote: What other industry are you going to do this with? Realty? Food? If they can do this for medical care, where does it stop? It may never stop. Who says it has to stop?

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 4:47:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys "Better government" is oxymoronic. There is no such beast. Now, the lack thereof, is where it's at. I think government is a necessary evil. If it's something that we have to have anyway, then at the very least, We The People should try to exercise some level of positive control over it. If the people give up that responsibility, then we get what we get. Even advocating the lack of government may sound compelling, but the thing is, you've still got that same bunch of people who will immediately invent a new government, whether it's made up of commissars or pin-striped bosses. quote: I think most of you parrot the ideas you've either heard on TV or around the watercoolers concerning "ultra right wingers " How is it that a right winger such as "I" also supports an individuals right to smoke pot, do drugs in general and be antiwar... I mean aren't those left wing talking points? If it were me, I'd study what it was I was talking about at least a little before I spouted something like the opinions posted here about libertarians. we aren't 'right wing" just because the MSN says so. I think that each individual might have their own given set of beliefs, some of which might seem more "right-wing" while others seem "left-wing." I respect and appreciate not wanting to be pigeonholed. I think it depends on which aspect of public policy one is looking at, whether it's social policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy, or whatever it may be. So, it's possible for someone to be "right-wing" in terms of fiscal policy while being "left-wing" in social policy (drug legalization) or foreign policy (anti-war).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 8:13:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys A conservative in favor if taxes...ain't that new these days. How do you ever really expect to shrink government without cutting it's blood supply off. Taxes are how we pay for government. I am not in favor of no government. Thus, I am in favor of some level of taxation. Reducing the size and scope of government to it's Constitutionally-limited size will, IMO, allow tax levels to drop to their "proper" level ("proper level" being the level that funds government properly). I'm also not in favor of cutting taxes at the same time as reducing government. Why? Because our debt is ridiculous. Thus, we reduce government expenditures and reduce tax levels on after a delay. That allows us to run a surplus every year to pay off our debt. If we can get to a zero tax rate (which I don't think is going to be possible, as the proper size of government will likely not allow for that), I'm all for it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 8:40:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I disagree that we should raise the minimum wage because it provides a lower standard of living than those on welfare. IMO, it's a perverse thought for one to choose welfare over work, even if it will provide a better standard of living. Welfare increases are significantly more limited than work wage increases. Please note that this applies to those who have the ability and capability to actually have a choice between work or welfare. Those who do not have the capacity to work should be provided for via charity and/or welfare. The difference is that welfare is determined by need, whereas wages are determined by the employer's estimation of the value of the work. But then, we're also talking about true costs, so measuring the needs of the workers and how much money they should get to meet those needs also comes down to true costs of labor. Strictly speaking, in terms of dollars and cents, people on welfare provide even less value to society and employers than those who work low-wage jobs. Whether they have the choice to work or go on welfare makes no difference as to their overall value to a business or to society in general. A person who works will still have more overall value than a person who doesn't work, regardless of the choices one makes or whether an individual even has a choice. Up until now, we've been talking about this as a purely business decision, where the employer supposedly makes a determination as to how much an individual's work is actually worth. We've been talking about skill sets and how people who choose to better themselves and offer better skills to an employer deserve to earn more money than those who seemingly made other choices in life which limits the skills they an offer. But the employer (and by extension, society overall) should really only be interested in the bottom line of how much value there is in the individual's work. But when you talk about paying people based on their choices (or lack of choice), it sounds like something closer to social engineering than an actual sound business decision based solely on the value of labor (or lack of labor). A person's choices can impact the value of their labor. I can relate this to the NFL in a way. Terrell Owens was a phenomenal athlete with some amazing receiver skills. The value of his on-field input could have improved any team. Few teams were willing to even attempt to sign him, in part because of his salary requirements. Another part of teams' unwillingness to sign him was his lockerroom antics and that he was considered a "lockerroom cancer." He was not good for team chemistry, which could outweigh his on-field inputs. The choices an individual makes can, and do, make a difference within a company, outside of the skills brought in. And, if a person chooses to not develop any skills, that person won't qualify for jobs that require skills. How is it not a person's fault if he/she chooses to not gain the skills necessary for a particular level of work desired? quote: quote: Please note that I am not calling anyone "dumb." There are plenty of smart people who have chosen to rely on the social welfare system. They aren't dumb, but, IMO, their decision is dumb. The programs aren't dumb. The people aren't necessarily dumb. The choosing to rely on it, though, is dumb (again, this implies that there is a choice to be made between working and welfare) It depends on how you define "dumb." It may be considered more honorable to work than to take welfare, but if you look at the end result of what one receives, if you're still at the same standard of living by working as you would be from taking welfare, then it doesn't seem all that dumb at all. This is especially true if one has kids. Wal-Mart won't give people raises based on the number of kids they have, but the welfare system will do that. And what difference does it make whether there is a choice between working and welfare? If we're looking at this purely from the standpoint of capitalism and free-market economics, the "choice" here should make no difference at all in terms of one's value in the marketplace. If we're talking about punishing people for making the wrong choice (i.e. lazy, unambitious, but not obviously disabled), while saying that those who are truly disabled and don't have a choice deserve compassion and as much as they "need" to survive, then seems more a matter of social engineering and legislating morality. It's a policy that does not follow the tenets of free-market capitalism and seems disingenuous and fraught with double standards. When you say that people should take responsibility for their own choices (which I agree with, btw), that's a value judgment, not strictly a tenet of capitalism or free-market economics. It's not a sound business decision, but rather, a moral judgment of other people's character. One could even argue that putting one's own personal feelings ahead of sound business principles would actually be bad for business. I was attempting to differentiate between people who choose to be on welfare rather than work, and those who don't have any choice but to be on welfare (that is, they are incapable of working). Taking care of those who can't take care of themselves is, in a sense, a legislating of morality. I'd be more supportive of charity doing that job, but I'm not willing to just pull the rug out from under them, allowing them to "fall through the cracks" until charity increases to the point where it is sufficient. I'd much rather see government give charitable donation incentives to increase charity and then reducing government welfare programs. quote: quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I know it's not all that exact. That was my point, and that's not acceptable - as yet - to Joether. That's not my problem, but his. The problem we have run into is in the altering of definitions and meanings of words within the Constitution. To get back to a limited government under a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution doesn't require an Amendment, but a reverting back to the original intent and meanings of the words used. The only reason an Amendment could be useful, is in defining the oft-reinterpreted words. Could you give me an example or two of the kinds of words you’re referring to? "General Welfare of the United States" "Interstate Commerce" I can see what you mean about "General Welfare" being vague and hard to define, although "Interstate Commerce" seems pretty cut and dried to me. The original reason for the Interstate Commerce Clause was to prevent one State from setting tariffs and import restrictions that "unfairly" impacted trade between the two States. It wasn't about anything lower than the state level. It wasn't about regulating any commerce I might have across a State line (living within minutes of the OH-MI border, I can easily participate in commerce across state lines). The Federal Government was more about external things and things on a National level and only mediating in conflicts at the State level. State governments were left for internal activities. Making regulations that impact commerce that crosses State lines is different from making regulations that takes place between two States.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/15/2013 9:19:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Coming down on the health care industry would almost necessitate coming down on every other sector of industry, wouldn't it? You have to apply laws fairly. Absolutely. That's a chilling comment, IMO. quote: quote: It may be "easy" to prove, but it may be so time-consuming that the penalties take their toll and other decisions are made in lieu. Well, they already took the time to set the prices in the first place, didn't they? Did they actually take time to sit down and do the math? If they did, then it's merely a matter of showing their notes (unless they're going to claim that their dog ate their homework). If they didn't actually do the math and instead just threw darts at a dartboard to reach their figures, then that would justify coming down on them, wouldn't it? Government is a lumbering beast. I can't even imagine how long it would take for providers to prove their cases. The damage that can be done in the meantime could be very bad. quote: You aren't going to let me charge enough to recover cost for MedX? Fine. I won't offer MedX at all. Let some other provider take the loss. That could be a response (might not be a smart one, but it could be one). Physicians and providers decide that government reimbursements aren't enough, so they stop taking payment from government altogether. And, if government puts a cap on the charge completely (meaning that they can't charge anyone more than that), they could decide that they've made enough money to retire and leave the practice. This has already been a potential issue. This is one reason they continually pass a "Doc Fix" bill. In this hypothetical you're outlining, the main problem with it is that the hospitals wouldn't need to charge extra to recover the costs of MedX, since the price of MedX would also be controlled. That depends on where the price control is placed. quote: quote: If a person only has a minimum of skills, there does have to be a reason why that person only has a minimum of skills. In the case of someone just entering the workforce (like teens), there is an obvious reason. Perhaps, but what difference should it make what the reason is? What difference should it make to the business owner, and what difference should it make to society at large? quote: Why do you think applications include sections about previous employment? An employer doesn't know for absolute certain why someone has a minimum of skills. That's not even something they have to "know" for sure. Hiring someone is a risk an employer takes. They have to devote time and money into training the employee to do the job. Some jobs require more training than others. There is always the possibility that the employee's performance will lead to more costs if done wrong. The employer is taking a risk. It's up to HR to make some sort of decision as to what the likelihood of the risk being too high or not. You also have to take into account the culture of your organization and whether or not the applicant is likely to fit. I have years of experience hiring and firing people, so I know what you're talking about. Sure it's a risk, but it also depends on the job in question. The "previous employment" section seems more a formality these days, since their previous employers probably won't be able to give much information about an applicant (due to fears of being sued over a negative reference). HR departments seem far more worried about possibly getting sued than they are about finding the best applicant for a job. There's a greater risk than just hiring an employee with poor work skills. It certainly does depend on the job you're hiring for. No question about that at all. Why are HR Dept's and previous employers more concerned about lawsuits? quote: quote: 1. Is there something wrong with fewer people spending their career with one employer? 2. What is causing it? I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with it. It's just an observation I was making. It doesn't seem to make much sense from a business standpoint to discourage people from staying with one employer. An experienced, reliable, loyal, long-time employee should be viewed as an asset to any organization, so I would question a management style or corporate culture which views employees as more disposable and treats them as less than human beings. As far as what's causing it, my guess is that the business leaders of this country have lost faith in the system and seem to believe that it's going to fail someday. So, their general tendency has been towards gaining as much as they can in the short-term at the expense of long-term investment. It's an element in our culture, the drive towards instant gratification, rather than saving and building for the future. So, it's only business that causes the reduction of length of employment? I completely agree that a reliable, loyal, and long-time employee is better for a business. There is no guarantee that a long-term employee is reliable or loyal. In jobs that have a large learning curve from one business to another, it behooves business to reduce turnover as much as possible; keeps training costs down, and maintains production levels. It would also, IMO, be better for business to promote employees rather than hire external candidates, as long as business can get qualified candidates from within. quote: We have a short attention-span in this country. While other countries think 50-100 years ahead, we can barely think past the next fiscal year. This collective myopia has had consequences. Do other countries have more stable government regulation environments? If they do, then it's easier to look further than one or two years down the road. The regulatory environment in the US changes so much from year to year, it's difficult to do that. quote: What other industry are you going to do this with? Realty? Food? If they can do this for medical care, where does it stop? It may never stop. Who says it has to stop? Because central planning has been shown to not work very well.

joether -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 3:03:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't give a fuck how many conservative you may or may not know. The amount of government necessary is only definable as "enough;" enough to efficiently and effectively exercise it's granted authorities. Until you can give a fully detailed definition to 'Limited Government', 'enough' is a rather irrelevant term. You are not the only one that supports this buzz phrase. But that is the reason why its mocked and laughed at: there is nothing to it beyond the buzz phrase. There is no substance to the concept. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You disagree with how the 2nd Amendment is being applied. I get that. I disagree with your analysis of the 2nd Amendment. An there in lies one more problem that you and many other Americans fail to understand. You can NOT obey those laws that you agree with and ignore the ones you do not based on one or more of the following: A ) Politically B ) Religiously, C ) Financially. You as a US Citizen, must abide by and obey ALL the laws on the books. An you know this from previous conversations. The 2nd amendment is a great way of explaining the concept since most people can understand it from different angles and perspectives. The 4th and 8th are much harder for most Americans to understand. Since ignoring half of either and corrupting the other is a VERY bad idea to us citizens of the nation. My view on the 2nd amendment is 'middle of the road'. I've never really defined it on this forum since its a bit....long! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not fair to thrown either thing out. The ACA isn't even spelled out in black and white. It's been defined, changed, and adapted since it was written. And, it's not even being applied as written. "More material" isn't even a legitimate metric. Lets be fair, DS. I asked you four reasonable times to define the 'Limited Government', yes? An you could not give one, correct? The ACA is defined. Most people do not understand it for one important reason: THEY HAVE NOT READ IT. In your case, I can not read your definition of 'Limited Government' since no such definition exists. While I can understand the problems on a deeper level than most; I'm willing to suspect I can find problems with your definition big enough to sail Super Star Destroyers through it. The page number of the ACA is not really 2409 pages. Once you eliminate the front and back sections leaving 'The Guts'. Reset the margins to one inch on all sides and single spacing the whole thing. Would be a mere 600-800 pages long. Even then its STILL a dry and dull reading. If conservatives are against a document like that, imagine how anyone else would behave with a much smaller document on 'Limited Government'. Since the concept commands a far greater concept, affecting Americans in a far more extensive manner, and a grand major shift in future USA events. I believe it would be reasonable that this final document of yours is easily 8K-12K pages long. The ACA affects a limited number of industries and government agencies. Your idea effects....EVERYTHING. People will want to know EXACTLY how things are going to work out on a staggering level of details. For example. How does 'Limited Government' keep a financial company from developing two commodities for investors. Commodity 'A' they give to their good investors and tell them it'll rise within six months and be very profitable. In the second they tell investors the company really doesn't care about that this one is the same as 'A'. However the company does not mention that this commodity is most likely doomed to failure for any number of reasons that individual investors would most likely not know about until AFTER the fact. Also, the company 'sells short' on the whole thing in the second example. So when the second commodity fails the company reaps the money in the first instance AND from selling short, making an enormous profit. The citizens would be absolutely...LIVID...that your 'Limited Government' allowed this. Do you REALLY think they'll want your 'Limited Government' in the future? That example is from an ACTUAL EVENT. Republicans removes a number of safeguards (i.e. regulations) that prevented the company from doing such a thing previously. While the action was highly unethically it was NOT illegal. Since then, Democrats have added a few safeguards to keep that from happening. Its not the fault of the Federal Government if individual Americans can not understand how things work. Its complicated and complex. Not because its trying to do something evil or immoral. But that as time progressed we as a nation learned things. You might have noticed that the Bill of Rights is joined by seventeen additional amendments to the US Constitution. Ever wonder why that was? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. You made an argument and then run and hide when someone challenges you on the specifics. I got a chuckle with that 'junior high school' comment at the end. That is rather typical of the conservative mentality these days you do realize? It states volumes that you have no really stopped and tried to define either concept. That they are just buzz words or sound bits. Neither of which holds up to scrutiny or investigation very long. I have asked you to define 'Limited Government' several times now. Is it seriously THAT hard to define? Obviously, it is "THAT hard" to define. "Junior high school" comment? You mean, a joke? "Limited Government' is a buzz word and/or catchy phrase. It really does not have much substance to it. And lacks any real ability to be defined. Third, with what this nation has had to learn over the years of its life (often the hard way), its also an impractical philosophy. I grant you that it sounds 'cute' and 'catchy' but when it comes to talking 'Brass Tax' and the actual 'nuts and bolts' of operation, it fails all over the place. I understand that you have problems with understanding the whole concept of the US Federal Government. But its not the responsibility or duty of that entity to explain the working elements to you. That is actually your duty as a US citizen. If you take being a US Citizen seriously, this is unfortunately one of the most annoying aspects of the deal. Back in the 18th century the US Federal Government was pretty simple. But then in 18th Century America, things were pretty damn simple compared to modern day. Communication in the 18th century was either by pony or ship. Today, we can talk to people on the other side of the planet by real time video conferencing from hand held devices. Try to understand the technical knowledge accumulated to allow that simple process to work. I'm not going to expect anyone to fully understand the Federal Government. But understand it enough to handle most uncommon level questions and ideas. The 'junior high school comment' was not a joke. The way you structured the writing seemed like something a sixth grader would reply with. It lacked your normally decent views and ideas. Try debating sixth graders some time on politics. It'll be an interesting observation for you; that I have no doubt! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Limited Government" is such a broad idea and topic that defining it exactly would take a lot of time and relies on so many different things that are fluid in and of themselves, that an exact definition is about as easy and accurate as defining the speed and location of an electron at the exact same moment. I'm not for 'Limited Government', 'Big Government', or 'Liberal/Conservative Government'. I am for 'Good Government'. Defining 'Good Government' is quite honestly much harder to define than 'Limited Government'. It depends on the citizens willing to be 'Lawful Good' rather than 'Chaotic Evil'. An as any experienced 'Dungeons and Dragons' player can tell you, playing 'Lawful Good' is not a cake walk. 'Chaotic Evil' on the other hand is very easy. 'Lawful Good' means to not just follow the laws of society but do the most good and just one can. 'Chaotic Evil' society is an out right evil in which the citizens would gladly sell out their neighbor for a nickel.

thompsonx -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 10:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys A conservative in favor if taxes...ain't that new these days. How do you ever really expect to shrink government without cutting it's blood supply off. Taxes are how we pay for government. I am not in favor of no government. Thus, I am in favor of some level of taxation. Reducing the size and scope of government to it's Constitutionally-limited size will, IMO, allow tax levels to drop to their "proper" level ("proper level" being the level that funds government properly). I'm also not in favor of cutting taxes at the same time as reducing government. Why? Because our debt is ridiculous. Thus, we reduce government expenditures and reduce tax levels on after a delay. That allows us to run a surplus every year to pay off our debt. If we can get to a zero tax rate (which I don't think is going to be possible, as the proper size of government will likely not allow for that), I'm all for it. Same shit different flies. Still waiting for anyone to define "limited government"

thompsonx -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 10:22:13 AM)
Because central planning has been shown to not work very well. Just where has central planning been shown to not work very well?

thompsonx -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 10:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Limited Government? The thing that you cant define, right? You did say that a few pages back, DS. I seem to recall asking you to define it in real and exact terms. An you could not deliver on that question. You're right. I can't define it in exact terms. Then why do you use terms you cannot define? There is no exactitude when it comes to government. That would be unsubsantiated opinion. Do you understand the phrase Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution? Is that a term you would be able to define for us or is it in the same catagory as "limited government"...something you want but will not or cannot define A "Limited Government" is one that is limited only to those laws that are necessary and proper in exercising it's duties according to a "Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution." For which we are still waiting for a definition. That's as exact as it's going to get. If that doesn't satisfy you, I recommend a Snickers bar. Circular logic is the perview of morons...snickers the perview of the obese.

thompsonx -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 10:46:31 AM)
closing numerous agencies. Which ones

Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/16/2013 11:23:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri A person's choices can impact the value of their labor. I can relate this to the NFL in a way. Terrell Owens was a phenomenal athlete with some amazing receiver skills. The value of his on-field input could have improved any team. Few teams were willing to even attempt to sign him, in part because of his salary requirements. Another part of teams' unwillingness to sign him was his lockerroom antics and that he was considered a "lockerroom cancer." He was not good for team chemistry, which could outweigh his on-field inputs. The choices an individual makes can, and do, make a difference within a company, outside of the skills brought in. And, if a person chooses to not develop any skills, that person won't qualify for jobs that require skills. How is it not a person's fault if he/she chooses to not gain the skills necessary for a particular level of work desired? In the example you’re citing here, the employee in question did have the skills (no matter if he was born with the skills or acquired them during his youth). If his salary requirements were too high, then the business has to make a decision as to whether the skills offered are really worth it (which is part of what we’re talking about here). As far as intangibles such as being a “locker room cancer,” that seems more of an arbitrary opinion and a value judgment than anything that can be objectively proven about the individual’s actual skills. quote: I was attempting to differentiate between people who choose to be on welfare rather than work, and those who don't have any choice but to be on welfare (that is, they are incapable of working). Taking care of those who can't take care of themselves is, in a sense, a legislating of morality. It’s also a way of maintaining political stability, which should be the more important consideration. quote: I'd be more supportive of charity doing that job, but I'm not willing to just pull the rug out from under them, allowing them to "fall through the cracks" until charity increases to the point where it is sufficient. I'd much rather see government give charitable donation incentives to increase charity and then reducing government welfare programs. Thing is, government social programs and welfare are not necessarily the products of a bunch of sappy bleeding hearts. That’s where a lot of conservatives seem to misdirect a lot of their criticism of these programs, presenting a false choice between government welfare versus private charity to help those who can’t take care of themselves. This also has to be viewed in the context of our discussion about “true costs” and the value of one’s labor to an employer. Strictly speaking, from a business point of view, it really shouldn’t matter why or how an individual has the skills he has (or doesn’t have). If a business decides that a fry cook should earn X amount of money, then what other business concerns do they have? By the same token, a person who is incapable of working at all would have zero value to the business (or any other business for that matter). But in America (as in most other industrialized countries), we don’t just pull the rug out from under people (not like we used to anyway). We don’t always think in terms of dollars and cents and how much value an individual has in society. I just think there’s something incongruous about being warm and fuzzy about those deemed “unable to take care of themselves” while being cold and harsh towards those who might not be quite so helpless but still have trouble getting by. If we’re going to look solely at the needs of a business and how much they value the labor of their employees, then that’s one thing. As cold-blooded as it might seem, the idea that “it’s not personal, but strictly business” at least has a certain reliable consistency about it. If that’s the argument being made here and the position being taken regarding skills, costs, and the value they might have to a business or its clientele, then I could accept that as valid from a purely pragmatic business point of view. But in the real world, it doesn’t work quite the same way as they imagine it does in the economics classrooms which are cocooned deep inside academia. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Coming down on the health care industry would almost necessitate coming down on every other sector of industry, wouldn't it? You have to apply laws fairly. Absolutely. That's a chilling comment, IMO. I was just agreeing with the view that laws should be applied fairly. As for it being “chilling,” I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. What seems far more chilling to me is when we put ourselves and future generations at the mercy of big banking and other globalized interests which are accountable to no one and are far more insulated from the will of the people than the Administrative State could ever be. We might also disagree on what “coming down” on an industry would actually entail, although again, I would put that also on them, for creating the conditions leading to a situation where it might be necessary to come down on them. In politics, everything is negotiable, but if industry is unwilling to negotiate in good faith and the government comes down on them, then they bring it on themselves. All of these rules and regulations and government agencies deemed part of the “Administrative State” invariably came about due to some sort of problem likely caused from a private sector industry that was behaving irresponsibly. No doubt there was some sort of visible problem or social ill which was widely known before it even came to the government’s table and long before a decision was made to “come down” on anyone, whether it was the cotton industry, the meat-packing industry, the cattle industry, the mining industry, the railroad industry, the textiles industry – or any number of other industries which have acted irresponsibly with human lives and have been on the business end of Big Bad Gov coming down on them. We were talking about accepting responsibility earlier on, and this, in my view, is about the various industries and other powerful groups in this country accepting responsibility. At the very least, if the idea of regulation and price controls is really so chilling, we should at least look at the conditions which necessitated regulation and coming down on the private sector in the past. I really have no love of government, but when we’re talking about business, we’re not talking about a bunch of choir boys. I view businesspeople just as I view politicians and lawyers. Some are good, some are honest and ethical – but many are not. We all have to take our chances, and let the buyer beware. But sometimes, rules, regulations, and a bit of policing are necessary to maintain order and stability in society. But it’s the bad apples who make it necessary. Let’s not forget that. Even our Constitution and system of Checks and Balances established by our Founding Fathers were deemed necessary because of their shared historical experience. If every monarch throughout history had been fair, just, benevolent, and compassionate, then none of that would have been necessary. quote: Government is a lumbering beast. I can't even imagine how long it would take for providers to prove their cases. The damage that can be done in the meantime could be very bad. The damage is going on anyway, no matter if the government acts quickly, slowly, or not at all. There have been occasions where the government has shown that it can act rather quickly when it wants to. Where it moves slow is when someone wants to move slow, such as making it difficult to amend the Constitution (to prevent any hasty or precipitous actions we might later regret). I suppose government could be a bit more proactive if it wanted to. That may be part of the problem, since you’ve got a do-nothing Congress which leaves it to the bureaucrats to run things, yet they still fuck it up and then it’s up to the judicial branch to clean up all the shit they cause. As a result, the court systems across the country are clogged up, as if the judicial branch exists as the government’s sewage system. quote: It certainly does depend on the job you're hiring for. No question about that at all. Why are HR Dept's and previous employers more concerned about lawsuits? It’s just a fact of life in this litigious society in which we live, but even that’s the result of the bad apples who end up stinking the whole barrel. quote: So, it's only business that causes the reduction of length of employment? No, not only business. quote: I completely agree that a reliable, loyal, and long-time employee is better for a business. There is no guarantee that a long-term employee is reliable or loyal. Well, there are no guarantees with anything, although some intangibles like loyalty, reliability may not show up in an accountant’s ledger, so they might conclude that the long-term employee (who would likely be receiving a higher wage) as more of a financial drain on a company. There might be pressure to replace the long-term employee with a newer employee who would start out at a lower salary. quote: In jobs that have a large learning curve from one business to another, it behooves business to reduce turnover as much as possible; keeps training costs down, and maintains production levels. It would also, IMO, be better for business to promote employees rather than hire external candidates, as long as business can get qualified candidates from within. This all makes sense to me, although not every business seems to operate according to these principles. quote: Do other countries have more stable government regulation environments? If they do, then it's easier to look further than one or two years down the road. The regulatory environment in the US changes so much from year to year, it's difficult to do that. That’s because the politics changes all the time in the U.S. However, it’s not all that unstable that we can’t think a bit further ahead. quote: Because central planning has been shown to not work very well. It does have its problems, although those are problems inherent in any large nation. Some things that we’re faced with today are the consequence of things that weren’t planned very well yesterday. We already have a centralized system anyway, whether we want it or not. That was the choice we made, and it would be exceedingly difficult to go back on that choice now.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625