U.S. Republican Paul Ryan wants choice in delivering aid to poor

[realibrad]

I believe the idea is that the money gets collected and routed via taxes so government in essence has one layer and has a cost associated. Then it goes to somewhere else who has another cost. Then were would have to be regulations and oversight added (you really can't let things go, look at how financial institutions raped us through the nostrils) and that has a cost.

The question is how could all that be less than removing distribution by government. I have to say I'm not seeing how that would be.

This by far is the best comment I have seen so I wanted to make sure to reply to it.

I think it all depends on how it would be carried out. If you change everything overnight, it think it all falls apart. If you do it in small steps I think you could reduce the corruption.

The problem with the bank analogy is that much of the regulation was removed overnight, and the kids went to play knowing that if they got into trouble, they would be bailed out. If you slowly work in private firms and let them figure out how to fix problems, I think they would indeed find efficient ways of doing things.

I dont think any of this will happen though, because nothing ever really gets done right now.

 

[ivwshane]

So, when a private company does something, it must make sure that what it takes in is more than what it spends. That is a good thing, because it means that its using resources efficiently. The government does not have this, and it shows. A government program can spend money and never have to answer if its worth the cost. So, in that way, a private company has the advantage.

Your argument that a public institution does not "need" to make a profit, so in theory it should be able to send the savings through its price aka taxes for public. The problem with this idea is that it almost never holds true. Because private institutions have to make a profit, corruption internally is reduced (not eliminated) because its costly. Corruption in public can go on until they get caught, which may never happen.

Also, a public institution is forever, where as a private institution can be swapped out for another if its not working. If a company is found to be abusing the people its trying to help, it would be fired and a new company would come in. You cannot do that with a public firm, as seen by examples.

Your theory is complete bullshit and is contradicted by history. The government, as if you are completely unaware, is held to standards set and overseen by the people. The people, of course, are the officials we elect every couple of years.

 

[realibrad]

Your theory is complete bullshit and is contradicted by history. The government, as if you are completely unaware, is held to standards set and overseen by the people. The people, of course, are the officials we elect every couple of years.

Both public and private firms are held to standards of people, as if you are completely unaware.

The difference is that in the public sphere, a small group can decide what the whole group does, and in the private every gets to choose.

I will give you that there are unforeseen variables that can cause going private to fail, but there are just as many when converting private to public. I would argue that in net, my view point is better sustained than you are willing to admit.

So, give me some examples of industry that was private that works better under public domain. This would not include things like pollution where private firms did not set up industry. This would include things like Fire departments, and police and justice system (see, helping you already).

So, give me some examples where going public was the better idea, and where actual savings happened.

 

[crashtech]

Perhaps when the technological singularity arrives, the AI will take pity upon us and administer a government based solely on logic and not what we humans feel is "right;" as contaminated by emotions and biases as we are it's a wonder stable governments can exist at all.

 

[dank69]

I agree there is some merit in it, but if that young single mother is applying for food and housing aid she probably needs food and housing aid, and it's not like there's a lot of excess in those payments for other things. Tuition in particular - even for a state college, it would be difficult to fund with the money allocated for food and housing aid even if that young single mother had other resources for food and housing.


Someday you'll have to explain to us why the supposed eternal threat of Paul Ryan reducing Medicaid and Medicare is a good reason to oppose him but President Obama should be supported while he cuts $700 billion from them. Hell, for that I'll even bring popcorn.

How thick is your GOP bubble that you're still using a talking point that was known to be false years ago? Obama is not cutting $700B and you know this.

 

[ivwshane]

Both public and private firms are held to standards of people, as if you are completely unaware.

The difference is that in the public sphere, a small group can decide what the whole group does, and in the private every gets to choose.

I will give you that there are unforeseen variables that can cause going private to fail, but there are just as many when converting private to public. I would argue that in net, my view point is better sustained than you are willing to admit.

So, give me some examples of industry that was private that works better under public domain. This would not include things like pollution where private firms did not set up industry. This would include things like Fire departments, and police and justice system (see, helping you already).

So, give me some examples where going public was the better idea, and where actual savings happened.

The energy industry (ie the power grid), health care, defense, and infrastructure. I'll let you research the various times when the reigns were given to private corporations. You can start your search with that great company called, Enron, then you can move on to health care and research what entities people like and why. I'll let you figure out if hiring military contractors to do work that was once done by the military is a good idea, let alone wasteful and unless you like toll roads every few miles or extortion in order to get minor things like pot holes fixed, I'll just assume you agree about infrastructure being controlled and ran by government.

 

[crashtech]

A good case for gov run infrastructure can be made in most cases, because it's easy to how how infrastructure benefits all, or at least most. The closer one gets to an individual benefit, the harder the moral argument for redistribution gets.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The last thing the Republicans should have any hand in is how public assistance is dealt with, well maybe second to last after foreign policy.

 

[crashtech]

Unfortunately for you, Republicans are citizens, just as entitled to representation as any other citizen with beliefs someone else might think are crazy, or mean, or lily-livered. Useless troll post.

 

[werepossum]

Your theory is complete bullshit and is contradicted by history. The government, as if you are completely unaware, is held to standards set and overseen by the people. The people, of course, are the officials we elect every couple of years.

Bullshit. Private corporations are held to account not only by the people who patronize them or don't, but also by the government. Government is virtually never held to account, as the only thing we can do is replace one group of clowns with another which virtually never changes much of anything.

How thick is your GOP bubble that you're still using a talking point that was known to be false years ago? Obama is not cutting $700B and you know this.

"Known to be false"? Um, yeah, not so much. Republicans are always being accused of "draconian cuts" when they refuse to go along with Democrats' preferred increases. However, Medicare and Medicaid have scheduled increases; cutting $700 billion required a change in law, not merely voting a smaller increase.

That Politifact article is, as always, a tortured defense of Democrats' policies, saying it's "not really" a cut when in fact the legislation had to explicitly reduce planned spending. It also denies that the $700 billion "pays for" Obamacare even though it specifically notes that the reduction in Medicare and Medicaid was required to make Obamacare revenue neutral (which of course it turned out not to be anyway.)

The energy industry (ie the power grid), health care, defense, and infrastructure. I'll let you research the various times when the reigns were given to private corporations. You can start your search with that great company called, Enron, then you can move on to health care and research what entities people like and why. I'll let you figure out if hiring military contractors to do work that was once done by the military is a good idea, let alone wasteful and unless you like toll roads every few miles or extortion in order to get minor things like pot holes fixed, I'll just assume you agree about infrastructure being controlled and ran by government.

I do AEC engineering and I assure you that the majority of our energy infrastructure is privatized. I deal with these companies every day.

 

[John Connor]

I see nothing wrong with this. Back in the 60's the Demonuts (AKA Jackass party) declared war on poverty and spent $x, now we are in the 21st century and we speed how much on poverty and what are the results? Privatization is what will help. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING the fed fuckers do is cheap and it's just money thrown at the problem. The fed fuckers can't do anything right. Look at Obozocare. What a cluster fuck!

 

[John Connor]

Reagen mentions poverty in here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY This was in the 60's ffs!

If you don't want to watch it all it starts at 10:23

 

[ivwshane]

Bullshit. Private corporations are held to account not only by the people who patronize them or don't, but also by the government. Government is virtually never held to account, as the only thing we can do is replace one group of clowns with another which virtually never changes much of anything.


"Known to be false"? Um, yeah, not so much. Republicans are always being accused of "draconian cuts" when they refuse to go along with Democrats' preferred increases. However, Medicare and Medicaid have scheduled increases; cutting $700 billion required a change in law, not merely voting a smaller increase.

That Politifact article is, as always, a tortured defense of Democrats' policies, saying it's "not really" a cut when in fact the legislation had to explicitly reduce planned spending. It also denies that the $700 billion "pays for" Obamacare even though it specifically notes that the reduction in Medicare and Medicaid was required to make Obamacare revenue neutral (which of course it turned out not to be anyway.)


I do AEC engineering and I assure you that the majority of our energy infrastructure is privatized. I deal with these companies every day.

God you are such a hack! You work for the energy company (no wonder you are such scum). Then you'd realize that energy prices have been steadily rising and if it weren't for Obama and the dems we wouldn't have any options like solar to compete against these companies.

If you weren't such a fucking idiot partisan hack you would also know that health care costs had been rising exponentially, where was the vote from shareholders and customers to lower prices? Non existent! Why? Because profit comes before all else!

 

[ivwshane]

I see nothing wrong with this. Back in the 60's the Demonuts (AKA Jackass party) declared war on poverty and spent $x, now we are in the 21st century and we speed how much on poverty and what are the results? Privatization is what will help. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING the fed fuckers do is cheap and it's just money thrown at the problem. The fed fuckers can't do anything right. Look at Obozocare. What a cluster fuck!

I'm just curious how you think privatization will lower costs. Feel free to post some examples. I'm curious to see how for profit corporations handle public welfare programs and keep costs down. I'm sure you could point to the cellular industry or the cable/broadband industry and the numerous subsidies they receive as an example of corporations bringing costs down while supplying a quality product./s

Also, if you ever feel like ignoring republican talking points feel free to read up on how the poverty rate was calculated and why it's calculation was changed and how that affected it's results.

http://www.newyorker.com/rational-irrationality/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts

 

[John Connor]

Charities do more good then the flipping government. Tax free!

 

[fskimospy]

Bullshit. Private corporations are held to account not only by the people who patronize them or don't, but also by the government. Government is virtually never held to account, as the only thing we can do is replace one group of clowns with another which virtually never changes much of anything.


"Known to be false"? Um, yeah, not so much. Republicans are always being accused of "draconian cuts" when they refuse to go along with Democrats' preferred increases. However, Medicare and Medicaid have scheduled increases; cutting $700 billion required a change in law, not merely voting a smaller increase.

That Politifact article is, as always, a tortured defense of Democrats' policies, saying it's "not really" a cut when in fact the legislation had to explicitly reduce planned spending. It also denies that the $700 billion "pays for" Obamacare even though it specifically notes that the reduction in Medicare and Medicaid was required to make Obamacare revenue neutral (which of course it turned out not to be anyway.)


I do AEC engineering and I assure you that the majority of our energy infrastructure is privatized. I deal with these companies every day.

Lol. Politifact had the temerity to disagree with you so of course now Politifact is part of the conspiracy. The bubble must be preserved.

Every issue, every time.

 

[realibrad]

The energy industry (ie the power grid), health care, defense, and infrastructure. I'll let you research the various times when the reigns were given to private corporations. You can start your search with that great company called, Enron, then you can move on to health care and research what entities people like and why. I'll let you figure out if hiring military contractors to do work that was once done by the military is a good idea, let alone wasteful and unless you like toll roads every few miles or extortion in order to get minor things like pot holes fixed, I'll just assume you agree about infrastructure being controlled and ran by government.

I think you misunderstood what I was asking for. I want an example where an industry was public and went private. Not sorta private like the energy industry in CA, where wholesale prices were deregulated, and retail prices were not. This would cause demand to stay high and break the market from pushing prices lower. It also removed regulation to mainly benefit a single company Enron. The actual "deregulation" was targeted to benefit a select few that already controlled the energy market. Removing regulation on Enron made it a monopoly which is what allowed them to be corrupt.

Health care and defense are pseudo-private. Healthcare is regulated at almost every step from producer to consumer. Defense is the same thing.

Im talking about something like Transantiago in Chile. They took a system that was private and made it public. I chose one that fit my context, but go ahead and try to refute it or come up with one of your own.

 

[dank69]

I think you misunderstood what I was asking for. I want an example where an industry was public and went private. Not sorta private like the energy industry in CA, where wholesale prices were deregulated, and retail prices were not. This would cause demand to stay high and break the market from pushing prices lower. It also removed regulation to mainly benefit a single company Enron. The actual "deregulation" was targeted to benefit a select few that already controlled the energy market. Removing regulation on Enron made it a monopoly which is what allowed them to be corrupt.

Health care and defense are pseudo-private. Healthcare is regulated at almost every step from producer to consumer. Defense is the same thing.

Im talking about something like Transantiago in Chile. They took a system that was private and made it public. I chose one that fit my context, but go ahead and try to refute it or come up with one of your own.

How about the prison system?

 

[realibrad]

How about the prison system?

Thats a great example.

http://www.bop.gov/resources/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf

So, on the cost side, there looks to be a slight savings. This is an industry that I would argue should be public, however, because its a burden the collective should pay. The incentives are that judges can give out harsh punishments that make the private firms wealthy, and thats a huge corruption possibility.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats a great example.

http://www.bop.gov/resources/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf

So, on the cost side, there looks to be a slight savings. This is an industry that I would argue should be public, however, because its a burden the collective should pay. The incentives are that judges can give out harsh punishments that make the private firms wealthy, and thats a huge corruption possibility.

The evidence that there are savings in private prisons is murky at best, and they appear to cost more at worst.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[realibrad]

The evidence that there are savings in private prisons is murky at best, and they appear to cost more at worst.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/us/19prisons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Its very hard to measure, partly because those running things want it that way. The issue is can private do things more efficiently. I think allowing outside audits of the companies running the prisons would go a long way. I dont believe in making things private and hoping for the best. I think there is a burden of proof when taking something that is public and making any part of it private.

Making something private is not magic, and can go horribly wrong if corruption is ignored. I just believe in incremental improvement, and making some parts private could do just that.

 

[-slash-]

God you are such a hack! You work for the energy company (no wonder you are such scum). Then you'd realize that energy prices have been steadily rising and if it weren't for Obama and the dems we wouldn't have any options like solar to compete against these companies.

If you weren't such a fucking idiot partisan hack you would also know that health care costs had been rising exponentially, where was the vote from shareholders and customers to lower prices? Non existent! Why? Because profit comes before all else!

My energy costs have not risen in years and are the lowest in the country. Welcome to the Public Utility Districts of the west. Each one is a small business that manages it's own energy assets for profit. Energy prices keep rising due to needless regulations and restrictions that are based on little more than a knee jerk reaction from left wing jackasses.

My healthcare costs have risen, since Obamacare came into effect. If I felt I was paying too much through company A, I went with company B. You have to pay to play the game. If you only have enough money for a Honda you buy a Honda, you dont bitch and moan about how Mercedes is the devil since your broke ass cannot afford it. Self accountability, it's something all you left wing retards lack.

 

[-slash-]

The last thing the Republicans should have any hand in is how public assistance is dealt with, well maybe second to last after foreign policy.

Because the Demorats are doing such a fine job with it?

I'm still trying to get past how we can allow "ILLEGAL" (LOOK THE FUCKING WORD UP) Immigrants into the US with little to no repercussion, hell even give them amnesty? Lets do that with murderers too ya know. Illegal is illegal.

 

[realibrad]

Because the Demorats are doing such a fine job with it?

I'm still trying to get past how we can allow "ILLEGAL" (LOOK THE FUCKING WORD UP) Immigrants into the US with little to no repercussion, hell even give them amnesty? Lets do that with murderers too ya know. Illegal is illegal.

Illegal does not = bad. If you are asking how immigrants can be good, look back to us history where we did not have immigration quotas. The real downside is that immigrants tend to use more social services, but on net, they produce more than they consume.

The irony is that we usually are more likely to let kids stay, who take years to become productive, and kick out the adults who start working once they get here.

 

[-slash-]

Illegal does not = bad. If you are asking how immigrants can be good, look back to us history where we did not have immigration quotas. The real downside is that immigrants tend to use more social services, but on net, they produce more than they consume.

The irony is that we usually are more likely to let kids stay, who take years to become productive, and kick out the adults who start working once they get here.

Illegal = "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law."

Why do we let one group slide and another goes to prison? If something is illegal, that is that. How is it that hard to understand?

As for how they are "good", I'm quite aware. Living in one of the largest apple producing regions in the world I'm quite aware of illegal immigrants and what comes along with them. I do not live in a studio apartment in the city passing judgement on the world like the majority who are demanding we open our borders in some large fallacy of a humanitarian effort.