Gimpy wrote:One of the places where we spent wildly inefficiently is the military. You think Trump's going to do anything that could look like he's decreasing military spending after all of his blustering and insistence that he'll be the best thing ever for the military?

Yes, and I am terribly bothered by the discourse of "inefficiency." It's a term that is thrown around a lot in the context of criticizing government, but isn't actually very well-defined. Do people mean government employees are paid too much or should have shittier benefits? I think those two propositions are both wrong-headed, but even if it were the case that government employees were overcompensated, I don't think that's really an "inefficiency."

Are we talking about having too many government employees? I think if you are arguing efficiency in this sense, conservatives are particularly disingenuous, because I'll tell you what is ridiculously inefficient: having 50 different "middle management" levels of government - i.e. States - all with different labor rules, tax rules, environmental rules, etc. Etc. Etc. If you are looking to maximize efficiency, it would be much more streamlined to wipe the states out entirely, have every major policy and tax governed by a single set of federal rules.

But states rights!!11!!!1

Due process is annoyingly inefficient. Dismayingly costly. Not at all businesslike.

The ovens - now THEY were efficient.

There's a lot of inefficiency thanks to accountability. If we just gave government bureaucrats unaccountable power--no oversight, no checks and balances, none of that crap--they'd be a lot more efficient.

Can't believe nine leaders of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee just endorsed Fattah's bid for re-election..

Okay, you're right. I can.

jesus christ

pacino wrote:

@realDonaldTrump - National Review is a failing publication that has lost it's way. It's circulation is way down w its influence being at an all time low. Sad!
10:56 PM - 21 Jan 2016

*its

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... e-another/

National Review stuff.

mozartpc27 wrote:For Brantt:

http://www.democracyspring.org/?recruiter_id=3394

Join the march and be willing to get arrested to stop the big money influence in politics! This would be much more of a something than voting for a tax-subsidized jingoistic xenophobic race baiting billionaire.

Can't make it.

Have the Guns n Roses concert in Vegas on 4/8 and will be out there until the 11th. Then the Blue White game on 4/16.

Youseff wrote:the comment sections represent the Id. if you want to understand the Id of Trump supporters and Brantt, look no further than the white nationalist memes posted beneath his twitter posts. this is one of the most popular comments, repeatedly posted after Trump tweets.

I don't know, I'm more worried about the link of our spending on science, and its correlation with suicide rate.

mozartpc27 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:One of the places where we spent wildly inefficiently is the military. You think Trump's going to do anything that could look like he's decreasing military spending after all of his blustering and insistence that he'll be the best thing ever for the military?

Yes, and I am terribly bothered by the discourse of "inefficiency." It's a term that is thrown around a lot in the context of criticizing government, but isn't actually very well-defined. Do people mean government employees are paid too much or should have shittier benefits? I think those two propositions are both wrong-headed, but even if it were the case that government employees were overcompensated, I don't think that's really an "inefficiency."

Are we talking about having too many government employees? I think if you are arguing efficiency in this sense, conservatives are particularly disingenuous, because I'll tell you what is ridiculously inefficient: having 50 different "middle management" levels of government - i.e. States - all with different labor rules, tax rules, environmental rules, etc. Etc. Etc. If you are looking to maximize efficiency, it would be much more streamlined to wipe the states out entirely, have every major policy and tax governed by a single set of federal rules.

But states rights!!11!!!1

Sometimes pay. Sometimes productivity (which is a form of overpayment). Sometimes it's just a general observation that large enterprises, private and public, tend to be slow to change. And the federal government is the largest of them all. Adding to that, when there are not outsized rewards for innovation as there are in the private sector, then you are probably going to get less innovation overall. I can't remember if it was a link that pacino sent around, but I remember reading an article about a huge federal facility in West Virginia that is used to process the retirement applications of federal employees. The process had barely changed in 30 years, and it was a hugely manual process that required a surprisingly large number of human steps. Note: I am likely misremembering the details, so if anyone knows what I'm talking about, please correct me.

Anyone that has worked for a large employer certainly can attest to the inefficiency that is baked into any large organization. Well, the US defense department is the largest employer in the world, 50% larger than the largest private entity (Walmart).

It's actually an interesting question--there are obvious economies of scale, and there are also diseconomies of scale as well. Where's the sweet spot of efficiency? It most likely depends on the activity in question--I'd suspect, for instance, for a university, that sweet spot is around 4000-5000 students, which would mean a faculty/staff of 300-500. Much beyond that the institution becomes administratively top heavy.

PSUEagle wrote:Mike Huckabee stopping by our office today.

Since he's pretty much the most loathsome type of republican around I'm going to bust out my sweater vest today

He was entertaining and legitimately funny at times. Really, you can see his preacher background: very comfortable in front of an audience, certainly more than Santorum was.

I liked several of his ideas, but the bottom line for me is that I want someone who will give the finger to the Republican establishment and try to affect change as opposed to the go along to get along shit we've had forever.

Hillary's current argument that Berni is un-electable is depressingly defeatist. I mean why would you actually want to change anything?! Everything is just peachy....just vote for Hillary and keep watching Dancing with the Stars.

And Claire McCaskill chiming in on the whole thing panicked as all get-out that the Dems can't win Missouri with a SOCIALIST nominee is the typical democrat weak sauce. Look Claire, we don't need to water down the message to get your redneck yahoo Missourians on board.

The way to get them on your side is to call them redneck yahoos

Given that Obama didn't win MO in either '08 or '12, seems kind of strange to have McCaskill out wringing her hands about whether any Dem can win the state. It's not like HRC is automatic

Werthless wrote:

Youseff wrote:the comment sections represent the Id. if you want to understand the Id of Trump supporters and Brantt, look no further than the white nationalist memes posted beneath his twitter posts. this is one of the most popular comments, repeatedly posted after Trump tweets.

I don't know, I'm more worried about the link of our spending on science, and its correlation with suicide rate.

oh god who is responsible for that?

it's a fairly popular pastime for many....

http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs- ... -pictures/

Werthless wrote:I don't know, I'm more worried about the link of our spending on science, and its correlation with suicide rate.

but not by gunshot!

PSUEagle wrote:

PSUEagle wrote:Mike Huckabee stopping by our office today.

Since he's pretty much the most loathsome type of republican around I'm going to bust out my sweater vest today

He was entertaining and legitimately funny at times. Really, you can see his preacher background: very comfortable in front of an audience, certainly more than Santorum was.

I liked several of his ideas, but the bottom line for me is that I want someone who will give the finger to the Republican establishment and try to affect change as opposed to the go along to get along shit we've had forever.

As I've noted before, he's really a weird and interesting guy. As governor, he was effective and pragmatic, and did lots of progressive things including pushing unsuccessfully for a state version of the dream act, and protesting quite loudly at an INS raid that resulted in a bunch of children not knowing that there parents had been picked up by immigration. There was also ARK Kids, a Medicaid expansion act. When necessary, he also pushed for tax increases to keep the state budget intact.

But his subsequent national career reveals a very different, rather nasty guy. There was always that side of him, but during his tenure as governor he mostly kept it in check.

And, yeah, in person, he's very likable, and at ease, even with audiences that aren't automatically receptive.

interesting. sold his soul to be part of the establishment?