- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,679
- Reaction score
- 39,936
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A private security force costs more money than the US military.
man for man, that is incorrect.
A private security force costs more money than the US military.
I would strongly suggest you research the TVA and what is has done for the people of that region.
man for man, that is incorrect.
man for man, that is incorrect.
If Baylock and Petulana run away from this it basically proves my point about the weakness of their belief in post #222.
I agree that government is a necessary evil....it does not nor can it produce wealth, in fact it only consumes wealth......to supply service, sometime necessary for security, or to smooth the ways of private industry.....and most the time just to be a pain in the butt.I both disagree and agree, any that says the government doesn't create jobs is seriously lacking somewhere. The problem is with the jobs that the government creates, I would say that (this is a guess) that 95% of government job produce nothing, (in the way of product) and these jobs must be paid by the taxpayers of this country. Part of the problem with our budget, is government payroll. That is and has been increasing faster then the private sector jobs that are source of the money needed to pay there salaries.
Now can government help produce private sector jobs, yeah I suppose they can, but the question there remains is how much bang for the buck do we get when they try. One in here said that “Government can act like a giant Venture Capitalist, pouring large amounts of money into projects that may produce tangible products. “ The problem with that is, well their successes are touted loudly, just as often, or probably more often they fail. Mostly we don't hear about the failures .. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Solyndra[/FONT] is in the news because of questions surrounding how stable it was when they were given 500 million dollars. Now how many more loans will have to be made, paid back with interest, to make up for a 500million dollar loss ?
I don't believe our government creates any wealth, they create ideas, and innovation that the private sector can then use to create wealth, but to say the government creates wealth, is a stretch. If they were so good at creating wealth as one here is saying, then how in the hell did we get 15 trillion dollars in debt, and how could they be running at a 1.5 trillion deficit per year??.....By anyone's standard that I know, they would never anything that is 15 trillion dollars, and growing yearly, in debt something that was any good at creating wealth.
The government is basically a service industry, that produces very little in the over all scheme of things in the way of product. Their job is to spend the money they take in. But that single standard they are now, and have been failing for a long time. Much of the services they provide are needed and wanted by most people, but they have become like pigs that think they have a never ending supply of feed, and have grown bloated, under worked and over paid.
It can, but they aren't created very efficiently most of the time. What it can do better is make sure that our infrastructure and legal system support the real job-creaters. (no not people making over 250k a year). Smaller and medium sized firms create jobs the most effectively, so our system needs to stop favoring the wealthy and huge multi-nationals. In other words, some government is necessary for a true free market economy.
Actually, I ran away because I have some other things to do with my life, and they were more important to me at the time than a urinating imbroglio with you.....:dohIf Baylock and Petulana run away from this it basically proves my point about the weakness of their belief in post #222.
No, satellites were invented by private contractors working for the government....and their expertise came from working also on products in the private sector. Would they never have been invented and designed without unending government money?..Depends on the market......doesn't it?......How much money was wasted in the process?Decades of research inventing and improving computers. The internet was born at a university. Satellites were invented and improved by government. All three created the largest economic boom since the industrial revolution. All were invented and improved by government before very bright individuals had something they could profit off of.
Actually, I ran away because I have some other things to do with my life, and they were more important to me at the time than a urinating imbroglio with you.....:doh
No, satellites were invented by private contractors working for the government
You still are missing the point.
Sure, government can “create” jobs. But if, in order to do so, it is taking wealth out of the economy that, left in the private sector, would create more jobs than government would use that wealth to create, then, in effect, government is destroying more jobs than it is creating. The net effect is that no, government is not actually creating jobs; there are fewer people working than if government left that wealth in the private sector, where it would do more good.
No, satellites were invented by private contractors working for the government....and their expertise came from working also on products in the private sector. Would they never have been invented and designed without unending government money?..Depends on the market......doesn't it?......How much money was wasted in the process?
I'm still waiting for an analysis of why the government supposedly can't create jobs.
I looked at the voting on this poll and it seemed a bit lopsided. Then I looked at the poll w/o being loged in. It gave me the list of those that voted and some hidden percentages that make no sense at all.So unless there is some inconsistancey that is also creating more errors the poll poll percentages are AFU. 57 voted yes it can, 17 voted no it can't and one voted dont'konw. 75 votes. 1 and 1/3 % per vote. 76% yes, 23% no and 1% don't know. My vote was properly recorded. What is going on? Acopy and paste follows.
(list)
That depends what time frame we're looking at.
A short term period, a PMC is more expensive. Over the long term with pension and benefits, a PMC is cheaper.
Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up ofconservative votebots"guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up ofconservative votebots"guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
the rough figure is that it costs a million dollars per servicemember per year to deploy to Afghanistan. as a guy with multiple friends in PMC's, their costs are much lower per man, per year.
furthermore (this is perhaps crass, but still true), the government loses nothing when a contractor dies other than the loss of his services before the company can get someone else out there. when a servicemember dies, the costs start at half a million dollars and go up from there - that's not counting for transport, burial, or any of the services we offer to the families of the fallen.
but yes, I think that the DOD is now spending more on pension/benefits than we are on pay - it's a huge issue and one reason we are looking to move to a defined contributions plan.
Noticed, did you? The extra votes are made up ofconservative votebots"guests." Seriously guys, cheating on an online poll?
Cutting seniors benefits, cutting teachers benefits, cutting veteran's benefits, whatever it takes to save those tax cuts for the rich, right?