It isn't working, so add more government...
Nowhere in industry would such an approach be successful or even tried. "We have an inefficient organization, and they aren't getting it done, so we are going to pay for an oversight council to provide guidance."
How about fixing the organizations you have? Set incentives properly and they will drive to those incentives.
The problem is the next year's incentive is last year's budget +, nothing else matters.
How about fixing the organizations you have? Set incentives properly and they will drive to those incentives.
The problem is the next year's incentive is last year's budget +, nothing else matters.
Oops, now she progresses to mouth word salad that always makes no sense except to her senile boss.
If she did that while waving her arms around like Piglosi, she'd really be one horrific freak show.
Once again my envisioned Kackling Kamala circles back to cackle some more, some more, some more.
Me dino needs those ear protectors I take to the range when enduring living nightmare visions with fright night audio such as this.
The choice is: Lose the tail or lose the entire body.
Excise the cancerous traitors and remove all laws that do not comply to the original constitution and the first ten amendments.
The con-gress will not do this. They are corrupt, complicit in the destruction of America and have a conflict of interest.
The bureaucracy will not do this because they are corrupt and have a conflict of interest.
The judiciary will not do this. They are corrupt and have a conflict of interest.
The military leadership will not do this. They are corrupt and have a conflict of interest.
The executive branch will not do this. They are corrupt and have a conflict of interest.
The state governments will not do this. They are corrupt and have a conflict of interest.
Only the People can win back their individual liberty, as they did in 1776.
And methinks the current FEAR of this happening again is quite real for the Treasonous Leaders!
+1,000
I mean, what could go wrong?
My little brother is the Chief Mechanical Engineer at NASA KSC, and laments the organization and lack of proper incentives all the time.
And that is all this would be, except it would now be be EQUITY and ESG driven.
Insipid Kamala leading it would be the coup de grace for any innovation.
Any one of the 9/11 terrorists had more balls and commitment than a pathetic, coward downvoter.
"But government should do something."
Especially to those people, reply,
Look at who is to Chair that committee!
That they will never voluntarily do.
The House of Representatives has continually shown itself to be incapable of controlling itself regarding spending. Thus we must impose on them regulations.
Now I would advocate that we impose this AFTER the coming meltdown and default, since its too late now. The system is going to come crashing down - that is now inevitable.
A progressive might conclude that government should own all, or perhaps essential, businesses. That way government would produce something. When government owns a business the incentives are distorted and the producers figure out how to do the least they can. The result is shortage of everything, no need for innovation, and since it all pays the same people do as little as possible. That's why I Cuba a 1956 Chevy is considered a technological marvel.
The notion of an economic pie divided evenly ignores the fact that an equal slice is not enough. That approach stifles new ideas, why bust your brain for the same reward?
The best for me is I'm near the end of my ride, but I worry for my grandchildren.
We learned during the 2008 credit collapse the difference between wealthy and rich. When banks and other companies fired millions of people earning 6 figure salaries.
at the time if you earned 6 figures you were rich, and when you were fired you were unemployed. Shuffling papers, or tapping keys at a brokerage can earn a lot of money. Ask the same question in a different way. What is the intrinsic value of all of those deals when the credit market collapses?
We were sold a bill of goods in the 70's. I remember reading many of the books extolling the greatness of the service economy. We would have a better life if we let other countries manufacture for us and just became a service driven nation. We became a debtor nation when we decided to let others create wealth (value added through manufacturing) while we deliver the mail and give manicures, using our cash to purchase goods from around the world.
Full disclosure; after 20 years as a barber I joined the Post Office and retired from there. The retirement has an intrinsic value, but only for the joint life of my wife and myself. In 2009 I noticed that HUD was selling foreclosed houses at a fraction of their historical value. When I was a barber it seemed like every guy that was retiring and moving to a sand state felt that their house had been the best investment of their life. So with houses cheap, and rental needs high, We started buying throw away houses, fixing them up, then renting them for a local source of retirement funds. It turns out they are inflation proof. While my stock holding have taken a beating this year, the average selling price of a home in USA is above $350,000.00. Unlike gold, they pay us each month for a place to live. With gold or any commodity you can only buy and wait for a fit time to sell.
Back to the original question of bigger government. IMHO if we continue down this road of more government and our government is more concerned with world issues than American issues, USA will collapse from the lack of wealth producing activity and be replaced with another government, either foreign or domestic. We need to solve our issues and let others solve theirs.
Further, nearly all of the alphabet soup of agencies are unconstitutional. About 1910 congress started writing laws that allowed the secretary of (name your department) to make rules governing the agency. This allows a president to tell the secretary of energy to stop mining and drilling, his cabinet member makes some rules and things change. All of this without a single vote by our elected representatives. So, we have taxation and representation, but they're not one and the same.