Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12601)	5/10/2002 12:30:00 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"Yes its a secondary consideration in that case but your comment was that outcome was the only consideration not the primary" You missed the context. It is the only consideration for the recipient of the service at the time of need. The service is of overriding concern (i.e. get my child ionto the ambulance, and get the ambulance to the hospital). I do not mean to suggest that everyone will then go into a coma about public affairs. "1 - They get justified by a political process which means if they have a politically powerful friend they can get a good budget increase without having to have strong support." Again you miss the point. The departments I listed for you must justify their existence and their performance openly, objectively, and within the bitterness of adversarial partisanism. "They do a lot of things that are too expensive or not needed" Again, Tim...who is "THEY"?? All of us have opinions about the sort of services we wish to fund. There is nothing wrong with you having a specific complaint which you can justify or argue with studies, graphs, or other facts. But to this point you continue to ramble on about vague hypotheticals. WHICH departments are you so pissed at, and why?? Is it the service you hate funding? or is it the specific goals of the management team? How should the Department of Defense be made productive and efficient? Should NASA be abandoned? WHAT...SPECIFICALLY...are you puissed at in the public sector? "amount of paperwork and time spent in hearings and meetings about this does reduce efficiency" And you think the paperwork and time and meetings in the private sector increases efficiency? Why the double standard? and what statistics support your asertion? "Again you take one of the least wasteful and least controversial examples of government and imply that I am somehow attacking the character of fire fighters" I am not implying anything. You said that public employees were less productive than private employees. If you wish to qualify that original statement now, then please do so. "I never said public employees where worse (or better) in terms of skills, character ect. I said the system was worse." What you originally said was that public employees were less productive. It was only after I challenged that assertion and asked you for proof, that you said their agencies were less valuable. Now, you merely state that the "system" is "worse". I suppose this is as close to saying nothing that one can get while still making a noise <gg>. I think your present comments are a vast improvement over your original ones. Again, the point I challenged you on was your dismissiveness and flippant generalizing. We all have opinions about public service. We are all part of the democratic process to determine what is of public concderm, interest, or necessity. Simple supply and demand.