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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (298264)	9/19/2002 11:01:15 AM
From: kvkkc1	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Americorps did nothing but change the definition of volunteerism. In my mind, volunteering meant giving your time to help others for the satisfaction of helping someone else. slick willy and the liberals who didn't know the definition of "is" tried to redefine volunteerism so that young adults volunteered for tuition payback. Liberals don't know how to help someone without being paid for it. They're all lip service, all the time.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (298264)	9/19/2002 1:31:04 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 769670

To think talented young people could be a significant solution to governmental inefficiency, is naive, IMO. The root cause of governmental inefficiency is human greed. One can't just fix it simply, by installing brighter individuals. In fact, the result may logically be worse, since brighter minds may be sneakier when given the same opportunities as the former employees. From pension plans to overtime to sick days, etc., to productivity itself, without an ability to measure profits(only costs), productivity is difficult to measure, or even to care greatly about. Mandatory service, and/or taxes for all(even if just a pittance for the poor to pay), may be a considered a good thing by many including me, but Peter the Great certainly didn't solve the inefficiency problem, only the talent problem(if employing threats to do so...yuk). You are right of course, government is inefficient. Business is indeed far less so, in the main(of course), despite all recent contradictory news. Given the above, I see no real loss to society from scuttling those programs(and probably plenty of money saved). Freedom Works, Dan B

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (298264)	9/19/2002 1:55:27 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Dear Flapjack: Well, I am not sure its purely a lack of talent in Govt. I think its more a lack of Goals. there is no sense of urgency, no fear of losing ones job. I think a good start would be if EVERY program immediately expired after a period, maybe even only a year. After that one would have to demonstrate the need and the value added of the service. I think perhaps that was called zero balance budgeting or something like that. Goals would have to be set, time periods to meet them and punishments if failed. Some type of reward system for effeciency would be nice. Somehow someone has to reinstill that SPARK that drives people to better themselves. jdn