A Personal Note from T. Boone Pickens

[Pexster]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Your perception is obviously skewed. You look at privatization and see bad stuff; anyone else looks at government and says, "gee, that could be run a lot better". You say, "it could be worse!" You need to cheer up and look at half-full glasses, oh unhappy progressive.

Privatization is not necessarily bad, but you need to realize that it is not necessarily good. Here is an interesting read for you.

As for the "gee, that could be run a lot better," the Social Security Administration is an example worth viewing. They run on very low overhead and have never missed a check.

In short, you are taking your view of free markets and private enterprise to the level of a religion. It is not. Nor does the model work the best in all situations.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by Pexster

Privatization is not necessarily bad, but you need to realize that it is not necessarily good. Here is an interesting read for you.

As for the "gee, that could be run a lot better," the Social Security Administration is an example worth viewing. They run on very low overhead and have never missed a check.

In short, you are taking your view of free markets and private enterprise to the level of a religion. It is not. Nor does the model work the best in all situations.

Originally Posted by from Pexster's link

“laugh off the idea of the public interest as airy-fairy nonsense; they caution against bringing top-notch talent into government service; they declare war on public workers. They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis.”

The founders never intended for a strong centralized government; in fact they warned against it. If bankrupting the government into weakness and ineptness is what it takes to prevent it from being a tyranny, then so be it.

The problem is that today's politicians are spending money they don't have. If they had any fiscal responsibility, they wouldn't be borrowing money from China to fund their programs. It would work if government only spent what it took in; nothing more. That way, the government would either: a) not morph into an oppressive entity, or b) it would have to become more efficient to do so.

I just worry about the integrity of our currency due to these measures. If the government fails, so does our money and economy.

[Pexster]

I agree with you about our deficit spending getting out of control. McCain claims that he can solve this through eliminating government waste. We have heard this claim for decades now, and no knowledgeable person takes it seriously. Reagan and Bush II presided over the largest increases in the federal government in memory.

One has only to look at a pie chart (where is Ross Perot when we need him?) to see that the only way to gain real, significant savings is to cut the defense budget, Social Security, or Medicare. Now you may want to cut or eliminate the latter two, but the public is overwhelmingly against that option. Bush was thrashed when he tried to get his SS privatization plan through.

Do you support cutting the defense budget?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

The founders never intended for a strong centralized government; in fact they warned against it. If bankrupting the government into weakness and ineptness is what it takes to prevent it from being a tyranny, then so be it.

The founders envisioned a weak President and that Congress would mainly run the country. They'd be appalled at Bush's use of signing statements that give an excuse to ignore congressionally passed legislation.

Do you really think Thomas Jefferson would have agreed to bankrupting the government so as to deny Congress to do anything except pay huge interest payments? Of course not. He would say that if it isn't prohibited in the Constitution the Congress can debate it, pass it and allow the President to sign it into law.

The founders wrote the Constitution with a broad brush to give Congress a free-hand to address challenges that were not envisioned in 1789. By your logic, Bingo, the federal government has no authority to regulate the airwaves because it wasn't written into the Constitution.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by Pexster

Do you support cutting the defense budget?

Depends what you want to cut.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The founders also envisioned a weak President and that Congress would mainly run the country. They'd be appalled at Bush's use of signing statements that give an excuse to ignore congressionally passed legislation.

Do you really think Thomas Jefferson would have agreed to bankrupting the government so as to deny Congress to do anything except pay huge interest payments? Of course not. He would say that if it isn't prohibited in the Constitution the Congress can debate it, pass it and allow the President to sign it into law.

I'm just saying. It's a means to the same end, even though I think the means are potentially disastrous.

The founders wrote the Constitution with a broad brush to give Congress the Congress a free-hand to address challenges that were not envisioned in 1789. By your logic, Bingo, the federal government has no authority to regulate the airwaves because it wasn't written into the Constitution.

Why should the airwaves be regulated? Sounds like communism to me. Freedom of speech and all that jazz. I bet you're one of those "Fairness Doctrine" supporters.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

Depends what you want to cut.

The Pentagon's budget was $400B in 2004. Now it's $600B. Can we go find $200B to cut and do what we did in 2004?

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

I'm just saying. It's a means to the same end, even though I think the means are potentially disastrous.


Why should the airwaves be regulated? Sounds like communism to me. Freedom of speech and all that jazz. I bet you're one of those "Fairness Doctrine" supporters.

OK, let's let anyone with a radio or TV transmitter just freely broadcast on the same airspace at the same time in the same location and see what happens.

Federal regulation of the airwaves is not only constitutional it's common sense to prevent chaos.

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The Pentagon's budget was $400B in 2004. Now it's $600B. Can we go find $200B to cut and do what we did in 2004?

Depends what the $200B went to. Hell, that may just cover the price of jet fuel.

[Gomer]

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

The problem is that today's politicians are spending money they don't have. If they had any fiscal responsibility, they wouldn't be borrowing money from China to fund their programs. It would work if government only spent what it took in; nothing more. That way, the government would either: a) not morph into an oppressive entity, or b) it would have to become more efficient to do so.

It wasn't that way under the Clinton Administration. It became that way under the Bush Admin and with Republican control of the House and Senate.
PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia