Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people?
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con Reeder, and Wonko?
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 2:45:44 PM UTC-4, JGibson wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con Reeder, and Wonko?
...and the libs would quote Glen Greenwald, so I guess that makes him
right all the time....<yawn>
-TE
"The definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly
to assume that government
accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to
contest those accusations."
-Glenn Greenwald
Here’s an easy thought experiment. Imagine a Third World banana republic. A populist leader recently ousted in an allegedly “rigged” election is waiting in the wings, plotting a return to power. The current ruler sends armed agents of the stateto search the ousted ruler’s home in the hope of discrediting his once and possibly future opponent, presumably to prevent him from ever threatening his rule.
This, according to everyone from Donald Trump to large swaths of the GOP and its loyal commentariat, is what happened this week when the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago. “Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World countries,” Trumpdeclared. “Sadly, America has now become one of those countries, corrupt at a level not seen before.” His son echoed the sentiment: “Biden’s out of control DOJ is ripping this country apart with how they're openly targeting their political
But let’s return to the thought experiment: What happens next? The ousted ruler and his representatives claim that this affront to his dignity is really an insult to all of his supporters. Like followers of Hugo Chavez or Manuel Ortega, they insistthat only by returning their leader in internal exile to power can they avenge this travesty and purge the government of these enemies of the people.
That’s the argument raging like a religious awakening across much of the right this week. Once Trump announces he’s running for president, Mike Huckabee insists, “We need to rally around him and simply say, ‘He is the candidate.’ He will bere-elected. That’s because he’s the only candidate who’ll have the guts to take on this incredibly corrupt machine. We must put him back in and let him do this. I’m convinced at this point that this is the only hope for our nation, to get it back
This isn’t an argument against banana republic politics, it is banana republic politics. Let’s put aside any consideration of primaries or policy debates and simply anoint a strong man to redeem our nation, purge corruption, and punish our enemies.
I’ll put it plainly: If your “belief” in our country is so fragile and pathetic that you will lose “hope for our nation” unless Donald Trump is given free reign to cleanse the land of evildoers, then you don’t actually believe in thisnation. If your love of country is contingent on your preferred faction being in power, you’ve confused partisanship for patriotism. Taken seriously, all of this banana republic talk is un-American.
I don’t mean it’s a wrong or flawed argument or simply an argument I don’t like—though it is all those things. I mean it is literally an un-American argument because it fundamentally betrays the whole idea of this country. And I’d say this ifthe claims were made about any politician. Indeed, I did. When Barack Obama’s boosters claimed he would fix our “broken souls” (in Michelle Obama’s words), I spared no effort in denouncing them. When Joe Biden sermonized about how “unity”—
Presidents are not redeemers, messiahs, incarnations of mystical aspirations, or righteous settlers of seething grievances. They’re not god-kings or the fathers of our American family. They’re politicians elected to do some specific things as thehead of one branch of one level of government. They get that job for a limited and defined period of time, and afterward they’re simply citizens.
It’s a source of constant consternation and amazement for me that so many people either don’t understand this or simply pretend not to.
I don’t know for sure which politicians and pundits yammering about our “corrupt regime” are truly ignorant and which are merely duplicitous demagogues chumming the waters with bloody nonsense. But I do know it’s dangerous, because whether theybelieve it or not, they want millions of people to believe it.
Our regime.
But let’s talk about our “regime,” a term these people use with Vizzini-like confidence and error.policy on Iraq.
In 2004, a lot of angry Democrats loved the phrase “regime change starts at home.” The idea was that voting George W. Bush out of office would constitute “regime change”—a term popularized by both Bill Clinton and Bush with regard to our
The stupidity of this talking point—later picked up in the Obama years by conservatives—begins with the fact that elections are how our regime works. A regime, by definition, is a system of government, not an administration run by elected Democratsor Republicans. When serious people talk seriously about changing a regime, they’re talking about changing the system of government. Regime change in Iraq meant getting rid of a totalitarian, terroristic dictatorship, not simply replacing Saddam
America’s regime isn’t on any ballot. Symbolically, it is the ballot. More properly, it is the constitutional system that requires our leaders to be elected. But unlike in an actual banana republic or the Third World Marxist dictatorships MarcoRubio compares us to, electing a leader doesn’t change the regime. There are roughly 520,000 elected officials in this country. At the federal level there are 537 of them. The president is just one of them.
Like every other elected official, the president is subordinate to the Constitution, which is another way of saying he is not the regime, he’s a servant of the regime. None of those elected officials, including the president, is your boss (unless youre on their payroll or serve in the military). Indeed, the president literally has no formal power to order any of those 536 other federal officeholders to do anything. He cannot make Congress—or even his vice president—do something they do not
Even the people in the executive branch who do have to follow the president’s orders may not follow orders that are unlawful or unconstitutional. Because again, the ultimate political authority in our system is not vested in a person, but in a pieceof parchment.
That’s our regime, and I love it regardless of who the president is.
Which brings us to the search at Mar-a-Lago. Like all the people bleating about the “Biden regime,” I have no idea if searching the former president’s home was a wise decision. But from every account I’ve read, it was a lawful decision.Dictators do not typically seek warrants from judges when they send police to search the homes of their political opponents. Heck, if the reporting is to be believed, the White House didn’t even know what had happened until after the deed was done.
Again, none of this means that the DOJ or the FBI didn’t make a terrible decision or otherwise screw up. We’ve seen plenty of evidence in recent years that they’re perfectly capable of both. But if J. Edgar Hoover’s stewardship of the FBI didnt indict the legitimacy of the regime, I don’t see how this could, because government screws up all the time. That’s one of the reasons we have so many elections. James Madison’s whole vision was to use elections, at every level of government, as
If we really believe, as we say we believe, that this is a republic, that nobody is above the law, that the presidency is just a temporary executive-branch office rather than a quasi-royal entitlement, then there is nothing all that remarkable aboutthe FBI serving a warrant on a house in Florida. I myself do not find it especially difficult to believe that there exists reasonable cause for such a warrant. And if the feds have got it wrong, that wouldn’t be the first time. Those so-called
By all means, vote Biden out of office. I don’t think he’s up to the job and I think most of his policies have been bad. Bring on the cleansing tide.
But what I can’t get my head around is the idea that the solution to our allegedly bananifying regime is to put that browning, mealy, giant banana back into power.
Let’s return—just one more time—to that thought experiment. What I left out is that the ousted ruler seeking to return to power whose home was searched had tried to steal the last election by spreading lies about its legitimacy and treating theConstitution like a dead letter. He declared victory despite being assured he lost by his own attorney general and campaign manager. He wanted the DOJ to simply declare the election corrupt so he could do the rest. He toyed with the idea of using the
If you’re worried about America looking like a banana republic, please don’t tell me that the first president in American history to defecate on the peaceful transfer of power is the antidote to the rot of Third World corruption of our regime. Heis the rot.
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 6:02:59 AM UTC-7, xyzzy wrote:to search the ousted ruler’s home in the hope of discrediting his once and possibly future opponent, presumably to prevent him from ever threatening his rule.
The first thing you have to remember with this thought experiment:
They scoff us for not knowing "male" and "female", when, for the first almost 100 years of our country above-table and another 100 of it below-table, they have dispute of us not only as to "human" and "not human", but "sent by God" and otherwise!
We cannot agree on the most trivial of points with these animals.
Here’s an easy thought experiment. Imagine a Third World banana republic. A populist leader recently ousted in an allegedly “rigged” election is waiting in the wings, plotting a return to power. The current ruler sends armed agents of the state
This is where the concept of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" comes into play.under the 14th, and... ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww under the 14th, etc.
It's not an insurrection if the election was, in fact, rigged or stolen. The problem is, only one side believes this -- and I believe much of the belief stands from the ability to vote of sammich/baby machines under the 19th Amendment, farm equipment
These White Righters believe they are the only beings sent from God, and everything else is instrument to them, from women as a rib from Holy God Man Adam to the savages and animals and farm equipment, and when can they use God to kill all the "others"masquerading as human (as far as they are concerned)?
In short, the entire concept of this country is completely failed to them, at this point, and they want restored the Constitution of Manifest Destiny -- kill everyone in the way, and only White Men Landowners have a voice.declared. “Sadly, America has now become one of those countries, corrupt at a level not seen before.” His son echoed the sentiment: “Biden’s out of control DOJ is ripping this country apart with how they're openly targeting their political
This, according to everyone from Donald Trump to large swaths of the GOP and its loyal commentariat, is what happened this week when the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago. “Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World countries,” Trump
The fact is, that we are allowed to vote... Hell, allowed to BREATHE makes us a Third-World Banana Republic.that only by returning their leader in internal exile to power can they avenge this travesty and purge the government of these enemies of the people.
And someone might wanna remind these twits that success on their part probably reduces America to a vassal state of Russia. Tout suite.
But let’s return to the thought experiment: What happens next? The ousted ruler and his representatives claim that this affront to his dignity is really an insult to all of his supporters. Like followers of Hugo Chavez or Manuel Ortega, they insist
It pretty much is.since the WAR OF 1812!
The problem is, the next situation is even more of an insult. We now know they had inside help and probably the covert sanction of the current (outgoing?) President. We know they invaded the Capitol grounds to break in for the first group to do so
And what comes of it?re-elected. That’s because he’s the only candidate who’ll have the guts to take on this incredibly corrupt machine. We must put him back in and let him do this. I’m convinced at this point that this is the only hope for our nation, to get it back
A fucking social-media event.
If they are even remotely serious about the situation, THEY. FUCKING. OPEN. FIRE.
On anyone and anything else that moves. They take the Capitol, they take DC, and then we find out whose side the military really IS on.
And to use the reality-show model: They don't want a President.
They want the order to open fire.
They want the host of the next and ULTIMATE reality show: The Purge.
That’s the argument raging like a religious awakening across much of the right this week. Once Trump announces he’s running for president, Mike Huckabee insists, “We need to rally around him and simply say, ‘He is the candidate.’ He will be
The only way you're doing that is to gut the American cities and kill tens of millions.balance. Forgetting, of course, the 100 million the population has increased in that time. That is not to say the youngest 100 million would have to go -- but, in the eyes of the White Right, it'd have to be the leftward 100 million.)
Seriously.
I'd put the starting bid, at this point, at the leftward-most 100 million NOW and another 100 million over the next 20 or so years, to be replaced with those White babies the abortion bans will ensure take birth.
(That's not a number I pull out of my ass either. Libertarian economist blogger Karl Denninger believes the entire last 40 years of "growth" has been hopelessly leveraged and that it all must come out for the country to regain economic mathematical
And the other question you need to ask: WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU FUCKS WAITING FOR?and human rights you don't even believe God gave the animals, savages, and ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww...
Any metric of government tyranny which would trigger in the two-brain-cell White Right brain "In the course of human events..." HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. You've lost AT LEAST four years to a tyrannical [sic] government which actually recognizes human beings
So I respect that guy from Ohio. I actually do. He actually did lay down his life because the situation had gone beyond critical mass -- and he did exactly what he believes the Constitution gave him the right to.enemies.
So the question remains: Are we the terrorists, or are you, Republican voters and supporters?
This isn’t an argument against banana republic politics, it is banana republic politics. Let’s put aside any consideration of primaries or policy debates and simply anoint a strong man to redeem our nation, purge corruption, and punish our
But that's what they want. They are DONE with us voting.nation. If your love of country is contingent on your preferred faction being in power, you’ve confused partisanship for patriotism. Taken seriously, all of this banana republic talk is un-American.
As I've said repeatedly and been laughed at: They are done feeding us, housing us, seeing us, tolerating our lives.
DONE.
I’ll put it plainly: If your “belief” in our country is so fragile and pathetic that you will lose “hope for our nation” unless Donald Trump is given free reign to cleanse the land of evildoers, then you don’t actually believe in this
They don't believe in THIS nation.if the claims were made about any politician. Indeed, I did. When Barack Obama’s boosters claimed he would fix our “broken souls” (in Michelle Obama’s words), I spared no effort in denouncing them. When Joe Biden sermonized about how “unity”
They believe this nation is Satan-spawn from the loss of the Civil War and the imposition of rights AGAINST the White Cis-Male Landowner in the 14th Amendment in 1868.
They believe THIS nation is dead. And they now will want to kill it and resurrect it in their eliminative image.
In short, from "The Purge": "God bless our New Founding Fathers and America, a nation reborn."
We ARE the evildoers to them -- and I'm more than tempted to show them just what evil can do if that's all they see us as!
I don’t mean it’s a wrong or flawed argument or simply an argument I don’t like—though it is all those things. I mean it is literally an un-American argument because it fundamentally betrays the whole idea of this country. And I’d say this
"Unity" is the last thing they want. Because, to be unified with us would be indicative that we are human, important, and have value -- and that's three things Proud Boy America does NOT believe in.were meat for food.
The problem is, that level of disunity blows it all up, because it reduces us to basically hunting each other down and eliminating each other because we are in the way -- not unlike the style of the Manifest Destiny hunting down the Indians like they
This is another reason I say to shoot or shut up -- we cannot co-exist. We will not co-exist, and it is rapidly getting to the point if there was enough room for both of us, there isn't much else "enough" left for the both of us, as the currenteconomic situation is showing.
head of one branch of one level of government. They get that job for a limited and defined period of time, and afterward they’re simply citizens.Presidents are not redeemers, messiahs, incarnations of mystical aspirations, or righteous settlers of seething grievances. They’re not god-kings or the fathers of our American family. They’re politicians elected to do some specific things as the
And that's the problem: They no longer want a President.they believe it or not, they want millions of people to believe it.
They want a God-King, sent from God to purge this land of the "others" so that only the White Men can enjoy it and the baby machines and farm equipment are under them!
It’s a source of constant consternation and amazement for me that so many people either don’t understand this or simply pretend not to.I think they understand, at least as much as 90-95 IQ can. It has already been shown that the stupid tend to gravitate to Fox News, etc.
I don’t know for sure which politicians and pundits yammering about our “corrupt regime” are truly ignorant and which are merely duplicitous demagogues chumming the waters with bloody nonsense. But I do know it’s dangerous, because whether
And, frankly, I believe millions do. It is one of the reasons I believe we have lost to the coronavirus, already lost 5 or more million to the virus, and can't have that said because some people would cheer that level of death and destruction, whilethe rest would probably riot, knowing the number could be much, much higher.
policy on Iraq.Our regime.
Remember what Rush Limpballs started saying about America the day Clinton took office: "America Held Hostage".
Since then, a Black man has held the office and now even worse...
But let’s talk about our “regime,” a term these people use with Vizzini-like confidence and error.
In 2004, a lot of angry Democrats loved the phrase “regime change starts at home.” The idea was that voting George W. Bush out of office would constitute “regime change”—a term popularized by both Bill Clinton and Bush with regard to our
Remember, also, that many of us also viewed Dick Cheney and his Project For a New American Century (PNAC) as a probable cause for that America had a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Democrats or Republicans. When serious people talk seriously about changing a regime, they’re talking about changing the system of government. Regime change in Iraq meant getting rid of a totalitarian, terroristic dictatorship, not simply replacing
The stupidity of this talking point—later picked up in the Obama years by conservatives—begins with the fact that elections are how our regime works. A regime, by definition, is a system of government, not an administration run by elected
The problem is, as you probably well know, Saddam was our man before he was of no further use to us. And then remember this...Rubio compares us to, electing a leader doesn’t change the regime. There are roughly 520,000 elected officials in this country. At the federal level there are 537 of them. The president is just one of them.
America’s regime isn’t on any ballot. Symbolically, it is the ballot. More properly, it is the constitutional system that requires our leaders to be elected. But unlike in an actual banana republic or the Third World Marxist dictatorships Marco
Part of the problem is that the removal of much (most?) of the elected officials and even more of the voters is part of the point. The fact that baby/sammich machines/sex toys and farm equipment and the useless eaters and the... ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww... are allowed to vote (and, in many cases, breathe life at all!!!) means that the ballot, at it's most fundamental level, is, in fact, similarly flawed!
Remember: This time Trump wants to loyalty test his serfs in the government if he reattains power.you’re on their payroll or serve in the military). Indeed, the president literally has no formal power to order any of those 536 other federal officeholders to do anything. He cannot make Congress—or even his vice president—do something they do not
Like every other elected official, the president is subordinate to the Constitution, which is another way of saying he is not the regime, he’s a servant of the regime. None of those elected officials, including the president, is your boss (unless
And that's the problem on a number of levels.Constitutional word on law for the next 20, if not more, years.
Trump really does believe in The Apprentice, and believes the country should be run as if it were a corporation. Hence, he is The Boss, as it were.
The second problem is the Republican mantra of the Constitution (especially 13th Amendment onward) as a "goddamned piece of paper", so they don't even believe in that subordinance, and have now manipulated that they probably will have the final
They believe in neither the Constitution nor the people, especially those they don't even consider human (see above).piece of parchment.
Even the people in the executive branch who do have to follow the president’s orders may not follow orders that are unlawful or unconstitutional. Because again, the ultimate political authority in our system is not vested in a person, but in a
A "goddamned piece of paper" most of them don't believe in in the first place -- especially, as I just said, Amendment 13 and forward.family for disobeying it.
And the other problem with that is the concept of too many people are able to ENFORCE "I AM THE LAW!" and, therefore, even if the order is unlawful or unconstitutional, a lot of good that does you if you get locked up, lose your job and perhaps your
hanging fruit, if he retakes power.That’s our regime, and I love it regardless of who the president is.They don't. And it's a lot more than just FJB. It's the fact of the people who are allowed to exist because "that goddamned piece of paper" hasn't gotten around yet to allow for their extermination. Look for Trump to change that, starting with the low-
Dictators do not typically seek warrants from judges when they send police to search the homes of their political opponents. Heck, if the reporting is to be believed, the White House didn’t even know what had happened until after the deed was done.Which brings us to the search at Mar-a-Lago. Like all the people bleating about the “Biden regime,” I have no idea if searching the former president’s home was a wise decision. But from every account I’ve read, it was a lawful decision.
What it IS, though, is that the one thing you can say the Right tells the truth about it is simple: We've crossed the Rubicon, and, especially with the rhetoric being put forward, going back may well be nigh impossible. I related that I don't thinkthere's an option left which does not lead us down a nasty road. He either reascends as effective God-King, or has done so much, he's put to death and the entire system loses enough face and faith, it probably goes with him.
didn’t indict the legitimacy of the regime, I don’t see how this could, because government screws up all the time. That’s one of the reasons we have so many elections. James Madison’s whole vision was to use elections, at every level ofAgain, none of this means that the DOJ or the FBI didn’t make a terrible decision or otherwise screw up. We’ve seen plenty of evidence in recent years that they’re perfectly capable of both. But if J. Edgar Hoover’s stewardship of the FBI
One major reason: The 30-40% of this country literally waiting with baited breath for one man to give one order: Open fire.photoshop "Pussy" where they are.
If the DoJ or FBI screws this up, you can bet that someone named Trump will be calling for the storming of every FBI office in the nation.
And another thing: These people, especially the White Men, want this to be THE LAST CLEANSING by the ballot box, with the next being the cartridge box.
When Hoover screwed up, he didn't have millions of White Men wanting to kill others and posting their gun porn on the Internet and claiming they wanted to do shit -- while the rest of us are still waiting and want to take their "Proud Boy" tattoos and
the FBI serving a warrant on a house in Florida. I myself do not find it especially difficult to believe that there exists reasonable cause for such a warrant. And if the feds have got it wrong, that wouldn’t be the first time. Those so-calledIf we really believe, as we say we believe, that this is a republic, that nobody is above the law, that the presidency is just a temporary executive-branch office rather than a quasi-royal entitlement, then there is nothing all that remarkable about
And you just basically made the false premise. (Not that I slam you for doing so -- these people believe Trump was anointed by God to kill the useless, the LGBTQ's, and anyone else "in the way".)outright) indicates why we haven't had President Kamala Harris for the last 12 months.
In short, if he succeeds, a second Manifest Destiny to retake the country (with lethal force in places like California, Washington, Oregon, Chicago, Baltimore especially -- and more!) from sea to shining sea.
By all means, vote Biden out of office. I don’t think he’s up to the job and I think most of his policies have been bad. Bring on the cleansing tide.I don't think you can afford the alternative unless you want the "others" dead.
As for me, I felt it's either vote Trump out (regardless of the opponent), take the five years in prison for threatening his life in a second term, or go violent and die as a result, Schiffer-style.
I never felt Biden would last six months in the office of President -- but one examination of the current legislative impossibility a Presidential resignation would create (in short, no Vice President would be seated unless the Dems win the Senate
(And bring on the Rightie tears at THAT result!)Constitution like a dead letter. He declared victory despite being assured he lost by his own attorney general and campaign manager. He wanted the DOJ to simply declare the election corrupt so he could do the rest. He toyed with the idea of using the
But what I can’t get my head around is the idea that the solution to our allegedly bananifying regime is to put that browning, mealy, giant banana back into power.Two words, kid: Open fire. All he has to do is give the order, and your question will be answered in inglorious detail.
Let’s return—just one more time—to that thought experiment. What I left out is that the ousted ruler seeking to return to power whose home was searched had tried to steal the last election by spreading lies about its legitimacy and treating the
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.is the rot.
If you’re worried about America looking like a banana republic, please don’t tell me that the first president in American history to defecate on the peaceful transfer of power is the antidote to the rot of Third World corruption of our regime. He
Not quite. I think their antidote is the blood of 100 million godless, useless, unAmerican types.
Mike
There are few here that are old enough to remember true American conservatism.
I agree. Everything has slid towards centralization of power and away
from the people.
On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:18:29 AM UTC-7, Ken Olson wrote:
There are few here that are old enough to remember true American
conservatism.
Which is why the present Republican Party would view them as traitors.
Mike (Seriously...)
On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 4:57:19 AM UTC-7, Ken Olson wrote:
I agree. Everything has slid towards centralization of power and away
from the people.
Problem is: That's the same idea the GQP has -- that the people should have the right to kill, as they did when they lynched the Blacks in the name of States Rights, etc.
Mike
People have the right to kill if that is a reasonable response to the
force they're fighting against. Lynchings were (are) murder.
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of
cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are
adding up for our grandchildren.
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are
adding up for our grandchildren. If it was 87,000 cops to help fight
the crime wave blue cities are self-inflicting, probably that wouldn't
be so unpopular. But when it is an expansion to take us to a 3X per-
capita level of tax enforcers compared to Europe, one which is certain
to bring the productivity of the IRS down to third-world levels, it is
insane and one hopes unpopular. The contention that those workers will
only pursue the rich is a blatant lie, one that anyone should be particularly embarrassed about parroting.
I despair of either of the parties, but certainly would prefer the Republicans having the chance to change the direction of things. A huge majority thinks we're on the wrong track, and they ain't wrong.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government.
Btw I think what you are referring to as “the authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government” is actually Democrats finally learning how to exercise political power in a way that Republicans have been doing
for years. The only real difference is just you like the enacted policies
in one case and you don’t in the other.
I would submit that calling a lame-duck legislative session to strip the winners of power after you lose an election (as Republicans did In
Wisconsin and North Carolina) is more authoritarian than passing major legislation on a 51-50 Senate vote, especially when the president pushing that agenda won his election by more than seven million votes.
I’d also
argue that a system where the party or candidate that is more popular has
to win by seven million votes and nearly 5 percentage points of the vote to actually narrowly win is also authoritarian minority rule. Some of that latter part is endemic to our system but some is by deliberate design ,
like gerrymandering.
Finally I would argue that a party nominating candidates for state offices who assert the right to override their voters in awarding electoral votes
is straight-up authoritarian if not borderline fascist.
Speaking of which,
a party that stands behind an ex-president who not only attempted a coup on live TV but also demanded that American generals show the same loyalty to
him that (he incorrectly thought) German generals did to Hitler is more
than just borderline fascist.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add
government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of
cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are
adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public sector) and social security.
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>>>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add >>> government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of
cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are
adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my >> FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have >> a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public >> sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police
state to me.
A flat tax would prevent tax cheating and reduce enforcement costs to the minimum. Of course politicians really, really, don't want it because it reduces
their graft opportunities dramatically.
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight. >>>>Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but
I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like
him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government.
Btw I think what you are referring to as “the authoritarianism of our
current thinly-divided government” is actually Democrats finally learning >> how to exercise political power in a way that Republicans have been doing
for years. The only real difference is just you like the enacted policies
in one case and you don’t in the other.
You want more money and power flowing to the federal government, I want less. More guns extorting money from me means government sticking their noses in
my business.
I would submit that calling a lame-duck legislative session to strip the
winners of power after you lose an election (as Republicans did In
Wisconsin and North Carolina) is more authoritarian than passing major
legislation on a 51-50 Senate vote, especially when the president pushing
that agenda won his election by more than seven million votes.
And how else are you going to make temporary a government program? Hmm?
I’d also
argue that a system where the party or candidate that is more popular has
to win by seven million votes and nearly 5 percentage points of the vote to >> actually narrowly win is also authoritarian minority rule. Some of that
latter part is endemic to our system but some is by deliberate design ,
like gerrymandering.
It is our system, and that system has made us the most stable dynamic country in history. Good on us.
Finally I would argue that a party nominating candidates for state offices >> who assert the right to override their voters in awarding electoral votes
is straight-up authoritarian if not borderline fascist.
Can't disagree with that.
Speaking of which,
a party that stands behind an ex-president who not only attempted a coup on >> live TV but also demanded that American generals show the same loyalty to
him that (he incorrectly thought) German generals did to Hitler is more
than just borderline fascist.
Attempted a coup? Don't make me laugh. Fantasy coups are not a coup.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add >>>> government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of
cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are
adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my >>> FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have >>> a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public >>> sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police
state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all western counties why choose Switzerland?
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago.
Surely you’ve seen this:
https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/one-photo-irs-cafeteria-overstuffed-200607832.html
A flat tax would prevent tax cheating and reduce enforcement costs to the
minimum. Of course politicians really, really, don't want it because it reduces
their graft opportunities dramatically.
A flat tax would do no such thing since most cheating is in the area of defining and hiding income. No matter how flat taxes are that will
continue. Unless for example your flat tax is based on business gross not net?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con
Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due
to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political
parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government.
Btw I think what you are referring to as “the authoritarianism of our
current thinly-divided government” is actually Democrats finally learning >>> how to exercise political power in a way that Republicans have been doing >>> for years. The only real difference is just you like the enacted policies >>> in one case and you don’t in the other.
You want more money and power flowing to the federal government, I want less.
More guns extorting money from me means government sticking their noses in >> my business.
I would submit that calling a lame-duck legislative session to strip the >>> winners of power after you lose an election (as Republicans did In
Wisconsin and North Carolina) is more authoritarian than passing major
legislation on a 51-50 Senate vote, especially when the president pushing >>> that agenda won his election by more than seven million votes.
And how else are you going to make temporary a government program? Hmm?
I have no idea how that relates to my point above.
I’d also
argue that a system where the party or candidate that is more popular has >>> to win by seven million votes and nearly 5 percentage points of the vote to >>> actually narrowly win is also authoritarian minority rule. Some of that >>> latter part is endemic to our system but some is by deliberate design ,
like gerrymandering.
It is our system, and that system has made us the most stable dynamic country
in history. Good on us.
It has worked remarkably well in general but there have been multiple times it has failed to deliver a democratic result, not all of them recently.
For example 1876 and the results of that failure had the real effect
of imposing Jim Crow for generations.
Finally I would argue that a party nominating candidates for state offices >>> who assert the right to override their voters in awarding electoral votes >>> is straight-up authoritarian if not borderline fascist.
Can't disagree with that.
Speaking of which,
a party that stands behind an ex-president who not only attempted a coup on >>> live TV but also demanded that American generals show the same loyalty to >>> him that (he incorrectly thought) German generals did to Hitler is more
than just borderline fascist.
Attempted a coup? Don't make me laugh. Fantasy coups are not a coup.
Keep telling yourself that. “Fantasy coup” is just another way of saying “attempted coup”. Trump’s lack of success does not negate the attempt.
And he still demanded Hitler-esque (his framing not mine) loyalty from American generals, which affected his Republican support not one iota.
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add >>>>> government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my >>>> FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have >>>> a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police
state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all
western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed
technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer
totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done
by the proper use of the private sector.
Of course there is always some wiggle room, but eliminating exclusions and deductions
writ large there is much less scope.
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government.
Btw I think what you are referring to as “the authoritarianism of our >>>> current thinly-divided government” is actually Democrats finally learning
how to exercise political power in a way that Republicans have been doing >>>> for years. The only real difference is just you like the enacted policies >>>> in one case and you don’t in the other.
You want more money and power flowing to the federal government, I want less.
More guns extorting money from me means government sticking their noses in >>> my business.
I would submit that calling a lame-duck legislative session to strip the >>>> winners of power after you lose an election (as Republicans did In
Wisconsin and North Carolina) is more authoritarian than passing major >>>> legislation on a 51-50 Senate vote, especially when the president pushing >>>> that agenda won his election by more than seven million votes.
And how else are you going to make temporary a government program? Hmm?
I have no idea how that relates to my point above.
Spoken like a man who wants the ratchet of federal government growth
to be unopposed. When the federal government controlled 4% of GDP, we had
no lobbyist problem -- it wasn't worth the effort. Now that it influences over 40%, everyone has to have a lobbyist to protect themself.
I’d also
argue that a system where the party or candidate that is more popular has >>>> to win by seven million votes and nearly 5 percentage points of the vote to
actually narrowly win is also authoritarian minority rule. Some of that >>>> latter part is endemic to our system but some is by deliberate design , >>>> like gerrymandering.
It is our system, and that system has made us the most stable dynamic country
in history. Good on us.
It has worked remarkably well in general but there have been multiple times >> it has failed to deliver a democratic result, not all of them recently.
That might be because we are a republic.
For example 1876 and the results of that failure had the real effect
of imposing Jim Crow for generations.
Arguable that one man performed that -- it was a team effort. The
Democrats made sure that victory didn't get deposed for another 90
years.
Finally I would argue that a party nominating candidates for state offices >>>> who assert the right to override their voters in awarding electoral votes >>>> is straight-up authoritarian if not borderline fascist.
Can't disagree with that.
Speaking of which,
a party that stands behind an ex-president who not only attempted a coup on
live TV but also demanded that American generals show the same loyalty to >>>> him that (he incorrectly thought) German generals did to Hitler is more >>>> than just borderline fascist.
Attempted a coup? Don't make me laugh. Fantasy coups are not a coup.
Keep telling yourself that. “Fantasy coup” is just another way of saying >> “attempted coup”. Trump’s lack of success does not negate the attempt.
When an infant punches a grown man and fails, it doesn't make it a boxing match. It makes it a fantasy.
And he still demanded Hitler-esque (his framing not mine) loyalty from
American generals, which affected his Republican support not one iota.
Have you ever heard me claim Trump isn't a narcissistic nincompoop? You have not. My only claim is that he is better than Biden and that he achieved some decent results, dumb luck that it might have been. The worst non-interventionist
President is far better than any interventionist one. Trump would not have caused
oil to spike in price like Biden did, and wouldn't have spent the extra 2 trillion
dollars. That would -- in my judgement of course -- greatly reduced the impact of
COVID on the economy. (A lot if it was baked in of course by the idiotic lockdown.)
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add >>>>>> government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my
FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police >>>> state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all >>> western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed >>> technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer
totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done
by the proper use of the private sector.
Having seen first hand the way private IT contractors interact with the government, both as an employee of one and as the husband of a civil
servant who deals with IT contractors, absolutely not. One thing thing more dysfunctional then federal bureaucracy is federal IT contracting. And it’s not all the fault of the Feds and how they’re organized. Private sector IT contracting ain’t so well done either. Not enough time to get into it but over promising and under bidding to win business you can’t possibly complete on the promised terms is endemic.
Of course there is always some wiggle room, but eliminating exclusions and deductions
writ large there is much less scope.
Which exclusions and deductions? Should we start with, for example, depreciation?
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add >>>>>> government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my
FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police >>>> state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all >>> western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed >>> technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer
totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done
by the proper use of the private sector.
Having seen first hand the way private IT contractors interact with the government, both as an employee of one and as the husband of a civil
servant who deals with IT contractors, absolutely not. One thing thing more dysfunctional then federal bureaucracy is federal IT contracting.
And it’s
not all the fault of the Feds and how they’re organized. Private sector IT contracting ain’t so well done either.
Not enough time to get into it but
over promising and under bidding to win business you can’t possibly complete on the promised terms is endemic.
Of course there is always some wiggle room, but eliminating exclusions and deductions
writ large there is much less scope.
Which exclusions and deductions? Should we start with, for example, depreciation?
On 2022-08-16, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add
government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my
FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police >>>>> state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all >>>> western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done >>> by the proper use of the private sector.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed >>>> technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer >>>> totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago. >>>
Having seen first hand the way private IT contractors interact with the
government, both as an employee of one and as the husband of a civil
servant who deals with IT contractors, absolutely not. One thing thing more >> dysfunctional then federal bureaucracy is federal IT contracting.
What's the common factor, hmm?
And it’s
not all the fault of the Feds and how they’re organized. Private sector IT >> contracting ain’t so well done either.
I can't disagree with that as a general rule, having watched many a CRM implementation go down in flames. But those cases mostly happen when the organization overseeing the contract is clueless.
Of course there is always some wiggle room, but eliminating exclusions and deductions
writ large there is much less scope.
Which exclusions and deductions? Should we start with, for example,
depreciation?
You have to have some concept of depreciation if you are to incent a
longterm investment -- you can't expense the Hoover Dam. The key is to
have one structure and apply it to all; it is the exceptions and
carveouts which are the problem.
Again, we're talking pie in the sky. It ain't going to happen.
On 2022-08-16, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote:
He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here >>>>>>>> that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add
government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my
FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita
agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police >>>>> state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all >>>> western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done >>> by the proper use of the private sector.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed >>>> technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer >>>> totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago. >>>
Having seen first hand the way private IT contractors interact with the
government, both as an employee of one and as the husband of a civil
servant who deals with IT contractors, absolutely not. One thing thing more >> dysfunctional then federal bureaucracy is federal IT contracting.
What's the common factor, hmm?
And it’s
not all the fault of the Feds and how they’re organized. Private sector IT >> contracting ain’t so well done either.
I can't disagree with that as a general rule, having watched many a CRM implementation go down in flames. But those cases mostly happen when the organization overseeing the contract is clueless.
Not enough time to get into it but
over promising and under bidding to win business you can’t possibly
complete on the promised terms is endemic.
This is enabled by lettors who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. I ran a company and worked for a company who wouldn't do that. We often lost out on bids, but when we were selected we delivered.
Of course there is always some wiggle room, but eliminating exclusions and deductions
writ large there is much less scope.
Which exclusions and deductions? Should we start with, for example,
depreciation?
You have to have some concept of depreciation if you are to incent a
longterm investment -- you can't expense the Hoover Dam. The key is to
have one structure and apply it to all; it is the exceptions and
carveouts which are the problem.
Again, we're talking pie in the sky. It ain't going to happen.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-16, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-15, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote:
On 2022-08-14, xyzzy <xyzzy.dude@gmail.com> wrote:
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American <constance@duxmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2022-08-12, JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2022 at 9:02:59 AM UTC-4, xyzzy wrote: >>>>>>>>>> He hasn't been quoted much lately on rsfc, which seems like an oversight.
Sign that the newsgroup is dwindling. What conservatives are even here
that might have brought up a Goldberg article before? Enright, Con >>>>>>>>> Reeder, and Wonko?
Certainly me. I am a big Jonah fan. His current focus -- probably due >>>>>>>> to his change of networks from Fox to CNN -- is not my cup of tea, but >>>>>>>> I still read the G-File and agree with a lot of what he says. But like >>>>>>>> him, I mostly despair of the hot mess which is both of our political >>>>>>>> parties. The biggest problem we have is the outrageous
authoritarianism of our current thinly-divided government. Democrats add
government programs any time they can, counting on the difficulty of >>>>>>>> cutting them to ensure the persistance of the bloat.
Now we are going to add 87,000 government pensions to the bill we are >>>>>>>> adding up for our grandchildren.
I know you’re used to Illinois state pensions which are crazy generous. Fed
pensions exist but they aren’t nearly as generous. It’s about 1/3 of what
most people would consider a full pension, especially in Illinois where my
FIL is a retired teacher. The Fed policy since 1983 has been yeah you have
a pension but you also need a 401k (or whatever it’s called in the public
sector) and social security.
We still don't need 87,000 more. And why do we need a 5X per-capita >>>>>> agent population compared to Switzerland? Sounds like a nascent police >>>>>> state to me.
Using Switzerland as a comparison point sounds like a cherry pick. Of all >>>>> western counties why choose Switzerland?
I cited 3X for the average European country in another post.
That doesn't require permanent employees. Certainly something better done >>>> by the proper use of the private sector.
Also not all of that money is for auditors. It’s also for long delayed >>>>> technology updates which I’m familiar with because sadly my employer >>>>> totally blew the last attempt to modernize their tech over 10 years ago. >>>>
Having seen first hand the way private IT contractors interact with the
government, both as an employee of one and as the husband of a civil
servant who deals with IT contractors, absolutely not. One thing thing more >>> dysfunctional then federal bureaucracy is federal IT contracting.
What's the common factor, hmm?
And it’s
not all the fault of the Feds and how they’re organized. Private sector IT
contracting ain’t so well done either.
I can't disagree with that as a general rule, having watched many a CRM
implementation go down in flames. But those cases mostly happen when the
organization overseeing the contract is clueless.
The real problem with the government in this case is they are bound by law
to take the lowest qualified bidder.
Most people wouldn’t have it any other
way because otherwise it’s open to favoritism. But that has unexpected side effects, for example once you finally get the contractor who maintains a system trained and working smoothly they get ejected by a new low bidder
who you have to start over with (and they probably unknowingly underbid because they don’t know the challenges the incumbent has learned after working with the system for a few years), lather rinse repeat.
Just one example.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 163:10:23 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,509 |