5 ms·

Maybe governments should stop being such a big spenders. The problem is that they never cut their costs and people seem to accept that (at least in Europe). Wha

by kirk21 11y ago

Maybe governments should stop being such a big spenders. The problem is that they never cut their costs and people seem to accept that (at least in Europe). What are these people (politicians) even doing the whole day? Most countries in Europe are super small and quite easy to manage.

wsc981 11y ago
I agree with you. Belgium was almost 2 years without a real government and it managed just fine imo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10...
gaius 11y ago
Well this is how it works: there's an economic boom and profits are up and payrolls and bonuses are up and because these things are taxed as percentages tax revenue goes up too. Some of it gets spent on stuff, like schools and hospitals or whatever, but most of it goes on the salaries of public sector workers. Then there's a downturn, profits are down, people are getting laid off, no bonuses are paid and because these things are taxed as percentages, tax revenues are down. But your public sector workers demand to be kept in the style to which they have been accustomed, and the money has to come from the government's "real" spending. Then the next cycle rolls around, and every time the public sector ratchet up their pay and benefits a little more, until eventually that's all the government can spend money on. There is a very good case that people employed by the government, should not get a vote, because they cannot be objective.
- Retric 11y ago
  Not really, governments regularly cut back in the short term. The real long term ratchet is people keep wanting the government to do more, ex the EPA did not exist in 1969. Health benifits don't get to provide 1990's levels of care they need to keep up with an ever expanding array of new and more expencive treatments. Domestic partners now qualify for government benifits. The public never says, we don't need you to do this anymore. Hell we have started doing DNA testing for Robbery's.
- bsilvereagle 11y ago
  > But your public sector workers demand to be kept in the style to which they have been accustomed, and the money has to come from the government's "real" spending. In America, public workers took pay cuts for the past 5-6 years since the federal pay tables were frozen (not increasing for inflation, so spending power decreased) and mandatory health care costs went up! In America, I haven't seen any evidence of public sector employees (the public sector is huge, NASA engineers, Air Force pilots, National Park Rangers, etc) 'demanding' more pay. The only thing I've seen that can be categorized as evidence of this is top tier engineers leaving NASA & FFRDCs to work in the private sector. Not once have I seen a NASA employee go "We successfully lobbied Congress for more pay!".
marincounty 11y ago
I don't think the problem is big spending. It's their's not much oversight on how the money is spent. I worked at a federal park, and every year employees would damage equipment, and throw it into a dumpster. Why, so they could get money to buy new equipment the following year. My county is loaded with professional grant writers. You would be amazed at what a 501C3, and a well written paragraph will get an organization. I would list off some rediculious examples, but afraid I might expose my identity, or hurt low level employees who don't benefit from these grants. I still think about those two companies, one was Dick Cheney's former stomping ground, who literally got more money, the more they spent. It was an open ended contract? All they needed to show was receipts, and they were paid? So, I expect the government to spend tax money, but not throw it away. I am no angel, but in the last two decades I see a complete lack of morality in too many people. It's almost like, "Hay, it's not illegial, so I feel fine doing it!" Maybe it's always been there, and I was naieve?
- Retra 11y ago
  It's always been there. There is a surprisingly large population of people who take pride in their ability to eek out personal advantages with little 'schemes' at the expensive of the public. Many of these people think they're rebelling against a government that is too wasteful (which is ironic) or evil in various other ways. "If the government is going to waste money, it should waste it on me!" Or "everyone does it!" Yet when the problem is corruption and lack of oversight, you can't fix that for free, and more money can lead to more opportunities for corruption. Which is why I feel it's so important to build AI's that can detect and manage this stuff.
on_ 11y ago
> What are these people (politicians) even doing the whole day? Adding rules, regulation and loopholes that will only be read by a low level data-entry clerk and their new Artificial Intelligience.
douche 11y ago
The elected politicians spend all their time raising money for the next election. Might be time to rethink the two-year terms for House members in the US.

by kirk21 11y ago

wsc981 11y ago

I agree with you. Belgium was almost 2 years without a real government and it managed just fine imo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10...

gaius 11y ago

Well this is how it works: there's an economic boom and profits are up and payrolls and bonuses are up and because these things are taxed as percentages tax revenue goes up too. Some of it gets spent on stuff, like schools and hospitals or whatever, but most of it goes on the salaries of public sector workers. Then there's a downturn, profits are down, people are getting laid off, no bonuses are paid and because these things are taxed as percentages, tax revenues are down. But your public sector workers demand to be kept in the style to which they have been accustomed, and the money has to come from the government's "real" spending. Then the next cycle rolls around, and every time the public sector ratchet up their pay and benefits a little more, until eventually that's all the government can spend money on. There is a very good case that people employed by the government, should not get a vote, because they cannot be objective.

Retric 11y ago
Not really, governments regularly cut back in the short term. The real long term ratchet is people keep wanting the government to do more, ex the EPA did not exist in 1969. Health benifits don't get to provide 1990's levels of care they need to keep up with an ever expanding array of new and more expencive treatments. Domestic partners now qualify for government benifits. The public never says, we don't need you to do this anymore. Hell we have started doing DNA testing for Robbery's.
bsilvereagle 11y ago
> But your public sector workers demand to be kept in the style to which they have been accustomed, and the money has to come from the government's "real" spending. In America, public workers took pay cuts for the past 5-6 years since the federal pay tables were frozen (not increasing for inflation, so spending power decreased) and mandatory health care costs went up! In America, I haven't seen any evidence of public sector employees (the public sector is huge, NASA engineers, Air Force pilots, National Park Rangers, etc) 'demanding' more pay. The only thing I've seen that can be categorized as evidence of this is top tier engineers leaving NASA & FFRDCs to work in the private sector. Not once have I seen a NASA employee go "We successfully lobbied Congress for more pay!".

marincounty 11y ago

I don't think the problem is big spending. It's their's not much oversight on how the money is spent. I worked at a federal park, and every year employees would damage equipment, and throw it into a dumpster. Why, so they could get money to buy new equipment the following year. My county is loaded with professional grant writers. You would be amazed at what a 501C3, and a well written paragraph will get an organization. I would list off some rediculious examples, but afraid I might expose my identity, or hurt low level employees who don't benefit from these grants. I still think about those two companies, one was Dick Cheney's former stomping ground, who literally got more money, the more they spent. It was an open ended contract? All they needed to show was receipts, and they were paid? So, I expect the government to spend tax money, but not throw it away. I am no angel, but in the last two decades I see a complete lack of morality in too many people. It's almost like, "Hay, it's not illegial, so I feel fine doing it!" Maybe it's always been there, and I was naieve?

Retra 11y ago
It's always been there. There is a surprisingly large population of people who take pride in their ability to eek out personal advantages with little 'schemes' at the expensive of the public. Many of these people think they're rebelling against a government that is too wasteful (which is ironic) or evil in various other ways. "If the government is going to waste money, it should waste it on me!" Or "everyone does it!" Yet when the problem is corruption and lack of oversight, you can't fix that for free, and more money can lead to more opportunities for corruption. Which is why I feel it's so important to build AI's that can detect and manage this stuff.

on_ 11y ago

> What are these people (politicians) even doing the whole day? Adding rules, regulation and loopholes that will only be read by a low level data-entry clerk and their new Artificial Intelligience.

douche 11y ago

The elected politicians spend all their time raising money for the next election. Might be time to rethink the two-year terms for House members in the US.