Chris wrote:

> I wouldn't call railroad workers "the government" either.

They are in the United States as railroads aren't "private" like, oh, say,
"Google" or "Apple" are private.

And how is it he's not even bright enough to check something this simple?

On 2022-05-12 5:10 p.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't call railroad workers "the government" either.
>
> They are in the United States as railroads aren't "private" like, oh, say,
> "Google" or "Apple" are private.

Wow.

You really are ignorant!

Railways in the US are completely private...

....with the exception of Amtrak...

....which owns only about 600 miles of track...

....in a country with about 140,000 miles of it.

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2022-05-12 1:13 p.m., Chris wrote:
>> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Other than the doctors perhaps, those people worked for the government.
>>>>
>>>> Doctors are employed by the hospital or general practice. They aren't by
>>>> any stretch of the imagination - apart from yours - "the government".
>>>
>>> I said _other_ than the doctors, Chris.
>>
>> Sorry. I missed that.
>>
>> I wouldn't call railroad workers "the government" either.
>>
>>> The fact you tried to pull that means you have no facts of your own.
>>>
>>>> LOL. You're seriously asking me to prove a negative?
>>>
>>> If you think waste is in the negative percentages, then you're wrong.
>>
>> You're asking me to prove there is no waste. Logically that's impossible.
>> Might want to read your book again.
>>
>>>> No system as complex as government institutions will be 100% perfect.
>>>
>>> It's not even close to perfect, Chris, and, IMHO, the waste is horrendous.
>>
>> So not a fact? You're opinion. Fine.
>>
>>> Pick a percentage you think it is, but I picked a high percentage to make
>>> the point that the amount of government waste is, IMHO, astronomical.
>>
>> That be your opinion. All your evidence says otherwise.
>>
>>>> Why is the government breaking the 4th amendment and not the companies
>>>> collecting and selling the data? Double-standards?
>>>
>>> You need to comprehend that the government is held to the 4th amendment.
>>> The government has the power to jail & execute you, Chris.
>>>
>>>> The government routinely collect data and use data for many, many reasons.
>>>
>>> Our government has a prohibition on unreasonable collection of that data.
>>
>> And we're back to that "unreasonable" word, again. In your own words how
>> was the CDC unreasonable in trying to research pandemic behaviour?
>
> Whenever he's cornered, Arlen adds a qualifier to play the "no TRUE
> Scotsman" game.

What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of facts and
is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's way
outside his comfort zone.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't call railroad workers "the government" either.
>
> They are in the United States

LOL. This isn't East Germany at the height of the cold war.

On 5/13/2022 12:06 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't call railroad workers "the government" either.
>>
>> They are in the United States
>
> LOL. This isn't East Germany at the height of the cold war.

In the U.S., many local passenger commute services are run by "the
government," or at least quasi-governmental agencies.

Long-distance passenger trains are run by Amtrak, a for-profit
corporation, and the employees are not "government workers." Amtrak's
losses are made up with government subsidies. Actually Amtrak lost very
little money in 2019 and was on track (no pun intended) to be
profitable, then the pandemic hit and revenue plummeted.

My GF and I rode an East German train to Berlin in 1989, just as the
Berlin Wall was coming down. We had bought tickets, or so we had
thought, but they had sold us only the sleeping car add-on. We were
lucky to have had enough cash in West German Marks to pay the conductor
for the tickets.

On 5/13/2022 12:00 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of facts and
> is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's way
> outside his comfort zone.

Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a disagreement
over how money should be best spent, with those opposed to a project
insisting that it's "waste."

Chris wrote:

> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of facts and
> is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's way
> outside his comfort zone.

Chris,

Cat. Kettle. Black.

What's _your_ basis for your "less than 80%" waste in government spending?

HINT: Same as mine.

sms wrote:

>> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of facts and
>> is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's way
>> outside his comfort zone.
>
> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a disagreement
> over how money should be best spent, with those opposed to a project
> insisting that it's "waste."

Steve,
I'm well aware you were the mayor of Cupertino, so you know about waste.

Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
*Name just one*

Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80% (which, funnily
enough, is the _same_ reason that Chris picked "less than 80%").

It's exactly why I _asked_ him what he *thought* what the level was.

The problem is that there is almost no oversight on government spending.
Not like there is on household spending, or on corporate spending.

No other entity can just legally require everyone to pawn up more money.
Just the government.

As a result, if the waste isn't downright astronomical, it would be a
miracle in fiscal policy management (a miracle that will _never_ happen).

Have you ever been to the DMV for example, in any state?
Are you going to tell me that it's "efficiently run"?

Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
*Name just one*

On 2022-05-13 10:52 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>>> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of
>>> facts and
>>> is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's
>>> way
>>> outside his comfort zone.
>>
>> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
>> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
>> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
>> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a
>> disagreement over how money should be best spent, with those opposed
>> to a project insisting that it's "waste."
>
> Steve,
> I'm well aware you were the mayor of Cupertino, so you know about waste.
>
> Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
> *Name just one*
>
> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80% (which, funnily
> enough, is the _same_ reason that Chris picked "less than 80%").

Really?

What was that reason?

>
> It's exactly why I _asked_ him what he *thought* what the level was.
>
> The problem is that there is almost no oversight on government spending.
> Not like there is on household spending, or on corporate spending.
>
> No other entity can just legally require everyone to pawn up more money.
> Just the government.
>
> As a result, if the waste isn't downright astronomical, it would be a
> miracle in fiscal policy management (a miracle that will _never_ happen).
>
> Have you ever been to the DMV for example, in any state?
> Are you going to tell me that it's "efficiently run"?
>
> Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
> *Name just one*

On 2022-05-13, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/2022 12:00 AM, Chris wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of
>> facts and is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's
>> struggling. He's way outside his comfort zone.
>
> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a
> disagreement over how money should be best spent, with those opposed
> to a project insisting that it's "waste."

BINGO
That's exactly what most claims of "waste" boil down to. But one man's
waste is another man's treasure, and in a well-functioning government,
the will of the people decides what taxes are spent on.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
>> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
>> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
>> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a
>> disagreement over how money should be best spent, with those opposed
>> to a project insisting that it's "waste."
>
> BINGO
> That's exactly what most claims of "waste" boil down to. But one man's
> waste is another man's treasure, and in a well-functioning government,
> the will of the people decides what taxes are spent on.

Since I agree with all logical and sensible points of view, I agree with
Jolly Roger that _sometimes_ what one person calls waste isn't what another
would call waste.

However, there are things (like fraud) which _everyone_ would call waste.

Also things like a $500 toilet seat for a basic bathroom (I'm making that
up) would _also_ almost always be considered waste by almost everyone.

So would when they have ten people do the job that one person can do.
We can go down the list forever of what the government does that's waste.

My main point is the lack of oversight virtually guarantees massive waste.

On Sat, 14 May 2022 07:04:53 +1000, Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-05-13, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/2022 12:00 AM, Chris wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of
>>> facts and is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's
>>> struggling. He's way outside his comfort zone.
>>
>> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
>> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
>> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
>> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a
>> disagreement over how money should be best spent, with those opposed
>> to a project insisting that it's "waste."
>
> BINGO
> That's exactly what most claims of "waste" boil down to. But one man's
> waste is another man's treasure, and in a well-functioning government,
> the will of the people decides what taxes are spent on.

The reality is that they hardly ever get asked about what the taxes get
spent on.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>>> What's funny is that his contribution to this thread is devoid of facts and
>>> is full of opinion and supposition. This is why he's struggling. He's way
>>> outside his comfort zone.
>>
>> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
>> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
>> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
>> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a disagreement
>> over how money should be best spent, with those opposed to a project
>> insisting that it's "waste."
>
> Steve,
> I'm well aware you were the mayor of Cupertino, so you know about waste.
>
> Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
> *Name just one*
>
> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80%

Which you've not told anyone.

(which, funnily
> enough, is the _same_ reason that Chris picked "less than 80%").

No it isn't.

> It's exactly why I _asked_ him what he *thought* what the level was.
>
> The problem is that there is almost no oversight on government spending.

False.

> Not like there is on household spending, or on corporate spending.

Lol. What oversight is there in corporate spending?

> No other entity can just legally require everyone to pawn up more money.

Oil and gas companies are going just that right now. And are racking up
billions in extra profits with no change in their own costs. The additional
profits are of little benefit to anyone.

> Just the government.

False.

> As a result, if the waste isn't downright astronomical, it would be a
> miracle in fiscal policy management (a miracle that will _never_ happen).

You have no clue.

> Have you ever been to the DMV for example, in any state?
> Are you going to tell me that it's "efficiently run"?
>
> Name _one_ government agency, in the USA, that you feel is efficiently run.
> *Name just one*

Running well vs efficiently. Two different things. The NHS, for example, is
extremely efficient with very little waste, however it doesn't always work
well.

Chris wrote:

>> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80%
>
> Which you've not told anyone.

I said why. You simply missed it.
HINT: It's the _same_ reason you picked <80% as government waste.
BTW, did you hear California has 98 billion dollars in excess money?
Do you think they'll give back to us what they stole at gunpoint?

*California governor: $98B surplus backs true pro-life state*
<https://apnews.com/article/immigration-california-gavin-newsom-5aa5ab19800a5e91c209ff1268ac40bc>

On 2022-05-14 5:25 a.m., Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80%
>>
>> Which you've not told anyone.
>
> I said why. You simply missed it.
> HINT: It's the _same_ reason you picked <80% as government waste.
>
> BTW, did you hear California has 98 billion dollars in excess money?
> Do you think they'll give back to us what they stole at gunpoint?
>
> *California governor: $98B surplus backs true pro-life state*
> <https://apnews.com/article/immigration-california-gavin-newsom-5aa5ab19800a5e91c209ff1268ac40bc>
>

I think they'll pay down the debt accumulated in years without a surplus...

....because unlike you, I'm capable of thought.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80%
>>
>> Which you've not told anyone.
>
> I said why. You simply missed it.

You made it up. Then desperately tried to justify and failed.

> HINT: It's the _same_ reason you picked <80% as government waste.

From experience and your attempts trying to justify 80% simply proved it
was nowhere near 80%.

Sure hundreds of millions of £/€/$ sounds like a lot, but as a proportion
of the national budget it's tiny.

> BTW, did you hear California has 98 billion dollars in excess money?
> Do you think they'll give back to us what they stole at gunpoint?

"stole at gunpoint" LOL.

> *California governor: $98B surplus backs true pro-life state*
> <https://apnews.com/article/immigration-california-gavin-newsom-5aa5ab19800a5e91c209ff1268ac40bc>
>

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Sadly, that's par for the course on his contributions to most threads.
>>> no facts, just unsupported opinions combined with demonstrably false
>>> statements. 80%, LOL. Having been in government, I know that there's
>>> waste, but it's not nearly to that level. It's often more a
>>> disagreement over how money should be best spent, with those opposed
>>> to a project insisting that it's "waste."
>>
>> BINGO
>> That's exactly what most claims of "waste" boil down to. But one man's
>> waste is another man's treasure, and in a well-functioning government,
>> the will of the people decides what taxes are spent on.
>
> Since I agree with all logical and sensible points of view, I agree with
> Jolly Roger that _sometimes_ what one person calls waste isn't what another
> would call waste.
>
> However, there are things (like fraud) which _everyone_ would call waste.

Nope.

> Also things like a $500 toilet seat for a basic bathroom (I'm making that
> up) would _also_ almost always be considered waste by almost everyone.

Why make things up when there's so may real world examples? In the UK "duck
ponds" are symptomatic with government waste. Google it.

> So would when they have ten people do the job that one person can do.

Like?

> We can go down the list forever of what the government does that's waste.

Go on then. You've made 20-30 posts *not* making any specific comments. Now
would be an opportunity to start.

> My main point is the lack of oversight virtually guarantees massive waste.

Thing is there is oversight: the voting public. That's exactly our job.

On 5/15/2022 4:20 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>> Let's be clear that there is a _reason_ I picked 80%
>>>
>>> Which you've not told anyone.
>>
>> I said why. You simply missed it.
>
> You made it up. Then desperately tried to justify and failed.
>
>> HINT: It's the _same_ reason you picked <80% as government waste.
>
> From experience and your attempts trying to justify 80% simply proved it
> was nowhere near 80%.
>
> Sure hundreds of millions of £/€/$ sounds like a lot, but as a proportion
> of the national budget it's tiny.
>
>> BTW, did you hear California has 98 billion dollars in excess money?
>> Do you think they'll give back to us what they stole at gunpoint?
>
> "stole at gunpoint" LOL.

California has benefited financially from the move to remote work, in
multiple ways.

First, tech company sales have gone way up. In my city, we were warned
by our finance department not to expect the same sort of sales tax
revenue increase going forward. The sales tax revenue increase offset
the huge reduction in hotel taxes.

Second, residential property values have soared as more people have
moved from expensive rental apartments into owner-occupied housing. When
they buy a property it is reassessed from its Proposition 13 protected
assessed value to market value. For example, a house in my neighborhood,
just sold. It was owned by the son of the original owner. It had an
annual property tax bill of about $2200. The new annual property tax
bill will be about $40,000
<https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cupertino/10425-Farallone-Dr-95014/home/1141371>;
yes, it's crazy!

Ironically, California also benefited financially from the Trump
presidency. Trump's bungling of the Covid response, as well as his
mismanagement of the economy, especially with regard to tariffs, has
prolonged the pandemic and fueled inflation, both of which have
increased revenue. Since California manage the pandemic better than many
other large states, with a much lower death rate and infection rate,
this helped the California economy as well. Not following the science
had consequences for other states.

This surplus is nice, but we must not have the expectation that
surpluses of this magnitude will continue.

sms wrote:

>> "stole at gunpoint" LOL.
>
> California has benefited financially from the move to remote work, in
> multiple ways.

Steve,
You probably know _how_ California amassed that surplus, which I appreciate
as my only feeling is they should give us our money back (or pay down
existing debt, which is the same thing said in another manner).

> First, tech company sales have gone way up. In my city, we were warned
> by our finance department not to expect the same sort of sales tax
> revenue increase going forward. The sales tax revenue increase offset
> the huge reduction in hotel taxes.

It is interesting that hotels rape the visiting businessman & vacationer
via the taxes imposed upon them by the sate (taxi's too).
> Second, residential property values have soared as more people have
> moved from expensive rental apartments into owner-occupied housing. When
> they buy a property it is reassessed from its Proposition 13 protected
> assessed value to market value. For example, a house in my neighborhood,
> just sold. It was owned by the son of the original owner. It had an
> annual property tax bill of about $2200. The new annual property tax
> bill will be about $40,000
> <https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cupertino/10425-Farallone-Dr-95014/home/1141371>;
> yes, it's crazy!

As Steve is well aware, there's likely not a _single_ home in his town (or
mine for that matter) that would sell for less than a million or two.

It's further proof that you don't get what you pay for since most
California homes are pieces of shit (overall); but what you pay for is what
_others_ pay for, since you don't get to set the market value. They do.

You're competing with a billion morons, which means you pay what _they_
pay.

> Ironically, California also benefited financially from the Trump
> presidency. Trump's bungling of the Covid response, as well as his
> mismanagement of the economy, especially with regard to tariffs, has
> prolonged the pandemic and fueled inflation, both of which have
> increased revenue.

I wonder if you ever notice that you _always_ bring Trump into everything?

> Since California manage the pandemic better than many
> other large states, with a much lower death rate and infection rate,
> this helped the California economy as well. Not following the science
> had consequences for other states.

Why you so often resort to your wacko Democrat-inspired political bullshit
to defend your completely imaginary viewpoints is something you need to sit
back and think about, Steve.
> This surplus is nice, but we must not have the expectation that
> surpluses of this magnitude will continue.

I agree with Steve whenever he says something reasonable, where the source
of this surplus is what needs to be examined, which I openly admit I don't
know what it is, but I won't say what Steve said without any facts
supporting it.

I didn't even look what the surplus was due to, but what I want to know is
whether they'll give it back to us since they stole it from us at gunpoint.

HINT: My taxes are well over my income and they have been for a decade.

Chris wrote:

> "stole at gunpoint" LOL.

My taxes are over my income Chris, and have been for more than a decade.

If I do not pay those high taxes, what do you think they'll do Chris?

Chris wrote:

>> However, there are things (like fraud) which _everyone_ would call waste.
>
> Nope.

How is government fraud, not waste, Chris?

> Why make things up when there's so may real world examples? In the UK "duck
> ponds" are symptomatic with government waste. Google it.

The toilet seat example was actually from NASA of decades ago, where I
didn't feel like looking it up (since space has its own requirements).

Looking up "duck ponds", is _this_ what you're referring to?
*Ducks like water study waste of 300,000 pounds of taxpayers' money*
<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/20/research-proves-ducks-like-water>

Whether "research" is waste is another topic, which, soon gets to be
complex when, for example, it's politically inspired (who wants to try to
get a government grant to prove "global warming"... um... er... I mean
"climate change" is _not_ happening, for example?).

I used to do government-funded research in a scientific field that I had
before I moved to the Silicon Valley, where I went out into the ocean to
collect samples & then I grew colonies under a variety of circumstances to
back up an hypothesis (which, years later, was proven to be correct).

Is it worth the government funding months of the seasickness that resulted?
Dunno. But I wouldn't call it "waste" unless it ends up being excessive.

>
>> So would when they have ten people do the job that one person can do.
>
> Like?

Have you ever seen how many cops show up to a domestic disturbance in Ca?

>> My main point is the lack of oversight virtually guarantees massive waste.
>
> Thing is there is oversight: the voting public. That's exactly our job.

Agreed.
--
Note I agree with any logical and sensible viewpoint, no matter from whom.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> "stole at gunpoint" LOL.
>
> My taxes are over my income Chris, and have been for more than a decade.

That's the choice you've made.

> If I do not pay those high taxes, what do you think they'll do Chris?

They aren't going to shoot you.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>>> However, there are things (like fraud) which _everyone_ would call waste.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> How is government fraud, not waste, Chris?

The government is not responsible for other people's illegal activity. It's
like blaming GM for letting their cars be stolen.

>> Why make things up when there's so may real world examples? In the UK "duck
>> ponds" are symptomatic with government waste. Google it.
>
> The toilet seat example was actually from NASA of decades ago, where I
> didn't feel like looking it up (since space has its own requirements).
>
> Looking up "duck ponds", is _this_ what you're referring to?
> *Ducks like water study waste of 300,000 pounds of taxpayers' money*
> <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/may/20/research-proves-ducks-like-water>

Try this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-52219896

> Whether "research" is waste is another topic, which, soon gets to be
> complex when, for example, it's politically inspired (who wants to try to
> get a government grant to prove "global warming"... um... er... I mean
> "climate change" is _not_ happening, for example?).

You've done it again. No-one can prove a negative. So of course the
government aren't going to fund it. That would be a waste.

> I used to do government-funded research in a scientific field that I had
> before I moved to the Silicon Valley, where I went out into the ocean to
> collect samples & then I grew colonies under a variety of circumstances to
> back up an hypothesis (which, years later, was proven to be correct).
>
> Is it worth the government funding months of the seasickness that resulted?
> Dunno. But I wouldn't call it "waste" unless it ends up being excessive.
>
>>
>>> So would when they have ten people do the job that one person can do.
>>
>> Like?
>
> Have you ever seen how many cops show up to a domestic disturbance in Ca?

Of course I haven't. Nor have I done in the UK. Do I trust the UK police to
use their judgement in a case by case basis? mostly yes.

The US police could save a lot of money by stopping killing innocent
(black) people.

>>> My main point is the lack of oversight virtually guarantees massive waste.
>>
>> Thing is there is oversight: the voting public. That's exactly our job.
>
> Agreed.

So, but extension, you agree there's no massive waste.