So, Governments and encroachment
12-19-2011, 07:01 PM
#41
One good example is our highway systems. If it wasn't for the government's involvement with them, I am completely confident in saying that they would not exist. Further, I am completely confident in saying if the government gave them over to private business now, they would be falling apart in a short period of time except for certain critical areas. Finally, if it wasn't for the government's involvement in highways, I am confident in saying they would not have existed - and the US would not be anywhere near where it is today.
I am confident in saying this is one example of which the government should be taking over, and the private sector shouldn't be involved in. However, I also agree that the government shouldn't be as big or as far-reaching as it is.
I am confident in saying this is one example of which the government should be taking over, and the private sector shouldn't be involved in. However, I also agree that the government shouldn't be as big or as far-reaching as it is.
This is what I was responding to.
Reply
0
0
12-19-2011, 07:02 PM
#42
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,478
Total Cats: 144
Just got home from work. Going to keep this short because I'm dying to take a hot shower. Today was ******* blistering cold where I was working and I smashed my pinky finger in the rebar cutter. Thankfully no more than a bruised fingernail, but the cold made it throb like a bitch all day. lol
Without reading too much of whats been posted since the original post I read, this is what I'm disagreeing with.
You honestly believe that "government built" roads would be any better than private sector built roads? I mean really. What makes you think that a bunch suits in hardhats that know next to NOTHING about construction, handing over a check to some union workers that milk that job for every penny (and it was overpaid to begin with!) will produce a "better" job? Or better yet, what makes you think a private sector business couldn't do just as good of a job?
Government jobs ALWAYS overpay. Always. Sometimes the labor being billed wasn't even produced either! Its such a bullshit system that's in place and I hope to one day be a part of changing it actually.
I've worked hand and hand next to many different union trades and all of them have been 100% lacking in every department. All the private (most are family owned) sector contractors have such a different work moral and quality they bring to the table. Jobs are done faster because they aren't being over billed! There's pride with private sector businesses. The list goes on and on.
I await your response.
Without reading too much of whats been posted since the original post I read, this is what I'm disagreeing with.
You honestly believe that "government built" roads would be any better than private sector built roads? I mean really. What makes you think that a bunch suits in hardhats that know next to NOTHING about construction, handing over a check to some union workers that milk that job for every penny (and it was overpaid to begin with!) will produce a "better" job? Or better yet, what makes you think a private sector business couldn't do just as good of a job?
Government jobs ALWAYS overpay. Always. Sometimes the labor being billed wasn't even produced either! Its such a bullshit system that's in place and I hope to one day be a part of changing it actually.
I've worked hand and hand next to many different union trades and all of them have been 100% lacking in every department. All the private (most are family owned) sector contractors have such a different work moral and quality they bring to the table. Jobs are done faster because they aren't being over billed! There's pride with private sector businesses. The list goes on and on.
I await your response.
The bush years of contracting out the job of war for example made war cost many times more than if direct enlisted men did the work but it sure made a lot of bush campaign contributors very wealthy on the tax payer dime.
Bob
Reply
0
0
12-19-2011, 07:05 PM
#43
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
See, this is what I don't understand. I don't disagree with your post, and don't understand what is contradictory in my post vs. yours.
My argument is that without the federal government behind them, they wouldn't exist in this post. Vis a vis, there is no argument about quality or being "better", rather, that there would have been little private-sector investment behind them without federal funds.
My argument is that without the federal government behind them, they wouldn't exist in this post. Vis a vis, there is no argument about quality or being "better", rather, that there would have been little private-sector investment behind them without federal funds.
Reply
0
0
12-19-2011, 09:25 PM
#44
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
As an example, even with the heavy regulations it has, there are numerous issues within the medical system. Data leaks, patients dying due to physician fuckups, surgeons performing the wrong surgery are just a few examples off the top of my head. When you add in (potentially) no testing of drugs and the further implications, that scares me.
"If gov't didn't do it, it wouldn't get done"
in this case
"If gov't quit regulating drugs, there would be no regulation"
There are numerous private certification and regulatory agencies. They perform a service and compete in a marketplace. They compete for customers. They guard their reputations. If their reputations among consumers were lost, they'd have no business. Some examples of such agencies are ISO, TUV, VDE, UL, and EN. Some stuff they certify are electrical appliances, wheels, and scuba equipment. All are potentially lethal. Most importantly, they *compete*. They strive for accurate, quick test procedures at reasonable cost, and open-ness. Their test methodologies and results are kept public. If any one of them turn corrupt, they will lose customers long term.
Picture this. No FDA. Several of above type of agencies do drug testing services the pharmaceutical cos pay for. When you go to a doc and he chooses a drug for you, he looks thru the list and looks at which agencies tested what drugs, and what their test results are. Doc and you make an informed choice based on said agency test results. Pharmacists can do the same thing with you.
What you get is greatly reduced corruption, quicker testing, and reduced testing costs, which translate to lower drug prices, and reduced time to market.
No BS like what happened to me - my favorite 40-cent migraine med (Midrin) got killed by the FDA because they suddenly said "all drugs approved before 1960 have to undergo efficacy testing". So now I have to use a $30 drug in its place.
Reply
0
0
12-19-2011, 09:56 PM
#45
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
You invoke a very common myth:
"If gov't didn't do it, it wouldn't get done"
in this case
"If gov't quit regulating drugs, there would be no regulation"
There are numerous private certification and regulatory agencies. They perform a service and compete in a marketplace. They compete for customers. They guard their reputations. If their reputations among consumers were lost, they'd have no business. Some examples of such agencies are ISO, TUV, VDE, UL, and EN. Some stuff they certify are electrical appliances, wheels, and scuba equipment. All are potentially lethal. Most importantly, they *compete*. They strive for accurate, quick test procedures at reasonable cost, and open-ness. Their test methodologies and results are kept public. If any one of them turn corrupt, they will lose customers long term.
Picture this. No FDA. Several of above type of agencies do drug testing services the pharmaceutical cos pay for. When you go to a doc and he chooses a drug for you, he looks thru the list and looks at which agencies tested what drugs, and what their test results are. Doc and you make an informed choice based on said agency test results. Pharmacists can do the same thing with you.
What you get is greatly reduced corruption, quicker testing, and reduced testing costs, which translate to lower drug prices, and reduced time to market.
No BS like what happened to me - my favorite 40-cent migraine med (Midrin) got killed by the FDA because they suddenly said "all drugs approved before 1960 have to undergo efficacy testing". So now I have to use a $30 drug in its place.
"If gov't didn't do it, it wouldn't get done"
in this case
"If gov't quit regulating drugs, there would be no regulation"
There are numerous private certification and regulatory agencies. They perform a service and compete in a marketplace. They compete for customers. They guard their reputations. If their reputations among consumers were lost, they'd have no business. Some examples of such agencies are ISO, TUV, VDE, UL, and EN. Some stuff they certify are electrical appliances, wheels, and scuba equipment. All are potentially lethal. Most importantly, they *compete*. They strive for accurate, quick test procedures at reasonable cost, and open-ness. Their test methodologies and results are kept public. If any one of them turn corrupt, they will lose customers long term.
Picture this. No FDA. Several of above type of agencies do drug testing services the pharmaceutical cos pay for. When you go to a doc and he chooses a drug for you, he looks thru the list and looks at which agencies tested what drugs, and what their test results are. Doc and you make an informed choice based on said agency test results. Pharmacists can do the same thing with you.
What you get is greatly reduced corruption, quicker testing, and reduced testing costs, which translate to lower drug prices, and reduced time to market.
No BS like what happened to me - my favorite 40-cent migraine med (Midrin) got killed by the FDA because they suddenly said "all drugs approved before 1960 have to undergo efficacy testing". So now I have to use a $30 drug in its place.
You'll have to pardon me for saying so, but I find it extremely hard to believe that the financial markets self-regulatory systems worked.
The difference? The financial markets were a lot larger. I say this for a reason: The ISO is starting to show visible wear at the seams over the past few years, including having some severely questionable votes and procedures related to things such as the ISO/IEC 29500 specification. I would posit that the larger a regulatory agency gets (Governmental, private, it does not matter) and the more power it wields, the more corruption and waste are inherently derived from it.
The problem with your counter-argument is private self-regulation works perfectly fine on a small scale (Scuba is a very small market), but we end up with the same problems once you reach extremely large regulatory agencies. You claim that you have "power over the regulatory body", but my experiences with the ISO are the exact opposite. If anything, we have far less power and control over the private regulatory body than the public regulatory agencies - even if you are a longtime member of it!
(Edit) Something just dawned on me, I should probably explain my experience here. ALSO, WARNING, OMGWTFLIBERALHITLERRANT
My first experience with politics was OMGWELFAREFRAUD! I wrote my congresscritter, and she sent me back a letter explaining how to report someone for fraud. I proceeded to report several people, and although I'm not claiming -my- report got them caught, they were convicted of it. To the person who mentioned a similar experience, I tip my hat to you. This was in 2002 or so. Since then, I've been involved with politics either directly or indirectly at both state and federal levels. This past week alone I've contacted my congresscritters on 3 seperate issues. And you know what? Instead of posting on an internet forum that X, Y, or Z is so terrible, awful, and the end of the world, I hope that I managed to incite change*. I've even been part of an effort to contact Congress/DOJ/FCC/etc. to nix the AT&T merger - and you know what? It worked. A lot of stuff I've been involved in has worked - but it requires people to be active, and have conversational intercourse with their congresscritter.
Believe it or not, you can effect change on both a state and federal level. State is not very difficult, and although you can get involved in fighting entrenched powers and what is best for them vs. what is best for the citizen, you can still win without a lot of difficulty if you just get enough constituents involved. Federal, however, is -very- hard, and requires a lot of people. You also have to have enough constituents be loud enough about it to overcome your federal congresscritter's love of corporation money. But do you know why?
Money Equals Votes**. In essence, a corporation holds the power to "fire" a congresscritter by denying them campaign funding. But what is even worse to a congresscritter is angry constituents - with a sufficient amount of them, very few will hold out for their corporate buddy. Granted, there's a few that still resist, but nonetheless...
Everything that worked with our political system, even as corrupted and fucked up as it was, was turned on it's ear with the ISO. I cannot begin to describe how bad the experiences were in trying to oppose the ISO/IEC 29500 specification. In one country's case, it received nearly unanimous votes against the specification from the voting members - and it still got approved via parliamentary measures. Not even in our political system do we see THAT level of clusterfuckery. And yet, the organization you hold up to be so great was incredibly insulated against any kind of change to address what went on. People were unable to even vote out the people behind the bullshit!
*: And thus, my motive behind posting is explained. I'm more interested in getting people to realize that the political absolutes and binary thinking they are taught aren't a good thing then advocating a specific ideology.
**: IMO, if I ever advocate a specific political ideology on a forum, it would be to advocate for true campaign finance reform. The ability to hire and fire people of their choosing puts far too much power in the hands of a few small special interests and corporations.
Last edited by blaen99; 12-19-2011 at 11:30 PM.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 02:34 AM
#46
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,420
Total Cats: 84
In my earlier example, I was NOT talking about "self regulation" (which does not exist). I was talking about competing regulatory agencies. Competing market interests produce regulation.. Get it out of your head that regulation can only be accomplished by gov't.
The ISO is starting to show visible wear at the seams over the past few years, including having some severely questionable votes and procedures related to things such as the ISO/IEC 29500 specification. I would posit that the larger a regulatory agency gets (Governmental, private, it does not matter) and the more power it wields, the more corruption and waste are inherently derived from it.
The problem with your counter-argument is private self-regulation works perfectly fine on a small scale (Scuba is a very small market), but we end up with the same problems once you reach extremely large regulatory agencies. You claim that you have "power over the regulatory body", but my experiences with the ISO are the exact opposite. If anything, we have far less power and control over the private regulatory body
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 02:56 AM
#47
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,611
Total Cats: 25
There is little free market left in the financial industry. They feed off off of the cartel known as the Federal Reserve (the most powerful regulatory agency on earth, designed by 7 Banksters in 1910). They effectively borrow money at very low rates and then leverage them at high ratios and make tons of money. And then when the inherent risk bites them in the ***, the Federal Reserve bails them out. In a free market, there would be no gov't-granted monopoly on the currency. There would be no gov't protected central bank cartel. And failed institutions wouldn't get bailed out. It is this threat of failure that would prevent them from taking highly leveraged risks.
In my earlier example, I was NOT talking about "self regulation" (which does not exist). I was talking about competing regulatory agencies. Competing market interests produce regulation.. Get it out of your head that regulation can only be accomplished by gov't.
In my earlier example, I was NOT talking about "self regulation" (which does not exist). I was talking about competing regulatory agencies. Competing market interests produce regulation.. Get it out of your head that regulation can only be accomplished by gov't.
As for the rest, I'm going to try to explain this one more time, we'll see if it works. What you are advocating, at least if I understand it correctly, already exists.
As I've said before, these are third world countries. You can move to one right now that has exactly what you are advocating. Why are they stuck where they are? Why aren't they coming screaming onto the scene as every business abandons the US and other first world countries for better opportunities/less taxes/etc. etc.?
This is the problem I have with the "no government" argument of binary thinking. Countries like this exist - but no one wants to move to them, and no companies take root there* even though they exist. Companies don't even have to be regulated at all in them, taxed at all or they can establish competing regulatory agencies if it is of competitive benefit. There is a huge difference between limited government, federal government, and no government systems - with only the final one purely having no or self-regulation. And yes, I've heard the Ryan-and-authoritarian-corparatist-think-tank-blather on how their version of government is "limited" government - it's not. If anything, it should scare the **** out of people that it can be taken as seriously as, say...Obama's stimulus. Both are equally crazy, and should have been laughed out of government instead of where we are today.
I don't think you can sanely argue that no government is the answer. As an example, I find the idea of a private sector ran judicial system insane and laughable - and I certainly hope you do as well.
Granted, perhaps you don't. But if you don't think the idea of a privately ran judicial system is insanity, please. Explain in detail why you think this. However, if you sincerely believe a private judicial system is better, I have one sincere question for you to answer yourself before you respond: Is it because you truly believe a private judicial system is best, or is it because you want to doggedly hold on to a political system and set of beliefs?
*: I'll grant you, manufacturing does take root, but I have yet to see a company move significantly to say...Vietnam or Somalia.
Last edited by blaen99; 12-20-2011 at 04:10 AM.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 08:37 AM
#48
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
but lol at saying they are a monopoly. govt is the only true monopoly.
edit: aw im so late to the game.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:11 AM
#49
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Trash Can Tickets In Queens
MYFOXNY.COM - A Queens man is very upset after trying to put his trash out for collection and ending up with a ticket.
He, and others, are getting snared in an enforcement of a law that few people even know exists.
The scrooge award goes to the New York City Sanitation Department for the $100 tickets.
Raymond Janson says he received the $100 fine for putting his garbage cans at the curb 30 minutes early.
"I can't say how incensed I am over this," Janson says. "Not only at the excessive amount, but the nature of the summons."
The Failure to Store Receptacle summons from the agent stated: "I did observe three 30 gallon plastic can(s) placed out on the public sidewalk on a non-collection day."
Janson says, "We've lived here 30 years and always put the garbage out Monday and Thursday for Tuesday and Friday pickup."
It is legal to put out the trash cans the day before pick-up but the time of the day matters. City sanitation rules say the cans can be put out no earlier than 4:00 p.m. from October 1st to April 1st.
Janson's ticket was written at 3:27 p.m.
"What, do they sit down the block waiting so they can go catch all of those criminals?" Janson asked.
He wasn't aware of the city ordinance and was upset that he didn't get a warning. He plans to fight his ticket.
"I know the city is looking for money but this is ridiculous," Jansen says. "With all of the things wrong with this city, this is what we crack down on! Hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizens putting out their garbage 39 minutes early!"
Fox 5 News has learned that a number of other Queens residents have also received $100 tickets for putting out the trash too early. A state senator is investigating the actions of the Sanitation Department.
A department spokesman told Fox 5 News that the law is intended to keep trash cans from blocking the sidewalks.
Last week, an elderly Brooklyn woman was ticketed for not having a lid on her trash cans. The woman says she doesn't even own trash cans and her son takes her trash from her home. She is fighting the $300 ticket.
MYFOXNY.COM - A Queens man is very upset after trying to put his trash out for collection and ending up with a ticket.
He, and others, are getting snared in an enforcement of a law that few people even know exists.
The scrooge award goes to the New York City Sanitation Department for the $100 tickets.
Raymond Janson says he received the $100 fine for putting his garbage cans at the curb 30 minutes early.
"I can't say how incensed I am over this," Janson says. "Not only at the excessive amount, but the nature of the summons."
The Failure to Store Receptacle summons from the agent stated: "I did observe three 30 gallon plastic can(s) placed out on the public sidewalk on a non-collection day."
Janson says, "We've lived here 30 years and always put the garbage out Monday and Thursday for Tuesday and Friday pickup."
It is legal to put out the trash cans the day before pick-up but the time of the day matters. City sanitation rules say the cans can be put out no earlier than 4:00 p.m. from October 1st to April 1st.
Janson's ticket was written at 3:27 p.m.
"What, do they sit down the block waiting so they can go catch all of those criminals?" Janson asked.
He wasn't aware of the city ordinance and was upset that he didn't get a warning. He plans to fight his ticket.
"I know the city is looking for money but this is ridiculous," Jansen says. "With all of the things wrong with this city, this is what we crack down on! Hard working, law abiding, tax paying citizens putting out their garbage 39 minutes early!"
Fox 5 News has learned that a number of other Queens residents have also received $100 tickets for putting out the trash too early. A state senator is investigating the actions of the Sanitation Department.
A department spokesman told Fox 5 News that the law is intended to keep trash cans from blocking the sidewalks.
Last week, an elderly Brooklyn woman was ticketed for not having a lid on her trash cans. The woman says she doesn't even own trash cans and her son takes her trash from her home. She is fighting the $300 ticket.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:14 AM
#50
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
New Orleans requires every tour guide to pass a history exam, undergo a drug test and pass an FBI criminal background check every two years merely for speaking. People who give tours without a license face fines up to $300 per occurrence and five months in jail.
City officials are currently breaking up tours led by guides that don’t have the government’s permission.
City officials are currently breaking up tours led by guides that don’t have the government’s permission.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:16 AM
#51
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Lisa Martinez was forced to shut down her businesses or face five years in prison. Her crime? Teeth whitening.
...
In 2008, Lisa opened Connecticut White Smile in the Crystal Mall in Waterford, Conn., where she sold an over-the-counter whitening product and provided a clean, comfortable place for customers to apply the product to their own teeth, just as they would at home.
As it turns out, teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls all across the country. People are so eager to use these services because they provide great results at a fraction of the cost that dentists charge.
As Lisa puts it:
In June, the Connecticut Dental Commission decided to clamp down on teeth whitening. The commission ruled that offering teeth-whitening services is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist.
...
In 2008, Lisa opened Connecticut White Smile in the Crystal Mall in Waterford, Conn., where she sold an over-the-counter whitening product and provided a clean, comfortable place for customers to apply the product to their own teeth, just as they would at home.
As it turns out, teeth-whitening services are popular and increasingly available at spas, salons and shopping malls all across the country. People are so eager to use these services because they provide great results at a fraction of the cost that dentists charge.
As Lisa puts it:
My customers loved my convenient location and affordable prices. Owning my own business gave me a flexible schedule that allowed me to spend more time with my family.
Unfortunately, as happens all too often, happy customers + happy entrepreneurs = unhappy special interests.In June, the Connecticut Dental Commission decided to clamp down on teeth whitening. The commission ruled that offering teeth-whitening services is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison or $25,000 in civil penalties for anyone but a licensed dentist.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:18 AM
#52
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
It’s just a piece of cotton thread.
And yet, in order to use that simple piece of thread in Arizona for the popular practice of removing unwanted facial hair, the state’s Board of Cosmetology demanded that highly skilled entrepreneurs sit through 600 hours of classroom instruction—with a price tag of up to $10,000.
And here’s the kicker: not one hour of instruction teaches anything about threading:
And yet, in order to use that simple piece of thread in Arizona for the popular practice of removing unwanted facial hair, the state’s Board of Cosmetology demanded that highly skilled entrepreneurs sit through 600 hours of classroom instruction—with a price tag of up to $10,000.
And here’s the kicker: not one hour of instruction teaches anything about threading:
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:20 AM
#53
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
The American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) represents less than 3 percent of all designers, but its members have designated themselves as spokespeople for the entire industry. ASID has spent over 30 years and millions of dollars lobbying from coast to coast for interior design licensing schemes. Not surprisingly, the schemes they propose would force all interior designers to have the exact same credentials as required for membership in ASID.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:24 AM
#54
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
There is chronic shortage of bone marrow donors in the United States. The sad reality is that cancer patients die every day as a result. More people would likely donate their bone marrow if we did one simple thing: compensate them.
A national nonprofit, MoreMarrowDonors.org, wants to offer $3,000 stipends to the most needed donors in the form of a mortgage payment, college scholarship, or gift to a charity of the donor’s choice.
But a federal law makes this common-sense approach a major felony.
Everyone involved (doctors, patients, donors, nurses, etc) could get five years in federal prison. The National Organ Transplant Act was created decades ago because Congress was concerned about kidney markets. Lawmakers specifically excluded from the law renewable cells like blood, ova, and sperm.
Bone marrow is simply immature blood cells, but it was – perhaps mistakenly – included in the ban along with solid organs like kidneys and lungs.
The Economist points out the absurdity of the law in a piece called, aptly, Save a Life and Get Five Years in Prison:
This year, 45,000 Americans will get leukemia and several thousand will be children. For many of them, a bone marrow transplant will be their only hope.
A national nonprofit, MoreMarrowDonors.org, wants to offer $3,000 stipends to the most needed donors in the form of a mortgage payment, college scholarship, or gift to a charity of the donor’s choice.
But a federal law makes this common-sense approach a major felony.
Everyone involved (doctors, patients, donors, nurses, etc) could get five years in federal prison. The National Organ Transplant Act was created decades ago because Congress was concerned about kidney markets. Lawmakers specifically excluded from the law renewable cells like blood, ova, and sperm.
Bone marrow is simply immature blood cells, but it was – perhaps mistakenly – included in the ban along with solid organs like kidneys and lungs.
The Economist points out the absurdity of the law in a piece called, aptly, Save a Life and Get Five Years in Prison:
[i]t is illegal–and punishable by up to five years in prison–to pay donors for their trouble and discomfort. This is a foolish law. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian group, argues that it is also unconstitutional.
The law is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee of the 5th Amendment. This says that the government can’t treat similar things differently or different things the same. In this case, the law treats bone marrow like solid organs and unlike renewable cells.This year, 45,000 Americans will get leukemia and several thousand will be children. For many of them, a bone marrow transplant will be their only hope.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:25 AM
#55
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Dale Smith has been cutting hair for over 50 years. The Oregon barber is well-known in his hometown for walk-in appointments and $8 cuts — at least, until he got shut down by bureaucrats from Oregon’s Board of Cosmetology.
Dale’s crime? He forgot to renew the barber license he earned 54 years ago.
The bureaucrats are saying that in order for Dale to return to work, he has to pass a 75-question examination, similar to the one he passed in 1957. Further, he has to demonstrate to their satisfaction that he still knows how to cut hair...
Dale’s crime? He forgot to renew the barber license he earned 54 years ago.
The bureaucrats are saying that in order for Dale to return to work, he has to pass a 75-question examination, similar to the one he passed in 1957. Further, he has to demonstrate to their satisfaction that he still knows how to cut hair...
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:27 AM
#56
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Kim Houghton decided after a successful, 20-year career in advertising that she wanted more. She wanted to realize her American Dream and become an entrepreneur in a business focused on dogs.
She had the gumption to quit her job and make her dream come true: Wag More Dogs is a high-end canine daycare located next to a popular dog park in Arlington, Virginia. Kim commissioned an outdoor mural on her wall that has cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints as a way to give something back to the park she’d frequented for years, and build up some good will for her new business.
The mural was a big hit. After all, who doesn’t like puppies? Things were smooth for a few months.
And then Arlington bureaucrats got involved.
Officials blocked Kim’s building permit and told her that she could not open unless she painted over the mural or covered it with a blue tarp.
Her crime?
Painting a piece of art that—in the eyes of government officials—had too strong a “relationship” to her business.
According to city bureaucrats, a mural that depicted something other than dogs would be fine. Turn those adorable puppies into fire-breathing dragons or flying pink unicorns and she’d be back in business.
But because Kim’s sign shows puppies, it’s illegal.
She had the gumption to quit her job and make her dream come true: Wag More Dogs is a high-end canine daycare located next to a popular dog park in Arlington, Virginia. Kim commissioned an outdoor mural on her wall that has cartoon dogs, bones and paw prints as a way to give something back to the park she’d frequented for years, and build up some good will for her new business.
The mural was a big hit. After all, who doesn’t like puppies? Things were smooth for a few months.
And then Arlington bureaucrats got involved.
Officials blocked Kim’s building permit and told her that she could not open unless she painted over the mural or covered it with a blue tarp.
Her crime?
Painting a piece of art that—in the eyes of government officials—had too strong a “relationship” to her business.
According to city bureaucrats, a mural that depicted something other than dogs would be fine. Turn those adorable puppies into fire-breathing dragons or flying pink unicorns and she’d be back in business.
But because Kim’s sign shows puppies, it’s illegal.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:30 AM
#57
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Two years ago IJ teamed up with three Philadelphia tour guides to file a major First Amendment lawsuit seeking to vindicate the freedom to speak in Philadelphia.
Ann Boulais, Mike Tait and Josh Silver sued because officials passed a law making it illegal for anyone like them to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—that is, getting the government’s permission to speak.
The case immediately sparked nationwide interest. Robert McNamara, the First Amendment expert who filed the case, appeared on shows like All Things Considered and Marketplace to point out that the Constitution protects our right to communicate for a living, whether we are speaking out as bloggers, journalists, stand-up comedians or tour guides.
The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page feature:
Ann Boulais, Mike Tait and Josh Silver sued because officials passed a law making it illegal for anyone like them to give a tour of much of the city’s downtown area without first passing a test and obtaining a government license—that is, getting the government’s permission to speak.
The case immediately sparked nationwide interest. Robert McNamara, the First Amendment expert who filed the case, appeared on shows like All Things Considered and Marketplace to point out that the Constitution protects our right to communicate for a living, whether we are speaking out as bloggers, journalists, stand-up comedians or tour guides.
The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page feature:
Feeling tyrannized, Ms. [Ann] Boulais and two fellow guides summoned the constitution’s protections by suing the city in Philadelphia Federal court. The history test, they claimed, breached the Bill of Rights — a set of rules, as any good guide should know, that took effect while Congress sat here at 6th and Chestnut streets, on Dec. 15, 1791.
Of course, the guides are quick to point out that officials are violating fundamental American liberties in the very place those liberties were first enshrined in our Constitution.
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 09:36 AM
#58
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
Let’s say you have a knack for cutting hair. If you live in Florida, guess how many hours of government-mandated instruction you’d be forced to sit through before you can become a barber?
1,200.
That’s right, well over a thousand hours. Plus, you’d have to pay thousands of dollars to cover the cost of your classes and pass a written exam. Only then will the government give you a license—that is, permission to cut hair.
Now what happens if you’re already a successful barber but didn’t have a chance to stop working and jump through all the hoops needed to get that license?
Armed government agents could raid your business and handcuff you in front of your clients...
1,200.
That’s right, well over a thousand hours. Plus, you’d have to pay thousands of dollars to cover the cost of your classes and pass a written exam. Only then will the government give you a license—that is, permission to cut hair.
Now what happens if you’re already a successful barber but didn’t have a chance to stop working and jump through all the hoops needed to get that license?
Armed government agents could raid your business and handcuff you in front of your clients...
Reply
0
0
12-20-2011, 10:16 AM
#60
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Direct government jobs pay employees directly. Contracted out government jobs pay some asshat who thinks he is more important than he really is so he can make a healthy profit, concentrate where the wealth goes to enable lobbying buying political favors while he underpays and undercompensates the people working for him that he is collecting profit from their productivity.
The bush years of contracting out the job of war for example made war cost many times more than if direct enlisted men did the work but it sure made a lot of bush campaign contributors very wealthy on the tax payer dime.
Bob
The bush years of contracting out the job of war for example made war cost many times more than if direct enlisted men did the work but it sure made a lot of bush campaign contributors very wealthy on the tax payer dime.
Bob
If the federal contracting officer had the ability to come down and slap the hand of the offender, this would go away. However, the government's MO is to award the funds, then at the end of the contract, after the A133 audit, see if there is enough fraud to warrant an investigation. I can't tell you what that minim dollar figure is, but it's above $400,000.00. Basically, what I'm saying is that if you steal/scam/cheat less than $400,000 of tax funds, you won't be prosecuted or even investigated.
In the Bush era, a few choice contractors scored cash, but in my experience the work was completed. Under this administration the focus is providing funds to a select group of people
Last edited by hustler; 12-20-2011 at 10:38 AM.
Reply
0
0
