Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

Not my writing, but I DO remember. This is true.:

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert. Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So They created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Congress said, "We have had this command in operation for one Year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

NOW slowly, let it sink in.

Quietly, we go like sheep to slaughter.

Does anybody remember the reason given for the establishment of the DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY..... during the Carter Administration?

Anybody?

Anything?

No?

Didn't think so!

Bottom line. We've spent several hundred billion dollars in support of an agency...the reason for which not one person who reads this can remember!

Ready?? It was very simple...and at the time, everybody thought it very appropriate.

The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977, TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.

Hey, pretty efficient, huh???

AND NOW IT'S 2009 -- 32 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. THEY HAVE 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES; AND LOOK AT THE JOB THEY HAVE DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WAS I THINKING?" 32 years ago 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.

Ah, yes -- good ole bureaucracy.

AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

MMMMmmmm... Kool aid.

It's not happening lalalalalalalala

Joey

I would laugh but I'm watching it about to happen. We're in the people moving business and we're going to cut back on the people that do the actual people moving.

I'll bet sometimes you wish that you could stumble through life as blissfully ignorant of such things as 90% of the population as they joyously do their civic duty and vote for whichever party they are told represents them and their beliefs.

Honesty, morals, ethics, a conscience... a politician needs not these things.

The_Jed wrote: Honesty, morals, ethics, a conscience... a politician needs not these things.

And, frankly, they are a downright liability in most cases.

Wally wrote: I would laugh but I'm watching it about to happen. We're in the people moving business and we're going to cut back on the people that do the actual people moving.

I am in the same boat, Wally. I am in the entertainment business. My job is to help make sure people are entertained enough to keep dropping their change into the one arm bandits and throwing their chips on the table...

they are laying off the people responsible for the entertainment

The New York thruway is only going to be a toll road until it's paid off....

The social security system is not intended as a national ID card!!!

There are dozens of these - remember that next time you vote. Just because it sounds like a good idea doesn't mean it should be a law, otherwise this crap happens.

Income Tax is only for the rich. It was "sold" to the American people as the "Tax The Rich" Amendment.

I'm wondering just how many industries are getting slaughtered right now. I'm in finance so I see that and I see real estate, but it seems that just about everyone I bump into feels their industry is under attack.

SVreX wrote: AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

And hope they are run as well as the Veterans' Administration?

mel_horn wrote:

SVreX wrote: AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

And hope they are run as well as the Veterans' Administration?

When choosing between government and private you only need to consider the following:

Would you rather be screwed expertly or served ineptly.

Wally wrote: I would laugh but I'm watching it about to happen. We're in the people moving business and we're going to cut back on the people that do the actual people moving.

Ditto in my line of business...I'm pretty sure it's pandemic. Take a look at damn near all big business; there are widespread layoffs going on and they always start at the bottom and slowly work their way up. How does it make sense that the administration and management stays the same size while the people doing actual work shrinks? If 100 people manage 1000 people, then that 1000 is reduced to 500, don't you need 50 fewer people managing?

The world has gone mad, I'm quite sure of it.

Bryce

GlennS wrote:

mel_horn wrote:

SVreX wrote: AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

And hope they are run as well as the Veterans' Administration?

When choosing between government and private you only need to consider the following: Would you rather be screwed expertly or served ineptly.

If competitive choices are available, one can move to a different source. It's the appliaction of the adage of "screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me".

Which of your choices offers opportunity to select how one is screwed?

oldsaw wrote:

GlennS wrote:

mel_horn wrote:

SVreX wrote: AND, NOW, WE ARE GOING TO TURN THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT? HELLOOO! Anybody Home?

And hope they are run as well as the Veterans' Administration?

When choosing between government and private you only need to consider the following: Would you rather be screwed expertly or served ineptly.

If competitive choices are available, one can move to a different source. It's the appliaction of the adage of "screw me once, shame on you; screw me twice, shame on me". Which of your choices offers opportunity to select how one is screwed?

Kind of like how i had the choice to not have enron turn my power off, fake a energy crisis, then exponentially increase the price of energy?

edit: this all happened after california deregulated its energy industry.

Careful SVreX. Somebody may call you Glen Beck.

Nashco wrote: Take a look at damn near all big business; there are widespread layoffs going on and they always start at the bottom and slowly work their way up. How does it make sense that the administration and management stays the same size while the people doing actual work shrinks? If 100 people manage 1000 people, then that 1000 is reduced to 500, don't you need 50 fewer people managing? Bryce

Thanks for making a point that I was going to. Its a feature of any large organization. I have seen more than one company I worked for thinking about adding executives while cutting worker bee's.

Hey, if you cut the number of workers, you're going to need more supervisors/executives to manage the existing workers so they can worker smarter (or harder, depending on your industry) and SAVE the company all kinds of money so you can give more bonuses out to the executives. It's just common sense. Good business principals.

Type Q wrote:

Nashco wrote: Take a look at damn near all big business; there are widespread layoffs going on and they always start at the bottom and slowly work their way up. How does it make sense that the administration and management stays the same size while the people doing actual work shrinks? If 100 people manage 1000 people, then that 1000 is reduced to 500, don't you need 50 fewer people managing? Bryce

Thanks for making a point that I was going to. Its a feature of any large organization. I have seen more than one company I worked for thinking about adding executives while cutting worker bee's.

Exactly.... So I'm going to become an executive and I suggest you do the same.

In response to Hess

^----- This guy right here. Hes making a lot of sense right now. Its his outside of the box thinking that shows hes got what it takes to make it as an upper level manager.

GlennS wrote: Kind of like how i had the choice to not have enron turn my power off, fake a energy crisis, then exponentially increase the price of energy? edit: this all happened after california deregulated its energy industry.

Your anger is understood. But it was California's gubmint that ultimately caused the problem. Gov's Wilson and Gray were totally inept in their efforts to supply reliable energy to their constituents.

Was it not gubmint that mandated artificially low energy prices?

GlennS wrote: In response to Hess ^----- This guy right here. Hes making a lot of sense right now. Its his outside of the box thinking that shows hes got what it takes to make it as an upper level manager.

YAY for me.

oldsaw wrote: Your anger is understood. But it was California's gubmint that ultimately caused the problem. Gov's Wilson and Gray were totally inept in their efforts to supply reliable energy to their constituents. Was it not gubmint that mandated artificially low energy prices?

The government (including the Feds that looked the other way) may have started the problem by letting Enron do whatever it wanted but Enron was not required to royally screw the consumer, that was Enrons choice.

Yet another example of the government being required to make rules to keep people (companies) from doing things that are clearly absurd.

aircooled wrote: The government (including the Feds that looked the other way) may have started the problem by letting Enron do whatever it wanted but Enron was not required to royally screw the consumer, that was Enrons choice. Yet another example of the government being required to make rules to keep people (companies) from doing things that are clearly absurd.

If government had made the dedicated effort to actually enforce the laws it enacted, the absurdity may not exist. Instead, we get more laws and regulations instead of addressing the original bad legislation.

Certainly, but any law that effectively says "do not create fake emergencies and shortages to drive prices up wildly", sounds a bit like "do not stick your fingers in the moving gears"