Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by teamroper60

Hypocrisy at it's finest!   When Romney changes his mind, he is called a shape-shifter, flip-flopper and a liar.   When Obama does it, it's okay, after all, all politicians do it.........

You can't have it both ways.   Either it is okay for both or neither but it's not okay for one and not the other.

I've never called them flip-floppers.  I think I said as much in this thread if you'd read what I wrote.

No logical person stick to the same views when presented with opposing facts.  Perfect example is Romney and his Global Warming initiative when he was governor of Massachusetts.

You can find it here:  http://www.newamerica.net/files/MAClimateProtPlan0504.pdf

You'll notice it includes all the things he currently is against (including "cap and trade").  But he was for it then.  Why?  Because at the time he was led to believe that humans could somehow stop global warming.  He knows better now, so he's against it.

It's not a flip flop.  It's called learning.

[newtogolf]

I worked at the Pentagon, not too many people spoke about how great the health care was.  I know the nightmares I've read about at Walter Reed and Dawood, have you polled them to see what they think of their healthcare plan?

No, it's the right link you're just too biased to hear his explanation.  He said if he started from scratch he'd want single payer.  Since we're not and there's an entire private sector based infrastructure so we can't just switch over, but we need to TRANSITION over time (says that about 4-5 times).  What do you think he wants to TRANSITION to?

Originally Posted by dave67az

Cool, you have that choice.  Thanks to this plan, it's your OPTION.

If you think the military healthcare plan isn't good, you apparently don't know many people in the military.

Our patient satisfaction rates FAR exceed any civilian plan, so go ahead and keep your civilian health insurance provider that you're so happy with.  How much does that cost you again?

And yeah, that's exactly what I heard.  That there is absolutely NO way a single payer system can be implemented in a rapid manner.  Nothing about "here's how we get there" or anything of the sort.  Maybe you sent me the wrong link?

[dave67az]

I give up.  You people who hate Romney are going to do so no matter what anyone says because you are unable to learn.  You people who hate Obama are also unable to learn.  Instead of logical arguments, it's all about emotion...what you THINK will happen based on your own emotions, rather than being based on what anyone SAYS they want or what they plan to do.

Obama is going to implement Sharia law.  Romney is going to ban all abortions and make gay marriage illegal.

Problem is, most of us reasonable people know better.

Keep clinging to your paranoia.  Maybe you can build a bomb shelter in Montana and be happy there while the rest of us move on without you.

[newtogolf]

I'm giving you video of what Obama has said, he outright states he wants a single payer system and favors one.  He outlines a TRANSITION towards one, yet you dismiss it as paranoia.

If I'm holding a gun, and telling you I'm going to shoot, are you paranoid if you're scared or reacting to a real threat?

Is this how a critical thinker debates when his arguments can no longer be substaniated by the facts?  Sounds like spin control to me.  We're all crazy, you're the only one here with logic and reason.  You should give up if that's the best you can do.

Originally Posted by dave67az

I give up.  You people who hate Romney are going to do so no matter what anyone says because you are unable to learn.  You people who hate Obama are also unable to learn.  Instead of logical arguments, it's all about emotion...what you THINK will happen based on your own emotions, rather than being based on what anyone SAYS they want or what they plan to do.

Obama is going to implement Sharia law.  Romney is going to ban all abortions and make gay marriage illegal.

Problem is, most of us reasonable people know better.

Keep clinging to your paranoia.  Maybe you can build a bomb shelter in Montana and be happy there while the rest of us move on without you.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm giving you video of what Obama has said, he outright states he wants a single payer system and favors one.  He outlines a TRANSITION towards one, yet you dismiss it as paranoia.

If I'm holding a gun, and telling you I'm going to shoot, are you paranoid if you're scared or reacting to a real threat?

Is this how a critical thinker debates when his arguments can no longer be substaniated by the facts?  Sounds like spin control to me.  We're all crazy, you're the only one here with logic and reason.  You should give up if that's the best you can do.

I didn't say you were crazy.  Just unable to be objective (i.e. "learn" rather than "react").

You can't listen to anything from your opposition without reading into it (and this you have demonstrated).

I listen to what is SAID, not what I think they may mean in a worst case scenario.  That is paranoia.

So tell me, what is his outline for the transition, because I missed that.  Don't make me type the whole damn transcript of that video because I guarantee you he doesn't talk about any plan he has, only that WE may want something different in the future.  Not him.  WE.  Guess what...that's what a democracy does.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm giving you video of what Obama has said, he outright states he wants a single payer system and favors one.  He outlines a TRANSITION towards one, yet you dismiss it as paranoia.

If I'm holding a gun, and telling you I'm going to shoot, are you paranoid if you're scared or reacting to a real threat?

Is this how a critical thinker debates when his arguments can no longer be substaniated by the facts?  Sounds like spin control to me.  We're all crazy, you're the only one here with logic and reason.  You should give up if that's the best you can do.

I would say single payer is a possible avenue being considered. I can't intelligently speak if Obama has any other agenda, but I believe resolutely in the Obama Health Care plan and like any plan, you start with a plan, gather all of the data and make adjustments down the road. Singer payer could be a possibility, either way this was a big step, it doesn't make sense to cancel. It seems like partism ploy of automatically reverse opinion to incumbant. He has same plan in Mass??

I believe the plan is healthy for America as jobs in Health care are steady, health care is needed vs defense spending and it is good as a statement that our country will move forward with all the work that was put into the plan, whoever the replacement President will be.

[newtogolf]

Oh, you're the only person who's objective.  I'm not crazy, I'm paranoid?

1. Did you watch the first video and hear Obama say he favors single payer system and all the reasons why?
2. Did you watch the 2nd video and say he'd set up a single payer systemif he started from scratch, but it's not possible right now given the private sector infrastructure?  "For us to immediately TRANSITION from that", "making that TRANSITION in a rapid way very difficult", "let's build off of what we go we may decide over time there are other ways to provide care more effectively".

Are you suggesting that he's not talking about TRANSITIONing to single payer system since he was asked the question, "Why not a single payer system?"

Originally Posted by dave67az

I didn't say you were crazy.  Just unable to be objective (i.e. "learn" rather than "react").

You can't listen to anything from your opposition without reading into it (and this you have demonstrated).

I listen to what is SAID, not what I think they may mean in a worst case scenario.  That is paranoia.

[newtogolf]

Beyond defense, which today is even subcontracted by our government out to the private sector, the Federal government hasn't proven capable of managing anything better and more cost effectively than the private sector regardless of whether a republican or democrat was managing it.

The government can use a 500 gallon pot to make soup that feeds a lot of people but that doesn't mean it will taste better or cost less per person than the pot of soup I make on my stove.  My business deals with the Federal Government and GSA, the waste, fraud and abuse that I've seen is horrendous.  You'll never convince me the federal government can be as efficient as the private sector if you factor in all the real costs they incur in doing business.

Originally Posted by Joakim

I would say single payer is a possible avenue being considered. I can't intelligently speak if Obama has any other agenda, but I believe resolutely in the Obama Health Care plan and like any plan, you start with a plan, gather all of the data and make adjustments down the road. Singer payer could be a possibility, either way this was a big step, it doesn't make sense to cancel. It seems like partism ploy of automatically reverse opinion to incumbant. He has same plan in Mass??

I believe the plan is healthy for America as jobs in Health care are steady, health care is needed vs defense spending and it is good as a statement that our country will move forward with all the work that was put into the plan, whoever the replacement President will be.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Beyond defense, which today is even subcontracted by our government out to the private sector, the Federal government hasn't proven capable of managing anything better and more cost effectively than the private sector regardless of whether a republican or democrat was managing it.

The government can use a 500 gallon pot to make soup that feeds a lot of people but that doesn't mean it will taste better or cost less per person than the pot of soup I make on my stove.  My business deals with the Federal Government and GSA, the waste, fraud and abuse that I've seen is horrendous.  You'll never convince me the federal government can be as efficient as the private sector if you factor in all the real costs they incur in doing business.

I lived very well off of the Federal Government, GSA, Navy and DOD. I know the waste. Health care vs Defense, I choose Heath care. This was just a big negative to me for Romney consideration.

[dave67az]

I'm not going to do a complete transcript.

But this article has enough of it word for word.

Not a single mention about a plan to transition us to a single payer system.

Not a single mention of any knowledge he has that this is what we "need".

Because we already have a system in place, the plan he presented is what he wants.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/19/obama-touts-single-payer-system/

Here's a quote from the article:

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. “Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”

“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

So, tell me, if Obama thinks we need a single payers system and wants to get rid of insurance companies, why would he design a system that has universal insurance as it's foundation?  He only gets 4 more years, and he knows it.  If he wanted to do a single payer system, he would have already done it.  If he wanted Sharia law, he would have already implemented it.  If he wanted to eliminate the free market and have the government take over all the means of production, he would have already done it.

What you're fearing is impossible in the near future, probably in our lifetimes, and the ONLY way something like a single payer system would be implemented would be if we, the people, wanted it and we don't.  What we want is for uninsured patients to stop showing up at Emergency Rooms every time they want care because that's driving up healthcare costs for everyone.

"let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.”

And if it isn't efficient, and if it isn't effective, it will NEVER progress to a single payer system so what are you afraid of?

[dave67az]

A little something I wrote a while back about the "government vs privatization" subject.  You probably don't care.  I don't care that you don't care.  But just in case you forgot what the government does well...

----------

The rhetoric is reaching amazing volumes. The government can't do anything as well as private businesses. So here's a list of programs we should eliminate because clearly private businesses could do better, right? I mean, any of us who have deployed to the middle east have seen how more efficiently KBR managed things than when the military had our OWN people doing those things (before the "righ t-sizing"), right? I mean, it may have cost more with KBR, but didn't they do a better job than we did? No? Well, it must have been a fluke then, because SURELY there are other government agencies we can eliminate, like:

The FAA. Nevermind the fact that they're the ONLY reason we don't have more crashes with as much air traffic as we have these days.

The CDC. Surely a private CDC would be better because they'd be LESS apt to be influenced by money from drug companies, right?

School lunch programs. We may have to pay more, but at least our kids would eat healthier if it were up to a private company, right? And the kids who can't pay, well, at least we wouldn't have any overweight, poor kids.

National Park Service. We can just eliminate this one altogether, because nobody really likes hunting, fishing, camping, or trees anyway. Think of all the land it would open up to more industries.

Environmental Protection Agency. Because if faced with a decision that might save them a ton of money, companies can be trusted to dump waste products in a safe way and not pollute our waterways, right? Name one time that a company dumped toxic waste anywhere unsafe! Oh, okay, well name another! Yeah, but can you name 1,000?!! Without Googling?!! See?!! Private industry can police themselves!

Department of Motor Vehicles. Yeah, they're always screwing things up. Well, I'm sure they MUST be, because they're run by the government. I just can't remember any mistakes on my registration, ever. Someone must have some stories, though. And these frequent mistakes could be prevented if they were a private company. Besides, who needs a license. Knowing how bad the drivers who CAN pass the test are, I'm quite sure that having a lot of untrained drivers wouldn't be MORE dangerous would it? Great...now I'm going to have nightmares about that one.

Head Start. Just get rid of this one. If kids are having problems then their parents will just have to work harder and hire private tutors to get the kids up to speed. Why should we be forced to pay for some kids we don't even know to go to school anyway.

E911 commissions. That whole dialing-the-same-number-for-al l-emergencies was a stupid idea anyway. Just think of all the fridge magnet makers who lost money because we don't need to post the emergency numbers in the kitchen anymore. I'm quite sure if private companies managed it they wouldn't outsource it to India like they have every other form of phone support, right? I mean, they would NEVER do that just because it's cheaper, right?

University Medical Centers and Hospitals. Waste of money. Might as well throw in all the money we waste on medical research while we're at it. It's far better to rely on drug companies themselves to decide whether to work on a CURE or a TREATMENT of a disease, right? I'm sure they'll make the right decision, no matter how it impacts their bottom line. After all, drug companies only do medical research because they want to help people and profit has NOTHING to do with it, right?

Public Libraries. Nobody uses them anyway. Well, except for every time I went home and needed a free WiFi connection before my mom got high speed internet last year. I heard they have books, too, but who wants to rent books for free when you can just buy them and don't have to return them?

Public health services. People who can't afford immunizations should just do without, as far as I'm concerned. It's called survival of the fittest. Maybe we'll become a stronger country when the poor start dying out from diseases that the government has wasted time eliminating like smallpox and polio. And if we eliminate those pesky food inspectors, I'm QUITE certain that every restaurant owner will still do their part in making sure they don't have any unhealthy practices, right?

Interstate highways. Yeah, let's just turn them all into toll roads and let private companies manage them because we ALL know how fun it is to drive through Oklahoma. I mean, I don't mind stopping every 15 minutes to dig through my pockets for correct change or fighting with a vending machine that doesn't want my previously crumpled dollar bill.

FDIC. What a waste. Why do you need a guarantee that your deposits won't disappear if a banking crisis kicks off? Just trust the bank. They'll do the right thing. Private industry is more trustworthy than the government, remember?

FDA. We don't need any government bureaucrats keeping an eye on drug companies. There is NO way that a drug or food company would risk putting anything unhealthy in drugs or food, right?

NASA. Another waste. Just like those stupid earth-bound explorers who wasted their time sailing toward the "end of the world" several hundred years ago as though they'd find anything worthwhile. Florida? Really? I'll bet those guys were disappointed.

I could go ON and ON but this is ON enough. The point is, anyone who tries to tell me that the government can't do anything as well or better than private industry is on drugs (and not the FDA approved ones). I have a few decades of experience working for and dealing with several government agencies, and I watched as we outsourced many areas to civilians only to see the standards go downhill with every move. Rules disappeared. Jobs took longer and cost more to get done. So yeah, fact is the government does MANY things better than any private company could EVER do for the same cost.

[Mr. Desmond]

Apparently, the right blogosphere believes the President will have plenty of time for golf. So rest yee, merry gentlemen of the right, let nothing you dismay, remember, Mitt, your Savior, was born this November day, to save you all from Obama's power, when the leftists went astray, O tidings of less taxes and more defense, O comfort and joy, O tidings of health care to only the rich and employed....

From Andrew Sullivan, the noted leftist

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/the-reality-check-election.html

The narrative in the GOP blogosphere is of imminent triumph, even landslide. All the independents are surging toward Romney, the swing states are trending Romney, and the total failure of Obama's four years is so obvious you have to be a liar to believe that deficits have slightly declined on his watch, despite a collapse in revenues caused by the Great Recession. And so state after state is falling to Romney even as I type. Hinderaker - who still believes that George W Bush was a great president - sees one outlier poll in Pennsylvania as something that will be "sending chills down David Axelrod’s spine". It's one poll - and the only one that doesn't give Obama a clear edge. The poll of polls puts Pennsylvania as 50 percent Obama, 45 percent Romney, and it's been very stable. Minnesota? That's also got Hinderaker atwitter: he thinks both Minnesota and Pennsylvania could both "very possibly end up in the red column." All the polling suggests otherwise - but I guess they're all rigged.

Then there's Michael Barone's rather amazing forecast . Michael knows every inch of every district in a way few others do; he's deeply knowledgeable about the electoral process, and, his latest column predicts a Romney landslide:

Bottom line: Romney 315, Obama 223.

He gives Ohio to Romney on the following grounds:

Many polls anticipate a more Democratic electorate than in 2008. Early voting tells another story, and so does the registration decline in Cleveland's Cuyahoga County. In 2004, intensity among rural, small -town and evangelical voters, undetected by political reporters who don't mix in such circles, produced a narrow Bush victory. I see that happening again. Romney.

Does Michael remember a cynically placed gay marriage amendment in Ohio in 2004 that brought out the fundamentalists in droves? He also gives Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin and Iowa to Romney - which must mean a sudden enormous change in the polling is happening as we speak. 'Tis possible.

___

And last, here is the conservative speech writer, Peggy Noonan: There is no denying the Republicans have the passion now, the enthusiasm. The Democrats do not. Independents are breaking for Romney. And there’s the thing about the yard signs. In Florida a few weeks ago I saw Romney signs, not Obama ones. From Ohio I hear the same. From tony Northwest Washington, D.C., I hear the same.

Is it possible this whole thing is playing out before our eyes and we’re not really noticing because we’re too busy looking at data on paper instead of what’s in front of us? Maybe that’s the real distortion of the polls this year: They left us discounting the world around us.

____

Now, remember, don't drive and drive as you celebrate, and leave the guns at home.  They're safe ... again. But remember, Obama is on the links again. Watch your clubs. He might want to redistribute...

[newtogolf]

Dave, you're not reading my posts, I said Federal government, not government.  I also said, "the federal government can't be as efficient as the private sector if you factor in all the real costs they incur in doing business."  See this is where you not fully reading my posts is leading us into debate rather than agreement.

In some cases inefficiency has to be accepted, as you point out the FAA, CDC, FDIC and NASA are all programs that are best suited to run under federal domain because of the interstate nature of their departments and required coordination across states.

DMV runs okay as a state agency, but no where as efficient as private would run it.  Have you seen the people the DMV hires and their overall performance levels?  I do business with a number of DMV's, not an impressive group of workers.  As computers replace the need for them, we'll all be better off.

While the FAA runs okay as federally controlled, TSA is a mess that needs to be tossed out and either run by the states or private sector with federal government oversight.  SSA is a mess that no one even wants to look at.

FEMA is perfume on crap, as I've witnessed them in action first hand after Sandy.  Lots of great promises, all sounds good, but nothing is delivered.  Thus far the local National Guard and local police departments have done all the work.  No one here on Long Island is impressed with FEMA or their handling of the the hurricane damage or gas shortage.

EPA is horribly run, but belongs in the federal domain.  I don't want to go line item by line item.  Economies of scale don't work at every level.  Here's an example.

In the private sector I go out and buy, let's say pens based on the lowest price I can find, from anywhere I want.  If I sell pens, I can sell pens to anyone in the private sector that wishes to buy them.  Just go to a website or store and in less than 5 minutes you're done.

The federal government either has to have a GSA catalog set up of approved vendors or create a bid.  These vendors who wish to be included in the GSA schedule have to hire a lawyer or two who have to fill out a ton of documents and list all the details about every pen they wish to sell to the federal government and the government price to be approved for the catalog.  If it's not a GSA item, the ordering agency has to create a bid and have at least 3 vendors submit a proposal.  Someone has to review the proposals, validate the proposals meet the bid requirements and then award the bid and send a PO.

When the order comes in the vendor has to navigate a different nightmare government site depending on the agency that purchased the pens to submit an invoice.  If the site is navigated correctly and every detail entered perfectly they might get paid in 60 days.  On the government side there are contract officers, GSA admins, billing system admins, etc that all have to be involved in the purchase.  How is that more effecient and cost effective?

The beauty of our government is that we the people are supposed to have input on what level the federal government is involved in our lives.  The states were given power to manage most of what we need intrastate.  Healthcare can be managed intrastate, just as DMV, sales tax, school lunches, and education are today.  I don't want a large Federal government filled with the waste and abuse I see in every other federally managed service.

Quote:

A little something I wrote a while back about the "government vs privatization" subject.  You probably don't care.  I don't care that you don't care.  But just in case you forgot what the government does well...

----------

The rhetoric is reaching amazing volumes. The government can't do anything as well as private businesses. So here's a list of programs we should eliminate because clearly private businesses could do better, right? I mean, any of us who have deployed to the middle east have seen how more efficiently KBR managed things than when the military had our OWN people doing those things (before the "right-sizing"), right? I mean, it may have cost more with KBR, but didn't they do a better job than we did? No? Well, it must have been a fluke then, because SURELY there are other government agencies we can eliminate, like:

The FAA. Nevermind the fact that they're the ONLY reason we don't have more crashes with as much air traffic as we have these days.

The CDC. Surely a private CDC would be better because they'd be LESS apt to be influenced by money from drug companies, right?

School lunch programs. We may have to pay more, but at least our kids would eat healthier if it were up to a private company, right? And the kids who can't pay, well, at least we wouldn't have any overweight, poor kids.

National Park Service. We can just eliminate this one altogether, because nobody really likes hunting, fishing, camping, or trees anyway. Think of all the land it would open up to more industries.

Environmental Protection Agency. Because if faced with a decision that might save them a ton of money, companies can be trusted to dump waste products in a safe way and not pollute our waterways, right? Name one time that a company dumped toxic waste anywhere unsafe! Oh, okay, well name another! Yeah, but can you name 1,000?!! Without Googling?!! See?!! Private industry can police themselves!

Department of Motor Vehicles. Yeah, they're always screwing things up. Well, I'm sure they MUST be, because they're run by the government. I just can't remember any mistakes on my registration, ever. Someone must have some stories, though. And these frequent mistakes could be prevented if they were a private company. Besides, who needs a license. Knowing how bad the drivers who CAN pass the test are, I'm quite sure that having a lot of untrained drivers wouldn't be MORE dangerous would it? Great...now I'm going to have nightmares about that one.

Head Start. Just get rid of this one. If kids are having problems then their parents will just have to work harder and hire private tutors to get the kids up to speed. Why should we be forced to pay for some kids we don't even know to go to school anyway.

E911 commissions. That whole dialing-the-same-number-for-all-emergencies was a stupid idea anyway. Just think of all the fridge magnet makers who lost money because we don't need to post the emergency numbers in the kitchen anymore. I'm quite sure if private companies managed it they wouldn't outsource it to India like they have every other form of phone support, right? I mean, they would NEVER do that just because it's cheaper, right?

University Medical Centers and Hospitals. Waste of money. Might as well throw in all the money we waste on medical research while we're at it. It's far better to rely on drug companies themselves to decide whether to work on a CURE or a TREATMENT of a disease, right? I'm sure they'll make the right decision, no matter how it impacts their bottom line. After all, drug companies only do medical research because they want to help people and profit has NOTHING to do with it, right?

Public Libraries. Nobody uses them anyway. Well, except for every time I went home and needed a free WiFi connection before my mom got high speed internet last year. I heard they have books, too, but who wants to rent books for free when you can just buy them and don't have to return them?

Public health services. People who can't afford immunizations should just do without, as far as I'm concerned. It's called survival of the fittest. Maybe we'll become a stronger country when the poor start dying out from diseases that the government has wasted time eliminating like smallpox and polio. And if we eliminate those pesky food inspectors, I'm QUITE certain that every restaurant owner will still do their part in making sure they don't have any unhealthy practices, right?

Interstate highways. Yeah, let's just turn them all into toll roads and let private companies manage them because we ALL know how fun it is to drive through Oklahoma. I mean, I don't mind stopping every 15 minutes to dig through my pockets for correct change or fighting with a vending machine that doesn't want my previously crumpled dollar bill.

FDIC. What a waste. Why do you need a guarantee that your deposits won't disappear if a banking crisis kicks off? Just trust the bank. They'll do the right thing. Private industry is more trustworthy than the government, remember?

FDA. We don't need any government bureaucrats keeping an eye on drug companies. There is NO way that a drug or food company would risk putting anything unhealthy in drugs or food, right?

NASA. Another waste. Just like those stupid earth-bound explorers who wasted their time sailing toward the "end of the world" several hundred years ago as though they'd find anything worthwhile. Florida? Really? I'll bet those guys were disappointed.

I could go ON and ON but this is ON enough. The point is, anyone who tries to tell me that the government can't do anything as well or better than private industry is on drugs (and not the FDA approved ones). I have a few decades of experience working for and dealing with several government agencies, and I watched as we outsourced many areas to civilians only to see the standards go downhill with every move. Rules disappeared. Jobs took longer and cost more to get done. So yeah, fact is the government does MANY things better than any private company could EVER do for the same cost.

[newtogolf]

This could be the last time we'll have to fear socialism for at least four years (that's a joke - for those with poor reading comp skills or just don't know any better).  I hope all you paranoid, close minded, Obama-hating, non-learners get a chuckle out of this like I did.

http://thehayride.com/2012/10/awesome-steven-crowders-socialist-halloween/

[Joakim]

I'll take the bottom part.....

I've had 25 years experience dealing with this system. It's Materials Supply 101 just on a larger more competitive scale. See attached link.

http://scrambled.blinkweb.com/1/2010/07/getting-a-gsa-contract-for-dummies-b70fc/

It's not idea, but it works for them. There is some exasageration regarding the pens. They award contracts for supply and once implemented is not that difficult to manage.

I don't recall that many supplies that are needed when I'm visiting a Doctor.

Also, How is this going to change with Romney wanting to increase defense by 2 trillion (see below) building 3 more submarines and more aircraft carriers, they will be using the same GSA system. Just what we need, more Ships and Bombs. It increases low profit and temporary jobs that  expire once they are built or R&D.; This is the mentality that slammed our economy into this depression and it's just plain ignorant Federal Budget platform infusing temporary jobs against archaic equipment in a self admitted archaic system.

Being in this field would be great for me, but not for USA. I chose USA....

It really doesn't matter now, we will know in about 16 hours where our government is investing.

You stated....

The beauty of our government is that we the people are supposed to have input on what level the federal government is involved in our lives" Really??? Guess what, to late. The ObamaCare was already approved on from the President through Congress and the House and we have clogged up Legistrature for several years getting this approved. Now all of this work and the complete reversal of our Government hinges on a few hicks in Ohio.

Really, this is just insane, imature, asanine, asaten, asaeleven, etc... to have such a dramatic change of Government Policy in what appears as just a Non Partisam statement to get elected. Instead of a "Best interests of the United States oef America."

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/08/budget_crunched_the_facts_of_romney_s_proposed_2_trillion_defense_increase

Originally Posted by newtogolf

EPA is horribly run, but belongs in the federal domain.  I don't want to go line item by line item.  Economies of scale don't work at every level.  Here's an example.

In the private sector I go out and buy, let's say pens based on the lowest price I can find, from anywhere I want.  If I sell pens, I can sell pens to anyone in the private sector that wishes to buy them.  Just go to a website or store and in less than 5 minutes you're done.

The federal government either has to have a GSA catalog set up of approved vendors or create a bid.  These vendors who wish to be included in the GSA schedule have to hire a lawyer or two who have to fill out a ton of documents and list all the details about every pen they wish to sell to the federal government and the government price to be approved for the catalog.  If it's not a GSA item, the ordering agency has to create a bid and have at least 3 vendors submit a proposal.  Someone has to review the proposals, validate the proposals meet the bid requirements and then award the bid and send a PO.

When the order comes in the vendor has to navigate a different nightmare government site depending on the agency that purchased the pens to submit an invoice.  If the site is navigated correctly and every detail entered perfectly they might get paid in 60 days.  On the government side there are contract officers, GSA admins, billing system admins, etc that all have to be involved in the purchase.  How is that more effecient and cost effective?

The beauty of our government is that we the people are supposed to have input on what level the federal government is involved in our lives.  The states were given power to manage most of what we need intrastate.  Healthcare can be managed intrastate, just as DMV, sales tax, school lunches, and education are today.  I don't want a large Federal government filled with the waste and abuse I see in every other federally managed service.

Quote:

[David in FL]

This could be the last time we'll have to fear socialism for at least four years (that's a joke - for those with poor reading comp skills or just don't know any better).  I hope all you paranoid, close minded, Obama-hating, non-learners get a chuckle out of this like I did.  [URL=http://thehayride.com/2012/10/awesome-steven-crowders-socialist-halloween/]http://thehayride.com/2012/10/awesome-steven-crowders-socialist-halloween/[/URL]

Another group of "one percenters" heard from! :-D

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Another group of "one percenters" heard from!

Saw a version of that years ago. It's sad how a certain faction of the populace can equate candy with survival.

Because that's what we're talking about- kids being able to eat, Moms being able to have adequate housing for their kids. I don't think y'all realize the seriousness of the problem - and that millions of children go hungry each day -- in the USA.

The fact is redistribution is not new to the President, although the right wing would like everyone to believe that falsehood. We've redistributed through the tax system for over 70 years. The fact is no one called it redistribution when Reagan or Clinton raised the highest rates. But it's redistribution when a black man requests it. Wow.

Hey, but have your laughs while children go hungry and homeless.

[David in FL]

Saw a version of that years ago. It's sad how a certain faction of the populace can equate candy with survival. Because that's what we're talking about- kids being able to eat, Moms being able to have adequate housing for their kids. I don't think y'all realize the seriousness of the problem - and that millions of children go hungry each day -- in the USA. The fact is redistribution is not new to the President, although the right wing would like everyone to believe that falsehood. We've redistributed through the tax system for over 70 years. The fact is no one called it redistribution when Reagan or Clinton raised the highest rates. But it's redistribution when a black man requests it. Wow. Hey, but have your laughs while children go hungry and homeless.

Proof positive that the left has no sense of humor. ...and that when all else fails, anyone who disagrees is racist.