Well there goes a Special Retirement Class..

[skiehawk11]

ArrieS,

Proof? The very aspect of how the government was setup. Three distinctly different branches. The checks and balances and redundancy measures. If you view the government as a system and apply system engineering principles, it's clear that the system is designed with many redundancies and checks to ensure that there can be no over reach.

I think needing a quote from a Founder or some other historical figure is a rather lazy way to ask for proof.

Now, in terms of everyday operations, there are definitely some area where there are efficient operations and others that aren't efficient. There's a whole host of reasons why such as the legal/regulatory framework behind a certain function, the leadership of those functions, the competency of the team, and the tools utilized or available to perform certain functions.

I think we all need to understand that broad statements lack substance (for the most part). The world isn't black and white. It's complex. Finding one statement or piece of evidence doesn't support or not support a certain view. It's an endless argument where both sides will find snapshots throughout history that support their opinion/ideology. It's a pointless endeavor to discuss such topics with individuals that are not willing to expand their view.

[ArrieS]

Proof? The very aspect of how the government was setup. Three distinctly different branches. The checks and balances and redundancy measures. If you view the government as a system and apply system engineering principles, it's clear that the system is designed with many redundancies and checks to ensure that there can be no overreach.

This does not imply a purposely designed Government to be inefficient.

Illogical, systems designed for performance can also have checks and balances. Your argument implies that because a race car may have a limiter on it, it, therefore, cannot be efficient. Or a nuclear reactor is inefficient because redundancies are designed to ensure continued operation or safety is something fails.

It would seem to me that redundancy when designed well ensure efficient operation. Such as having a Vice President, or a succession plan that ensures if both of them are dead or incapacitated the role of President can be assumed.

Your argument does not in any way imply that the Government wasn't designed to be efficient within each of the branches authority.

[skiehawk11]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some would view what you just said as inefficient. It's really about an individuals perspective which makes it subjective.

[ArrieS]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some would view what you just said as inefficient. It's really about an individuals perspective which makes it subjective.

Some would view your comment as petty.

4. The U.S. government was designed to be inefficient from the start.

If you want to take the weak argument out about it being subjective I suggest never stating it as a fact again. Facts can be proven.

[skiehawk11]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some would view what you just said as inefficient. It's really about an individuals perspective which makes it subjective.

Some would view your comment as petty.

4. The U.S. government was designed to be inefficient from the start.

If you want to take the weak argument out about it being subjective I suggest never stating it as a fact again. Facts can be proven.

That's your opinion and therefore subjective.

[gclapper]

I like peanut butter......

Made me a peanut butter and grape jelly sandwich for lunch. Was very good!

[AlpineTSP]

Well this thread has really evolved.

[evilanne]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some would view what you just said as inefficient. It's really about an individuals perspective which makes it subjective.

I blame Government Inefficiency on Congress. Irregardless of how the system was set up, it has changed, expanded and grown bigger than any of the founding fathers could have ever imagined.

[Aitrus]

Well said, evilanne!

[ArrieS]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some would view what you just said as inefficient. It's really about an individuals perspective which makes it subjective.

Some would view your comment as petty.

4. The U.S. government was designed to be inefficient from the start.

If you want to take the weak argument out about it being subjective I suggest never stating it as a fact again. Facts can be proven.

That's your opinion and therefore subjective.

No actually, facts are provable and not subjective. I suggest you look up the definition of the word fact.

[skiehawk11]

Proof? The very aspect of how the government was setup. Three distinctly different branches. The checks and balances and redundancy measures. If you view the government as a system and apply system engineering principles, it's clear that the system is designed with many redundancies and checks to ensure that there can be no overreach.

This does not imply a purposely designed Government to be inefficient.

Illogical, systems designed for performance can also have checks and balances. Your argument implies that because a race car may have a limiter on it, it, therefore, cannot be efficient. Or a nuclear reactor is inefficient because redundancies are designed to ensure continued operation or safety is something fails.

It would seem to me that redundancy when designed well ensure efficient operation. Such as having a Vice President, or a succession plan that ensures if both of them are dead or incapacitated the role of President can be assumed.

Your argument does not in any way imply that the Government wasn't designed to be efficient within each of the branches authority.

This is outside the scope of this thread, but if you want to continue the conversation I have no problem debating you in private messages.

[Dow30K]

No actually, facts are provable and not subjective. I suggest you look up the definition of the word fact.

Agree.

[SmokingGun]

I like peanut butter......

Made me a peanut butter and grape jelly sandwich for lunch. Was very good!

Me too.

[ArrieS]

Privatize it and the costs go up.

For anyone that cares, we just finished an exhaustive study of trying to get Private contractors converted into GS Employees.

Guess what, none said yes. Because they are all making over $100,000 a year excluding benefits that we are paying for, plus they're part of a union. So more money than Government Employees, the tax payer is paying for them, and still hard to fire.