Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEFICIT: Government spending is the problem

Letter by Jim Bjorkman, Puyallup on Oct. 27, 2011 at 10:44 am with 65 Comments »
October 27, 2011 11:40 am

At the end of the Clinton era, federal tax revenues were $1.991 trillion. At the end of the Bush era in 2008, federal tax revenues were $2.524 trillion, an increase $533 billion or 27 percent.

Spending at the end of the Clinton era was $1.862 trillion. At the end of 2008, spending was $2.982 trillion, an increase of $1.120 trillion or 60 percent. Since 2008, spending has increased another $836 billion or 28 percent more.

From the actual numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, our problem is not revenues, it is spending. Yet all we hear is that we do not pay enough in taxes.

Now our politicians want to spend another $447 billion to create jobs. If this $447 billion will create millions of jobs, why has the increase in spending since 2001 of $1.956 trillion not created jobs?

Can anyone say Greece?

Leave a comment Comments → 65
  1. LarryFine says:

    Greece is the word…

  2. The letter is so devoid of knowledge it is difficult to know where to begin. The conclusion, “why has the increase in spending since 2001 of $1.956 trillion not created jobs?” is false.

    Some spending beginning in 2008 was done following a partial Keynesian model to prevent a total over-the-cliff failure of the US economy. Some jobs were saved, but the runaway train of the recession was not going to be stopped by too small deficit spending amounts. The republicans have stood in the way of progress the entire time and for an example of spending for which there was no emergency and which was not paid for, one only has to look at Bush’s drug legislation and his tax cuts for the wealthy.
    Next time do a little research before you send in a letter that makes you look uninformed.

  3. Actually publico, what the writer presented was a series of facts. You can yourself, look up the numbers and fact check them if you like.

    Revenue from 2000 to 2008 increased 27%
    Spending from 2000 to 2008 increased 60%
    Since 2008, we can add 28% more to the 2008 number
    Revenues went up… spending went up more… lots more

    Valid conclusion – we have a spending problem
    Valid observation – we compounded that spending problem by spending at a higher rate even when tax revunue could not support it…

    Not Fact
    a “partial Keynesian model” – did they really follow a Keynesian, or any model for that matter and just said ‘I won, we got the purse strings, lets spend, spend, spend’

    Some jobs were saved… – how do you measure that?

    Republians in the way – They were nothing more that speed bumps to the $1.2+ trillion dollar defict spending that occured three years running… please…

    Bush – need to blame the past administration… check!

    Tax Cuts – can’t forget to blame the tax cuts too… check!

    wealthy… – got to get those demon spawn in there too… check!

    research… uninformed… – he has got numbers, he cited the CBO… what you got…?

  4. “[The Seventh Quarterly report] was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that the stimulus…stimulus ‘has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.’

    In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.”


    A fifth grade class could have come up with a better plan.

  5. aislander says:

    Lefties on this forum have called Christianity a superstition: I would call it a religion.

    So…what is faith in Keynesian economics: superstition or religion?

    Economics has been called the dismal science. Keynesian economics is merely dismal…

  6. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Since Keynes is the favorite of the left, why not listen to some of his advice?

    “even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action, before you have had time to put other motives in their place. It may over-task your bureaucratic machine, which the traditional individualism of the United States and the old “spoils system” have left none too strong. And it will confuse the thought and aim of yourself and your administration ”

    ” I lay overwhelming emphasis on the increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure which is financed by Loans and not by taxing present incomes”

    “There are many obstacle to be patiently overcome, if waste, inefficiency and corruption are to be avoided.”


    So, reform should take a backseat, according to Keynes. Dodd-Frank, Obamacare.

    No new taxes on income.

    Waste, inefficiency…. Solyndra, Sunpower, etc.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    For those who have a few minutes, a decent take on Keynes-


    It takes more than dropping the name Keynes into a conversation about the economy to make a point valid. You do not further your cause or sound one bit smarter.

  8. velmak: the money spent also produced capital improvements which you conveniently left out. Your “each job cost” is a joke.
    I’ll not comment about the validity of the weekly standard’s view.
    concerned: I’m glad you looked up some quotes from Keynes with which you agree. I’ll try to get some more and see if you agree with those too.
    xx98: you missed the point that he has cherry picked data that only makes his point and leaves out data that would change the picture. Anyone can do that as velmak illustrated so well.

  9. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Publico- I look forward to your keynes quotes. Make sure you research his personal life too. Very interesting. Also, look at his political bias.

    I also look forward to your data to “change the picture”.

  10. I too look forward to your presention. If you can please include a general overview of the data that has been left out.

    Also you made comment on “capital improvement” do you have a percentage of the stimulus that is broken down showing the amount spent as a percentage on capital improvements.


  11. concerned: do you not understand the difference between “deficit spending” and unfunded spending which is not connected to ameliorating a recession such as the Bush drug program which I happen to like? It’s part of the data manipulation velmak is using.

  12. old_benjamin says:

    Publico, read the report I cited and tell me where the per job calculation is in error.

  13. “Now our politicians want to spend another $447 billion to create jobs. If this $447 billion will create millions of jobs, why has the increase in spending since 2001 of $1.956 trillion not created jobs?”

    In 2008 the total budget was $2.9 trillion, $1.788 trillion of which was mandatory spending such as interest on the national debt, medicare, SSI, welfare, etc. Discretionary spending totaled $1.114 trillion, 43% of which (481.4 billion ) went to the military, 13% (145 billion) went to the war on terror, and of the remaining 44% of discretionary spending (Education, Vets, HUD, Homeland Security, Justice, Space programs, Transportation, etc., none was allocated to specifically create jobs.

    So here’s your answer: There was no goal to create jobs through the increased spending that took place, and there were no jobs bills.

  14. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Pub- not one bit of data or one quote. I was hoping to learn something from you, my mistake.

    Cirrus- govt employment grew for a decade under deficit spending while the private sector did not. Post 2008, we saw the jobs bill you were looking for in the budget, and it did not make jobs. You conveniently ignore the stimulus packages under Bush, which did not help the private at the expense of govt growth.

    The federal govt can set conditions to encourage growth, but there is no magic lever they can pull to create private sector jobs, with even greater limits due to our huge debt.

  15. sigh……..what is clear is that folks on either “side” are intent upon keeping the same basic structure that got us into this mess in the first place.

    What happened, starting in the 70s, is that capital found ways to circumvent labor through such devices as off-shoring and replaced the buying power of well-paid laborers with credit. The world-wide economic crisis is a house built on (credit) cards by the 1% that has become too bloated for the structure to be able to hold up.

    Time for a paradigm shift. Time to get back to Capitalism as it was first meant to function.

    Excellent video:

  16. “Where’s the dabate & discussion” I believe was one the questions asked by the speaker. So, bb, you and others have been asked before what you propose for the solution and that has not lead anywhere.

    So let’s go with the premise that the current system does not work… Bush sucks, can Clinton and Obama suck too? The rich are the spawn of the devil, we all deserve health care, livable wages, chicken, pot to put it in… we are at a clean slate…

    What do you propose, begin the debate… no, begin the discussion…

  17. Government spending for defence department, corporate subsideis, and pork laden contracts are the major spending problems but the Rpots not only support and defend such spending but want increases.

  18. good job xring, presenting a case and providing positive constructive input the “discussion”

    also, sorry I wasn’t clearer when I wrote “…Bush sucks..” so by default “GOP sucks”.

    OK, for a PoP (point of process… Occupy talk, you guys like that?) add “GOP sucks eggs” as well as “Dems suck eggs” to the working premise list…

    fingers up, wiggling? consensus… moving on…

    To review…

    What do you propose, please begin the discussion…

    PS – for you non-occupiers, fingers up, wiggling is the general assembly way of judging consensus of a point under discussion. If you are not feeling very good about the issue nor proposed solution, fingers down, wiggling is the signal to use… fingers up… cool

    PSS – I using this from of discussion so the left side of the sandbox can feel inclusive and hopefully take the lead. If you guys like we can introduce the progressive stack… no… ok we’ll hold off on that.

  19. aislander says:

    xring: Straw man much?

  20. old_benjamin says:

    Publico, assume Donald Trump gave you a 100 million dollars and told you to create as many jobs as possible. You then go out and buy a airliner for $100 million. Trump asks you how many jumps you created. You answer “None, but I spent the $100 mill on capital investments.” Would he give you another $100 mill, or would he say “Yuh fied”?

    When the president promises “jobs,” that means people who are employed. “Capital investments” ain’t people. The tax payers get it. The excuse makers don’t.

  21. old_benjamin says:

    That should read:

    “Trump asks you how many jobs you created.”

  22. AlabamaGeorge says:

    does Trump have $100 million? After bankrupsy you’d think that he wouldn’t have that kind of capital

  23. old_benjamin says:

    “In its October 7, 2007 Forbes 400 issue, ‘Acreage Aces,’ Forbes valued Trump’s wealth at $3.0 billion. His wealth went down and then up in the 2000s recession, but according to Forbes, Trump’s wealth was valued at $2.7 billion in March 2011 though Trump claimed it was much more.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_trump

    Yeah, I think he does, but it’s a hypothetical that I posed. Substitute Warren Buffet if you like, but I think his response would be the same.

  24. First, let me say that using the Weekly Standard as a reliable source is in itself questionable particularly in the case presented earlier.
    The WS author reached conclusions that I could not find in the Quarterly report and velmak simply copied and pasted the stuff from the WS. The quarterly report does not separate out capital improvements from wages so the calculations used by the WS and repeated by velmak are inaccurate and are a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
    For example: NASHVILLE – Tennessee will receive $16.7 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for health center facility and equipment needs, which will increase access to health care for thousands of Tennesseans.
    That is part of the $666 billion that the WS and velmak allocated only to job creation. In addition the job creation range was 2.4 – 3.6 million and a middle number would be more appropriate.
    This is the summary from the Quarterly Report which the WS and velmak in his hurry to find fault ignored: The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.
    Some here would prefer to be known for their stupidity which does occasionally become obvious.

  25. AlabamaGeorge says:

    thanks for the depth, Publico

  26. AlabamaGeorge says:

    Only Donald Trump could be a party to multiple bankrupsies and have a billion dollars.

    and they wonder why people occupy Wall Street

    Of course that could be the same Trump people filling the wiki as were the ones that found irreputable proof that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii

  27. XX – tile of Letter “DEFICIT: Government spending is the problem” My comment just points out the obvious fact that Rpots spend just like Dems only on different programs.

    Aislander – not a straw man just your basic inability to see the truth.

  28. old_benjamin says:

    “As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been.”

    The “estimate” therefore is as much as 50% in error, even given the absence of knowledge of “what it otherwise would have been.”

    You, Publico, have a touching faith in government statisticians. I think I’ll stick with the WS. The fact remains that capital improvements are paid for by the tax payer, regardless of whatever mumbo-jumbo you choose to obscure the truth, and can rightly be considered a cost of creating jobs.

    I notice you chose not to respond to my hypothetical about Donald Trump.

    Oh, and, calling another poster “stupid” adds nothing to your argument. Rather, it reveals that you know it is weak. Thus, you attempt to win by insult. That only works in grade school, so confine it to that forum.

  29. old_benjamin says:

    AlabamaGeorge, Trump isn’t a Wall Street type. He’s a real estate developer on Fifth Ave in NYC, where he owns millions of square feet of property.

    His position re Obama’s birth certificate is irrelevant in this context, but, since you want to get tangential, explain to me why the Wall Street protestors didn’t pay George Soros a visit. He is known as “the Man Who Broke the Bank of England” and was convicted of insider trading in 2005. You have heard of him, haven’t you?

  30. Oh, and, calling another poster “stupid” adds nothing to your argument. Rather, it reveals that you know it is weak. Thus, you attempt to win by insult. That only works in grade school, so confine it to that forum.

    Such high-minded rhetoric…..I am assuming this only applies to the letters to the editor forum and not the Op/Ed section….right?

  31. xx – if your posts didn’t contain more than their fair share of snark, I would almost think that you were serious.

    But – here are a few proposals (I don’t claim to represent #ows, this is just my 2 cents:

    Audit the FED
    Re-regulate the banks
    Change tax law to reward the creation of jobs in America rather than the off-shoring of jobs.
    Remove the legal concept of personhood for corporate organization. (and yes, this includes Unions too)

  32. old_benjamin says:

    I prefer gentile discourse. Those that prefer invective will find that I respond in kind. No corner given and no apologies. It’s a hard, cruel world.

  33. old_benjamin says:

    Genteel for you purists. I have no bias against the House of David.

  34. Your Trump example was nonsense and exemplifies your total misunderstanding of capital improvements and jobs and how they are connected.
    If you had said that Trump gave me $100 million and told me to build an airplane to creat jobs, you would have convinced me that you knew what you were talking about.
    I don’t have any more time for this now. I need to fix the bronson rod in my hupmobile.

  35. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Publico has danced around the issue while stating the sky is blue.

    Of course if the fed govt spends billions they will hire a few people. And in the case of infrastructure, in theory the product will provide a service for the longterm.

    First off, our deficit spending for the last ten years was not exactly jobs oriented (yes, much went to stimulus, but Medicare prescriptions, war, etc). Unemployment remained low, but largely due to deficit spending on increased govt payrolls, not private sector employment. So, big deficit, most under Pelosi’s watch, with no private sector gain.

    Second, our latest massive jobs bill, the 800bil stimulus, did not leave us with the infrastructure paying dividends for decades to come. No Hoover Dam was built, no nuclear power plants to get us off of fossil fuels, etc. Sure, some potholes were filled, but after 800bil, why is another round of infrastructure spending needed so soon? Perhaps Obama and Pelosi should of listened to your economic hero Keynes and slowed down.

  36. old_benjamin says:

    I get it now, publico. You mean like when Solandra get $500 mill to build it’s plant. Yes, that capital investment will be around for decades as a source of jobs, just like those other solar panel plants that got government guaranteed loans.

    You say $275,000 is not an accurate measure of the cost of jobs created by ARRA. I expect that is so, given the failure of the Solandras. How would you figure that expenditure into the cost of jobs? Yeah, you would just pretend it didn’t exist.

    Perhaps it behoves the Obama administration to let the public know what the cost per job is. Then WS wouldn’t have to guess.

  37. took14theteam says:

    You know, those are the most words I have ever seen Publico post. But they still come across the same way…

    BHO’s trillion dollar spending did nothing for the economy, but it did pay back campaign contributors….

  38. aislander says:

    Of course it’s a straw man, xring. You set it up with a bunch of positions you alleged to be held by Republicans, and knocked it down with a lot of adolescent name calling…

  39. yeah, sure, whatever xring…

  40. bb – audit the Fed… OK, we need to get a clearer picture of the Fed and what it does for the US, how it helps/hurt the banking system. Transparency and clarity is what I am looking for before we decide the current role of the Fed in the banking system. Question I ask is are they accomplishing what their stated mission is?

    Regulate the banks – the banks are regulated. They are playing by a set of rules as currently mandated by law. They are just doing what a business does when it is regulated and fights to survive. Now, if you mean repeal the Graham-Leach bill (’99) then you might be on to soemthing here. Ironically I read this discussion from Rep Dingall “During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming “too big to fail.” Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.” hmm…

    Change tax law… ahh, how about simplyfy tax law. The main purpose of a tax is to collect revenue for the government. The current bloated tax code is full of “good intentions” gone bad. We do not want the government put in the postition of picking winners and losers. One – it is crony capitalism. two – they suck at it, Solyndra, any questions there? Simplyfy the tax code, no personal deductions, no tax credits (tax welfare). Decide on a tax on income or spending… not both.

    Corporate personhood – I need more on this issue. I don’t see a problem here.

    Take a look at the Peter Shriff videos going around. Their are two of them. He makes some good points, granted it is him outnumbered by a mob so the “conversation” is two sides yelling at one another but they both do a decent job of point-counterpoint. I walked away from the videos more convince that government sticks its nose into stuff when the market will self correct. It always has and always will… as long as the government doesn’t get more of a foot in the market.

  41. I’m seeing that the primary difference between me and my conservative friends on this board isn’t in the amount of skepticism we have about institutions being able to function efficiently and effectively – it is where that skepticism is placed.

    My perceptions is that my conservative friends tend to feel that, with the exception of war, Government does nothing well and that the Market does everything well if just left alone. There seems to be a trust in voting with one’s pocketbook but no trust in electoral government.

    I tend to feel that the Market, being amoral and guided entirely by profits, is amoral and guided entirely by profits. Capitalism does some things well but it is limited in its ability to provide for the greatest good. Market solutions work well for Market problems but not all problems are Market problems. By design and law, the Invisible Hand will do what is best for the stockholders. I feel that Government, like the Market, must have checks and balances that are rigorously maintained to guard against the depravity of those who are drawn to positions of power within each institution. And……those checks and balances have eroded for both institutions. There is reason for skepticism – about Government AND the Market.

  42. And yes, I was referring to Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999


    But the bank deregulation ball started rolling back in the Carter Administration, picked up steam (and popularity) during Reagan and really has accelerated ever since.

  43. “My perceptions is that my conservative friends tend to feel that, with the exception of war, Government does nothing well and that the Market does everything well if just left alone. There seems to be a trust in voting with one’s pocketbook but no trust in electoral government.”

    nothing… everything… trust… no trust…

    dude, really? do you not think a bridge to far in your perception of that part of the sandbox. leave your perceptions and come on over for a “no rhetoric, no pontificating discussion” that means we gotta leave the broad brushes behind.

    “There is reason for skepticism – about Government AND the Market.”

    There we agree ;)

  44. When the government makes a rule, regulation, program, whatever… it is very difficult if not impossible to reverse that rule, regulation, program, etc…

    When the market implements a product/service that is driven by a “pure profit motive”, the market will decide if that product/service is a great idea or not.

    ipod vs zune, betamax vs vhs, pc vs mac, droid vs iphone vs blackberry… (IT related I know). The market decided which of them would survive – ipod, vhs.

    The market also found a place for all to co-exist – droid and iphone, pc and Mac. These products are not “pure profit”, the designers actually believed that it would provide a great customer experience and provide a service.

    On the other end tell me how the Dodd-Frank bill was a good idea. Focusing on one thing, it requires a 50% reduction is the revenue stream of a bank by limiting the amount they could charge for a service.

    They now are considering charging a $5.00 monthly fee to use the card. You can attempt to make every argument that there is no correlation and the banks are just “greedy”… I don’t really care, I wasn’t charge a fee, the bill passed, I will now be charge a fee…

    Government costs you… for every regulation that is passed there is a business cost to compliance. That business cost is always, yep an absolute, always passed along to the consumer.

    In Information Technology the bean counters would come to us for help to determine the cost of compliance. We have a baseline for the cost of the widget, they create scenarios-we program them, and a new costs, always, yep the absolute again – always higher per widget.

    For government the attempt to change comes every two years at the least… for a business, the effect of the cost of the new widget will be almost immediate.

    You don’t have to make a choice between one or the other, just a choice in electing the people who will govern best by governing least. And the choice to frequent those establishments that provide the best product/service that you are willing to pay.

  45. betamax vs vhs

    In that case, the Invisible Hand really screwed up: Beta was a far superior product but Sony retained the copyright, thus reducing its widespread (and less expensive) distribution.

    The same tactic almost doomed Apple until they decided to diversify into IPods, IPhones, IPads and other ILifestyle products.

  46. “I feel that Government, like the Market, must have checks and balances that are rigorously maintained to guard against the depravity of those who are drawn to positions of power within each institution. And……those checks and balances have eroded for both institutions. There is reason for skepticism – about Government AND the Market. ”

    On the above, we agree bBoy, but like xx, I prefer that the superlatives and generalizations be eliminated in this area of discussion. There are plenty of conservatives who long for capitalism as it was meant to be.

  47. bingo bb – but I believe Sony is the one that screwed up…

    Sony decided that being the sole provider of betamax was a good idea. The VHS side of the VCR sandbox decided to license the VHS thingy… the rest is VCR history.

    The market made the decision. The business side of the house flooded the market with VHS. The consumer decided that though Betamax was visually superior, my wallet was making the decision and VHS it is…

    Notice also there was no tax credit for buying a betamax or some other type government nonsense. The governments decision to support Solyndra, for example, via a government loan was fundamentally poor analysis of the information provided. Keeping the politics out of it and look at the business analysis side of it, you will find that poor practices were employed. That being said, government should not put themselves in a position of funding stuff that simple analysis will tell them is a bad idea.

    Again I am not saying don’t fund projects. I am saying be smart with the taxpayers money when considering what projects to fund.

  48. Hard to compete with China when they are subsidizing solar….

  49. I’m amazed how this discussion went from government spending and the jobs bill to VHS vs. Betamax.

    One thing no one touched on is the Jobs bill is revenue neutral, in other words it is paid for so it does not add to the deficit.

  50. “Hard to compete with China when they are subsidizing solar….”

    It’s hard to compete with China for alot of reasons besides subsidizing solar… wages, regulation, taxes, labor force, etc…

    And sorry BB – though not a subsidy but a loan, its hard to compete with anybody when you throw away money on a crappy company… check that, companies, plural. Their are a few companies that have gone belly up since they were provided Dept of Energy sponsored/funded loans.

    crony capitalism with the government attempting to pick a winner…

  51. “One thing no one touched on is the Jobs bill is revenue neutral, in other words it is paid for so it does not add to the deficit.”

    No one is talking about it because no one believes that “revenue nuetral” is true…. sorry

  52. xx – the US government has been “subsidizing” many industries for a long time through various tax write-offs. There have been more than a few companies that have received cronyist benefits that have subsequently turned belly up. Consider housing and all the mortgages that were backed by Fannie and Freddie for which the home”owner” received tax deductions. That isn’t even considering Oil or Agribusiness…

    When someone calls up Solyndra I think, “blue dress”. Something to be trumpeted not because, in the total scheme of things, it is all that important but because they think they have a “gotcha” that will bring down the hated Obama. But, after you get rid of Obama you will replace him with someone(s) else who will do the same thing over and over again.

    P.S. – Just saw a video where the speaker, David Harvey, made the claim that the various supports for home ownership in the US were introduced in the 1930s based upon the theory that workers encumbered by massive debt were less likely to go on strike.

  53. bb – I’ve already said Bush is just a standard douchebag, I also believe that Clinton was a teflon douchebag, so far Obama is a teflon douchebag…

    to paraphrase (steal ;)) another post… subsidizing… so? what is your point here?

    Solyndra – bluntly do you agree or disagree with the premise that a simple analysis would have shown that the loan to Solyndra was a bad bet? I bring that up to show that the government is cabable of making a decent decision and two – politics over-rode that decision.

    To say that one brings this up as “Something to be trumpeted not because, in the total scheme of things, it is all that important but because they think they have a “gotcha” that will bring down the hated Obama.” is disingenious.

    After all…

    “But, as the twelve-step programs realize, acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step.”

    The loan to Solyndra (insert any friggin company with ties to any administration) IS a problem. A decision was made it was a bad loan, politics subsequently overrode that decision…

    Acknowledging that sir, is a first step to solving that problem…

  54. a first step to solving that problem…

    Only if a proposed solution is systemic rather aimed only at individuals.

  55. the loan – One administration said no. The numbers were analyze, the Return on Investment (or whatever measure they used) was below thresholds… they say NO.

    The system – the process for analysis and determination – worked in the case of that administration.

    the loan resurrected – the approving administration said yes in spite of the previous (notice keyword – previous) analysis saying it was a bad deal.

    the system still worked, the loan was still bad, nothing changed – the individuals in the approving administration abused that system and approved the loan against all measures.

    sometimes peole just plain olde suck at their jobs…

  56. “Only if a proposed solution is systemic rather aimed only at individuals.”

    Upon further review…

    Do you have an example of a systemic problem?

  57. political appointees for positions that require some knowledge and expertise (to say nothing about having a little integrity).

  58. How is the above a “systemic” problem?

  59. concernedtacoma7 says:

    BB- Like Marion Jones appointed to an ambassador position?


  60. concerned – my jaw needs surgery… it dropped out of my face.

    when I saw the name Marion Jones it did not click to the runner.

    Marion Jones??? the convicted felon… representing America… this falls under the catagory of “What the fornication are you guy s smoking, snorting, mainlining, something along those lines thinking?”

    bb – do you see this decision as a systemic issue or can I safely say that an individual or series of individuals have abused what is clearly defined for positions of this stature.

    The “system” says high standards, character, intergrity, etc…

    Individuals that we elected (andthen appointed) are choosing to abuse the system for their own means.

    Marion Jones…. I would laugh but that is too friggin pitiful.

  61. appointing Marion Jones as ambassador….heckuva a job there, Brownie!

    Oh wait….there isn’t anything wrong with the system…just because cronyism keeps happening from administration to administration….right?

  62. dude, one more time… you got anything to offer besides observations on how screwed up the system is?

    One more time, her appointment is more of an example of people who do not uphold their consitutional duties though it is clearly written the standards to which a person who represents the United States must adhere to.

    The system is not the problem, individuals we elect to office are…

  63. “Since you referred to another discussion…”

    Just because I made a reference doesn’t mean we have to move it over there…

  64. We are heading into a tomato vs tomato discussion…

    I don’t know where to go from here. I made a few points, provided a few examples and asks a few questions to which I believe I got no relevant response to.

    To have a conversation either make an attempt to answer the question or at least tell me it’s a strawman and why would help…

    You comment on the establishment on Policy is telling. It appears you see it as a way to control behavior and prevent abuses. I see Policy as a way to guide behavior to achieve an end result based on the vision and the mission of the organization.

    controlling vs guiding… two very different ways of doing business.

    In a nutshell, it is individuals working together to achieve a goal that develop policies to guide the organization. When the “system” overrides the individual then you have a dysfunctional organization that can be guided back by strong individuals once again working together to achieve a laudable goal… a purpose.

    We, the People, are the system.

  65. LarryFine says:

    “…just because cronyism keeps happening from administration to administration”

    But wait…

    Uh-oh!! Obama’s political appointees
    Submitted by LuckyCharm on November 6, 2008 – 7:14am.
    Looks like a few people are going to get a rude awakening from our new president-elect. It appears ambassadorships and other posts may not be for sale anymore! So if you bundled oodles of money for the Obama campaign, you’d better also have some kind of experience or qualification if you want a job as ambassador to France or something! Darn, that’s the one I was angling for (I got a 10 out of 10 for volunteer activity on his website)…. Sucks when you elect a guy who actually keeps his promises…. Guess I’ll start unpacking my bags now.



We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0