The Cellar - The proper role and scope of government

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The proper role and scope of government (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26074)

OK, add'em to the list !

Quote:

McCain, McConnell, Graham, Brewer, Bentley, Parnell, Bush, Jindal, Chistie, Kasich, Scott, Walker, McDonnelll, Palin, Cheney, Forbes, O'Donnell, Blakely, Owens, Army, Koch, Rove, Will... in 2012

None of them are running???
It'll be just like 2008 when the second best won. (Hillary)

2008 Me and my wife watching TV ... Hillary and Obama

That's when the fight started.:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 768221)

: I promise I won't do the color/size thing again.

Conformist Communist. HAAAAAAAAA! You run with the pack..... which ever way the wind blows....:p:

What is the proper role and scope of government?

Whatever the people vote for, is what.

I was arguing this with my (remaining) Libertarian friend; I said, friend, it's all well and good to try to get into office. But if only 10% of the people agree with your approaches, isn't it tyranny to put them into place, even if you are elected?

I suppose it depends, UT, on whether or not that 10% was solely responsible for making the election happen...through money and media influence. Or perhaps it more depends on whether the unpopular policies were touted when running or not. If we don't know what we're getting, how can we be truly electing a representative?

Government doings reify the things a society considers and generally agrees are necessary to do, but on which nobody's ever figured out how to turn a profit. Providing for the common defense is the most obvious example.

It connects with that other thing that should be said of the State: it is not your mother, it is not your father; the State is a weapon. Like a weapon, it is a tool suited to a certain spectrum of tasks, but not to others. Yet like a weapon in very truth, when it is needed nothing else will do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla (Post 770615)

Government doings reify the things a society
considers and generally agrees are necessary to do,
but on which nobody's ever figured out how to turn a profit.
Providing for the common defense is the most obvious example.
<snip>.

It's easy to agree with your first sentence,
but I don't think you want to hang your hat on the second.

Eisenhower recognized and told the US people something about that.
Regan ignored his remarks in striving for his 600-ship navy.
"Star wars" and "Haliburton" are a couple of the more current memes.
It was all about making $ and profits from the common defense.

I'm with you, Lamplighter. Private contractors are raking in money hand over fist. They're making a killing in more ways than one. During the Iraq War, there was one private contractor employee for every one American soldier. :eyebrow:

Lots of interesting stuff from the CBO. Here's a snip:

Quote:

CBO estimates that total spending by U.S. agencies and U.S.-funded contractors for private security services ranged between $6 billion and $10 billion over the 2003–2007 period. Between $3 billion and $4 billion of that spending was for obligations made directly by the U.S. government for private security services in Iraq.20 The government’s obligations for those services have amounted to roughly between $500 million and $1.2 billion annually since 2005. DoD, DoS, and USAID have awarded all of the U.S. government contracts for security services in Iraq.

Quote:

During the Iraq War, there was one private contractor employee for every one American soldier.

So? Do you think there were any political reasons for that?
Heck, I'd probably rather have an even higher ratio than that. They're probably cheaper and lets be honest, no one was really ever tallying the dead mercenary numbers in the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 770684)

The one to one ratio was 2 1/2 times that used in any other war. So W. and Cheney were giving out defense contracts left and right to their buddies.

And how has that changed in the last 2 1/2 years?

I don't think it has. Why would anybody want to step off the gravy train? What were we talking about, anyhow?

Obama doing the same thing Bush did. ;)

Google News puts up headlines and current links to the topic

Here are two articles on the same topic. Flip a coin to decide which you read first.
The articles are about the same length, so you may want to read the originals.
Then post your thoughts on the subject and/or the role of government.

Winona Daily News.com
Nov 6, 2011
Dr. Frank Bures
Imperfect medical tests still useful

Quote:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is a congressionally mandated,
independent panel of experts in primary medicine that reviews
evidence of effectiveness and develops recommendations for clinical preventive medicine.

The task force decided to recommend against screening for PSA in all healthy men
after a rigorous evidence review, concluding that there is moderate to high certainty
that the service has no benefit, or that the harms it may produce outweigh the benefits.
This is called a grade D recommendation. Grade C means the service is not routinely recommended.
Grades B and A are better, as expected.

The test originally was discovered and conceived as a tool to follow the activity of prostate cancer.
It was later adapted to its current role of gatekeeper.
It only measures the presence of a specific protein produced by prostate cells,
not just cancer cells. It cannot measure the biological activity of any tumor.
It merely looks at a static point and tries to infer the nature of a dynamic process.

“If the cancer is aggressive, everyone agrees that early diagnosis and treatment are best.
The problem is that it is often impossible to distinguish between the harmless and the deadly.”

----------

Forbes
Nov 21, 2011
Steve Forbes
The Department of Health and Human Services' Death Panel

Quote:

We already have one. It’s called the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,
a committee of “experts” appointed by the Department of Health & Human Services.
This group recently declared that men should not be routinely screened for prostate cancer.
The most common test is the PSA, which is part of a blood test.
The panel also said no to rectal exams and ultrasounds,
claiming that testing does no good, that it doesn’t save lives.

Two years ago this task force said women under the age of 50 shouldn’t get
annual mammograms—a “finding” so preposterous even the
Department of Health & Human Services ran away from it.
This latest dictate is meeting the same fate. And rightly so.
After skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer found in men.
<snip>
What’s going on with mammograms and testing for prostate cancer?
At bottom, it’s an attempt to save money. Treatments are not cheap.
The panel claims that its recommendations won’t increase mortality,
which is about as convincing as saying that letting mosquitoes proliferate
in certain environs won’t increase the incidence of malaria.

If the government succeeds in dominating health care, as it’s now on its way to doing,
we can expect more of these weird and lethal findings.
The focus will be on rationing and saving money.
What we need in health care is more free enterprise, not Soviet-style controls.