All The Butt Hurt is Making Me a Trump Fan

[hookyIU1990]

Embrace Your Mistakes (Yes, Even The Big Ones)

What often holds us back from taking action is fear — fear that it will be the “wrong” decision, fear of repercussions if you screw it up.

www.forbes.com

To Be More Successful, Make More Mistakes (And Learn From Them)

When we are too risk averse in our work, we reduce opportunities for learning or innovation. Peter Stavisky says to be more successful, we must be willing to make more mistakes.

www.forbes.com

Fail fast, fix the mistakes.

 

[twenty02]

View embedded media

Embrace Your Mistakes (Yes, Even The Big Ones)

What often holds us back from taking action is fear — fear that it will be the “wrong” decision, fear of repercussions if you screw it up.

www.forbes.com

To Be More Successful, Make More Mistakes (And Learn From Them)

When we are too risk averse in our work, we reduce opportunities for learning or innovation. Peter Stavisky says to be more successful, we must be willing to make more mistakes.

www.forbes.com

Fail fast, fix the mistakes.

The Federal govt isn't a startup business. Dumb analogy

 

[mcmurtry66]

The Federal govt isn't a startup business. Dumb analogy

No I read all these big time CEOs founders etc and they adhere to that same belief. Not just start ups. Doesn’t mean your point re the gov being different isn’t valid. But I’ve seen a 100 videos of Bezos echoing that same philosophy. It’s interesting. A very different approach and mindset. In my experience not at all like law either obviously.

 

[twenty02]

No I read all these big time CEOs founders etc and they adhere to that same belief. Not just start ups. Doesn’t mean your point re the gov being different isn’t valid. But I’ve seen a 100 videos of Bezos echoing that same philosophy. It’s interesting. A very different approach and mindset. In my experience not at all like law either obviously.

I would disagree with that. Yes this is common in Silicon valley/tech industry. Not a management philosophy that's used by leadership in mature industries (which is most of the economy).

 

[UncleMark]

I would disagree with that. Yes this is common in Silicon valley/tech industry. Not a management philosophy that's used by leadership in mature industries (which is most of the economy).

Not much of a conservative approach, is it?

 

[hookyIU1990]

I would disagree with that. Yes this is common in Silicon valley/tech industry. Not a management philosophy that's used by leadership in mature industries (which is most of the economy).

Industries (actually companies) that have been run like the federal government has been/are being run aren't able to reach a stage where they're considered mature. If the fed gov was a private business it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

 

[twenty02]

Industries (actually companies) that have been run like the federal government has been/are being run aren't able to reach a stage where they're considered mature. If the fed gov was a private business it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

1) disagree. Plenty of businesses operate with debt. Govt collects a lot more in revenue than it's debt service cost. It would only be 'out of business' if it couldn't service it's debt. Which it's nowhere close to.

2) govt isn't a business, so it's a pointless analogy to start.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Industries (actually companies) that have been run like the federal government has been/are being run aren't able to reach a stage where they're considered mature. If the fed gov was a private business it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.

I love the posture the Dems have adopted. We need to fight back! 35 mil in poverty and 35 trillion in debt. Here’s an idea help!

 

[mcmurtry66]

1) disagree. Plenty of businesses operate with debt. Govt collects a lot more in revenue than it's debt service cost. It would only be 'out of business' if it couldn't service it's debt. Which it's nowhere close to.

2) govt isn't a business, so it's a pointless analogy to start.

2) that gov isn’t a business is a fundamental flawed ideology that perpetuates the notion that it’s unto itself instead of being outcomes driven. It’s intrinsically flawed in that if achieves desired outcomes it’s no longer needed. Local to the fed. That’s why it’s culturally reluctant to change. Why cities have a 100 years of the same failed programs that Biden types would fund into perpetuity

 

[hookyIU1990]

1) disagree. Plenty of businesses operate with debt. Govt collects a lot more in revenue than it's debt service cost. It would only be 'out of business' if it couldn't service it's debt. Which it's nowhere close to.

2) govt isn't a business, so it's a pointless analogy to start.

The gov't couldn't service the debt load if it's customers weren't forced to pay for the services provided under the threat of violence. The idea that it would be viable as is in a marketplace with choices isn't debatable. It's only through it's coercive power that its been sustainable to this point.

I get that you don't like Trump. I don't either. My knee jerk reaction was that this was all BS. Now, I'm of the mind that it needs to be shaken up quickly, as that's the only way any meaningful change will happen. That's why I'm saying fail fast is the right approach.

We've got the government we've voted for over the decades and it's time to pay the price for it if we can't fix it.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The gov't couldn't service the debt load if it's customers weren't forced to pay for the services provided under the threat of violence. The idea that it would be viable as is in a marketplace with choices isn't debatable. It's only through it's coercive power that its been sustainable to this point.

I get that you don't like Trump. I don't either. My knee jerk reaction was that this was all BS. Now, I'm of the mind that it needs to be shaken up quickly, as that's the only way any meaningful change will happen. That's why I'm saying fail fast is the right approach.

We've got the government we've voted for over the decades and it's time to pay the price for it if we can't fix it.

There will never be a democrat or an aloha republican that will do it. Now is the time

 

[twenty02]

The gov't couldn't service the debt load if it's customers weren't forced to pay for the services provided under the threat of violence. The idea that it would be viable as is in a marketplace with choices isn't debatable. It's only through it's coercive power that its been sustainable to this point.

I get that you don't like Trump. I don't either. My knee jerk reaction was that this was all BS. Now, I'm of the mind that it needs to be shaken up quickly, as that's the only way any meaningful change will happen. That's why I'm saying fail fast is the right approach.

We've got the government we've voted for over the decades and it's time to pay the price for it if we can't fix it.

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

Yep. We have seen the enemy, and he is us.

I'd love to see some kind of an effort to attach a value for each individual taxpayer to each spending bill. Doing this would at least be a start for establishing a relationship between how much Congress spends on a particular bill/appropriation and approximately how much we each pay for it. I don't think it would be too difficult to compute this figure -- or to disseminate it to taxpayers via email prior to a final vote being taken in Congress.

I'd love to see them go even farther than this. But this would be a good place to start. I long ago figured out that most people don't even have a sense of how much they pay in income taxes, because of withholding -- let alone an idea of how these big spending bills impact their pocketbooks.

 

[twenty02]

Yep. We have seen the enemy, and he is us.

I'd love to see some kind of an effort to attach a value for each individual taxpayer to each spending bill. Doing this would at least be a start for establishing a relationship between how much Congress spends on a particular bill/appropriation and approximately how much we each pay for it. I don't think it would be too difficult to compute this figure -- or to disseminate it to taxpayers via email prior to a final vote being taken in Congress.

I'd love to see them go even farther than this. But this would be a good place to start. I long ago figured out that most people don't even have a sense of how much they pay in income taxes, because of withholding -- let alone an idea of how these big spending bills impact their pocketbooks.

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

 

[mcmurtry66]

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

It’s stepping over dollars to chase pennies but this is part of the same 40 percent at all levels where staffing is bloated the same worn out programs are refunded year after year and we still have 35 million under the poverty line. The shit you see at United way with member agencies never changes

I addition to all the rest tax reform is desperately needed

 

[UncleMark]

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

Exactly. That's a problem. Everyone should have some skin in the game, even if it's a pittance.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

Perhaps doing this would lead to fewer people having $0 by their name? A guy can dream.

But, to answer your question, any penetration of this notion among the other 60% would be beneficial. You hit on the problem perfectly: everybody wants and needs things. But our appetites for the things we want and need are usually tempered by the price to obtain them. And this forces us to be choosy and frugal.

Granted, I think a lot of people who do pay taxes might complain about the size of their contributions to the defense budget...or foreign aid...or public health....or other things that are wholly necessary but don't redound directly to their pocketbooks.

But it seems we'd gain from doing something to address the epidemic of voters acting to maximize the spending side and minimize the taxing side (for themselves, but not for others).

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

I should also add that quite a few taxpayers don't have a zero next to their name. They have a negative number -- thanks to refundable tax credits like EITC and CTC.

FTR, I have absolutely no complaint against these. While I firmly believe that our welfare state has become morbidly obese, I also firmly believe that any civilized society is going to have to engage in some kind of wealth/income redistribution...or else it won't be very civilized for very long.

 

[hookyIU1990]

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

How much would that move the needle when 40% would have a $0 by their name?

I don't disagree with either of these points.

I'm just ready to see them do something meaningful and all of these cuts are a good start. I initially thought the 1 trillion number was laughable. Now after some of the stuff coming out, I'm wondering if it is actually attainable.

The more the Dems cry and seemingly support all this waste, the more I realize how screwed we are if something isn't done.

Time kills all deals. Go fast and fix your mistakes along the way.

 

[DANC]

View embedded media

Embrace Your Mistakes (Yes, Even The Big Ones)

What often holds us back from taking action is fear — fear that it will be the “wrong” decision, fear of repercussions if you screw it up.

www.forbes.com

To Be More Successful, Make More Mistakes (And Learn From Them)

When we are too risk averse in our work, we reduce opportunities for learning or innovation. Peter Stavisky says to be more successful, we must be willing to make more mistakes.

www.forbes.com

Fail fast, fix the mistakes.

Welcome to the dark side

 

[mcmurtry66]

Welcome to the dark side

We knew he’d come over. He just had to find a quiet place and spend some time reviewing all the notes he compiled into that little pocket notebook

The answers are all there

 

[DANC]

1) disagree. Plenty of businesses operate with debt. Govt collects a lot more in revenue than it's debt service cost. It would only be 'out of business' if it couldn't service it's debt. Which it's nowhere close to.

2) govt isn't a business, so it's a pointless analogy to start.

You need to look at the rate of growth of debt and the amount it takes to service it and then look what happens if interest rate increase.

If the US was a private company, the bonds it sells would be considered junk bonds.

 

[DANC]

We knew he’d come over. He just had to find a quiet place and spend some time reviewing all the notes he compiled into that little pocket notebook

The answers are all there

The pocket notebook that fits in his pocket protector!

 

[mcmurtry66]

The pocket notebook that fits in his pocket protector!

No pocket protector son. Just a little spiral. Funny story. I have a buddy whose father in law had one. I was at their wedding reception and had a nice conversation with him. At the end of the conversation he pulled that little notebook out of his front pocket. Made some notes. Then walked off. Once of the most disarming disconcerting things I’ve ever experienced. For years I’ve wondered what he put in there

 

[DANC]

Exactly. That's a problem. Everyone should have some skin in the game, even if it's a pittance.

National sales tax and flat income tax. Everyone has skin in the game.

 

[hookyIU1990]

We knew he’d come over. He just had to find a quiet place and spend some time reviewing all the notes he compiled into that little pocket notebook

The answers are all there

I'm also ready to see some people in jail for all of this fraud, and then we need to discuss the lack of congressional oversight over the last thirty years.

When do we start charging people?

 

[snarlcakes]

I don't disagree with either of these points.

I'm just ready to see them do something meaningful and all of these cuts are a good start. I initially thought the 1 trillion number was laughable. Now after some of the stuff coming out, I'm wondering if it is actually attainable.

The more the Dems cry and seemingly support all this waste, the more I realize how screwed we are if something isn't done.

Time kills all deals. Go fast and fix your mistakes along the way.

 

[snarlcakes]

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

The Fed Govt doesn’t need to fix anything and they know it. They can print their way out of it and will.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I initially thought the 1 trillion number was laughable. Now after some of the stuff coming out, I'm wondering if it is actually attainable.

Without touching the big entitlements, there is virtually no chance to get to this number. Not for a single year, anyway. Maybe over 5-10 years.

$1T is more than our annual defense budget.

Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, of what they're going to report on will have to make its way through Congress. And things are bound to get messy there....especially with Republicans holding a 3 seat House majority. Any 3 of the 220 House Republicans can play the role of Joe Manchin.

I'm just saying: temper your expectations.

 

[BradStevens]

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

And what if that's a pie-in-the-sky, never-going-to-happen, burying-your-head-in-the-sand about human nature notion? What do we do then?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

View embedded media

Embrace Your Mistakes (Yes, Even The Big Ones)

What often holds us back from taking action is fear — fear that it will be the “wrong” decision, fear of repercussions if you screw it up.

www.forbes.com

To Be More Successful, Make More Mistakes (And Learn From Them)

When we are too risk averse in our work, we reduce opportunities for learning or innovation. Peter Stavisky says to be more successful, we must be willing to make more mistakes.

www.forbes.com

Fail fast, fix the mistakes.

It’s a mistake to call these mistakes. “Mistakes” implies some kind of negligence, carelessness, or should-have-known-better standard. When navigating unknowns, a negative consequence of a reasonable decision is not a mistake.

In business and in government we want fast, agile, creative, innovative, and risk taking people making decisions. We don’t want those who endlessly perseverate over possible problems that probably won’t matter. We don’t want decision-makers who love meetings, rely on group-think, are risk-averse and who fear individual responsibility. We want people who can quickly adjust and modify thinking as inevitable problems come up.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm also ready to see some people in jail for all of this fraud, and then we need to discuss the lack of congressional oversight over the last thirty years.

When do we start charging people?

I am not aware of any instances of fraud that DOGE has uncovered. If they have, they haven't told any of us about them.

Elon & Co. are using that term a lot. But it's always been conjecture regarding data that doesn't look quite right. The latest example is the table he published showing 12m persons in a Social Security database over the age of 120. The likely explanation for this is names that were entered in manually decades ago and have never been properly cleaned up. It's a problem that they've never been cleaned up. But it doesn't necessarily imply fraud...even if he's characterized it that way.

 

[twenty02]

Perhaps doing this would lead to fewer people having $0 by their name? A guy can dream.

But, to answer your question, any penetration of this notion among the other 60% would be beneficial. You hit on the problem perfectly: everybody wants and needs things. But our appetites for the things we want and need are usually tempered by the price to obtain them. And this forces us to be choosy and frugal.

Granted, I think a lot of people who do pay taxes might complain about the size of their contributions to the defense budget...or foreign aid...or public health....or other things that are wholly necessary but don't redound directly to their pocketbooks.

But it seems we'd gain from doing something to address the epidemic of voters acting to maximize the spending side and minimize the taxing side (for themselves, but not for others).

Federal income taxes are about 50% of govt revenue.

Revenue from social insurance program taxes (mainly FICA) are about 35% of Federal revenue. (Other 15% is corp tax and some other misc)

But then we've got this on the spending side of the ledger....

So we're spending 63% of the budget on items that only have funding sources in place that account for 35% of revenue. And none of this is ever up up for any vote, ever. Just autopilot.

And then we all keep arguing about the 30% slice of the pie that's getting crowded out and decreases every year.

 

[BradStevens]

I should also add that quite a few taxpayers don't have a zero next to their name. They have a negative number -- thanks to refundable tax credits like EITC and CTC.

FTR, I have absolutely no complaint against these. While I firmly believe that our welfare state has become morbidly obese, I also firmly believe that any civilized society is going to have to engage in some kind of wealth/income redistribution...or else it won't be very civilized for very long.

 

[snarlcakes]

And what if that's a pie-in-the-sky, never-going-to-happen, burying-your-head-in-the-sand about human nature notion? What do we do then?

Protect yourself from the most likely outcomes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

How does the second sentence affect the first sentence?

 

[snarlcakes]

Without touching the big entitlements, there is virtually no chance to get to this number. Not for a single year, anyway. Maybe over 5-10 years.

$1T is more than our annual defense budget.

Also, keep in mind that most, if not all, of what they're going to report on will have to make its way through Congress. And things are bound to get messy there....especially with Republicans holding a 3 seat House majority. Any 3 of the 220 House Republicans can play the role of Joe Manchin.

I'm just saying: temper your expectations.

I’ll be happy with 200 billion. If they get close to half a trillion, I’ll be thrilled.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So we're spending 63% of the budget on items that only have funding sources in place that account for 35% of revenue. And none of this is ever up up for any vote, ever. Just autopilot.

And then we all keep arguing about the 30% slice of the pie that's getting crowded out and decreases every year.

You're preaching to the choir with me. I'm all in favor of what they're doing. But I'm not all in favor of the insinuation that what they're doing will fix our problems -- or that what they've done has uncovered fraud. Because, even in the very best of scenarios, it won't come close to fixing our problems -- and, no matter what anybody says, they haven't reported any actual instances of fraud.

I'm sure there's plenty of fraud there. But I'd guess it's no more than 0.5% of federal spending.

At the end of the day, the single biggest thing government needs to address is healthcare costs. The second biggest thing is public pensions. And nobody in DC has the stones to do either one.

 

[All4You]

Welcome to the dark side

We knew he’d come over. He just had to find a quiet place and spend some time reviewing all the notes he compiled into that little pocket notebook

The answers are all there

Pffft...Hooky has been there all along. I bet he even has this flag hung up inside of his garage...

But to the topic at hand, we won't see substantive change in how our government operates until <50% of the voting public has their paychecks and/or benefit checks signed by Uncle Sam, his subsidiaries or State Fiefdoms.

 

[rivals01]

As @crazed_hoosier2 likes to point out. The Fed Govt has collected basically the same % of GDP as revenue every year since WW2.

The citizens have long since voted themselves more and more benefits without being willing to pay more for them. The most important and meaningful thing to fix is the general ignorance of the public.

Which is part of the larger issue.

Our societal structure is still rather primitive.
We have a ruling class that is willing to resort to threats and intimidation to get our money, claim ownership of our labor.

In a more ethical and civil society,
people in government programs would instead compete for our money just like everyone else in the marketplace.

Bad ideas require threats and intimidation,
Good ideas do not.

The separation of money and state will be an eventual societal advancement.