ah yes we do need to get rid of the fed. damn rothchildes

you don't operate in the system you think you do

if you did, you'd earn money just keeeping it in your savings

IMO, most Gov't depts need a clearly-laid out "success/failure" state that if they don't meet the former or meet the latter, they're put under re-evaluation, & possibly defunded & phased out

yes, and every 4 yrs, the new boss comes in only looking to 'undo' what the last boss did

no company on earth could turn a profit under those conditions

Reagan was pretty flawed. Trump is pretty flawed. The founders were *very* flawed. Capitalism is flawed. But they're the best we could get.

you can't keep adding regs to something and not slow it down

likewise, most every law that's not Constitution-level needs a sunset provision to go under mandatory re-eval, **automatically lapsing if not voted back in**

a **fucking shit-ton** of laws have jack-diddley to do w/ timeless principles & **everything** to do w/ slapping a temporary band-aid on an immediate, short-term problem

That's the core of my stance.

sure, private contractors are more effficent; they are also not supposed to be making decisions on behalf of the public

housing public information

<:hypersmugon:544638648721604608>

If you can't accept the flaws that exist you're a zealot

or acting outslde of the path of accountability

you ALWAYS get what you pay for

> If you can't accept the flaws that exist you're a zealot
@RyeNorth within reason

so if you cut defense spending, what happens?

Depends. Are you also cutting decades long wars?

The terrorists win

if gov followed the business model we'd all be getting fucked more so that we are now; cause corporations would have free reign to exploit, not trade fair.

> so if you cut defense spending, what happens?
@ManAnimal I was in the USAF, & lemme tell you something. "defense spending" often does **not** go where it's **supposed** to go ("making our troops safer/more effective", in *theory* )

I worked for the DOD

so..no

With the machine guns Reagan spoke out against in hand, all you have to do is buffer the border and the US is practically invasion-proof.

what did they do during GWB ? hired private contactors to speak on behalf of the tax payer

so they wrote their own contracts

> I worked for the DOD
@ManAnimal ok so you would know it often goes towards *useless* crap like multi-billion $$$ shiny death machines that **never see a minute of combat time**

they fielded systems that they knew damn well weren't sustainable in the field

W was mostly a clown.

becuase they knew once they got their foot in the door, they get paid regardiless of the delivery

The worst Republicans had to offer at the time.

Having a shiny new weapon is effective intimidation on its own

@Thundermark oh definately

And only better than the Democrat alternative, but only just.

the waist is out the ass

meanwhile, our troops have *yet* to get body armor that can reliably mitigate a 7.62×39mm round, the most commonly-used enemy round

did you mean waste

BUT the inefficency is as much a function of people not knowing what they fuck the requirements are dictating policy as it was anything else