Has there ever been a successful government program?

[PeteEU]

Beer (among other things) was invented without gov't.

Oh so we are talking about inventions only all of a sudden? And more than often "inventions" would not have been invented if it was not for the funds of wealthy individuals, and that usually meant... government aka the king and his lords. Just saying..

The question is whether gov't helps to improve the environment for more individual achievement/advancement or tends to limit that natural progress. Simply because a little of something is good does not mean that more of it is necessarily better.

There would be no individual achievement/advancement without government, because without government there would be no civilization.

 

[PeteEU]

Depends on your definition of "without."

If your point is that the government influences everything that goes on within it jurisdiction so long as you're willing to play Six Degrees, you can that with just about anything.

Did you die because a plane crash-landed into your house? No? Thank the FAA, right?

No, my point is that without government we would not have civilization, and without civilization we would not have what we have today.

Blaming government for everything is just silly.. government does and has done far more good than it has bad. I for one would not like to live in a lawless violent society, where men raid other men for their women and food.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No, my point is that without government we would not have civilization, and without civilization we would not have what we have today.

Blaming government for everything is just silly.. government does and has done far more good than it has bad. I for one would not like to live in a lawless violent society, where men raid other men for their women and food.

That's like saying you can't complain about flooding ... because you can't sustain life without water.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It happened in the early 1990s in California and it was mocked by me and other conservatives. In fact a friend of mine in politics helped start it. It was a state funded program to buy gross polluting cars and get them off the road. I'd be guessing to say they spent $125/150 million but they eliminated about 5% of the pollutants entering the air. That probably saved a lot of people. Adversely, and unfortunately this state will now waste $110 billion on high speed rail with a stated goal of reducing air pollutants, but the amount of savings is not stated because it's less than 1/10th of 1%.

OK, but:

Air quality: Los Angeles, Bakersfield remain among the U.S.'s most polluted cities, report says - Los Angeles Times

 

[CalGun]

True enough, but it could have been worse if many of those cars were still on the road. Most people blame only cars and industry for air pollution. California has a third element which produces just as much waste as industry and slightly less than cars - farming.

OK, but:

Air quality: Los Angeles, Bakersfield remain among the U.S.'s most polluted cities, report says - Los Angeles Times

 

[radcen]

The program to electrify rural areas has, for all practical purposes, been ended.

...yet the bureaucracy remains... doing mostly "busy work".

The real question is has anything every been achieved without government?

...and is a question for another thread.

It happened in the early 1990s in California and it was mocked by me and other conservatives. In fact a friend of mine in politics helped start it. It was a state funded program to buy gross polluting cars and get them off the road. I'd be guessing to say they spent $125/150 million but they eliminated about 5% of the pollutants entering the air. That probably saved a lot of people. Adversely, and unfortunately this state will now waste $110 billion on high speed rail with a stated goal of reducing air pollutants, but the amount of savings is not stated because it's less than 1/10th of 1%.

I remember that. I lived in the state at the time, and know a couple people who partook.

My memory tells me, though, that it was a limited program from the very beginning, with a set date to end.

No, my point is that without government we would not have civilization, and without civilization we would not have what we have today.

Blaming government for everything is just silly.. government does and has done far more good than it has bad. I for one would not like to live in a lawless violent society, where men raid other men for their women and food.

Nobody has said, nor have they implied, that government is useless. Government does indeed serve a purpose. The question has to do with when some government ceases to be useful and transitions into being self-perpetuating solely for it's own continued existence.

 

[PeteEU]

That's like saying you can't complain about flooding ... because you can't sustain life without water.

So you are trying to say that the only way to get water is through flooding? I get the whole cant sustain life without water, and that is true. Just as it is true, that without some sort of government, even tribal or family units,.. humanity would never have survived.

Governments were created when tribes and family units decided that being together in bigger groups to defend against enemies, was the best way of doing things. Deal with it. Getting rid of government, as many right wing American's want, is not only stupid but frankly impossible. The power vacum will always be replaced by ... another type of government.. a strong dictator or religious theocracy or something equally as stupid.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

So you are trying to say that the only way to get water is through flooding?

No, I'm saying that it's not reasonable to respond to an observation about government by saying that we couldn't have civilization without it. That's exactly like saying you can't complain about flooding because water is an essential element.

I get the whole cant sustain life without water, and that is true. Just as it is true, that without some sort of government, even tribal or family units,.. humanity would never have survived.

Government is a human endeavor. It is as flawed as any other human endeavor, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws.

 

[PeteEU]

Nobody has said, nor have they implied, that government is useless. Government does indeed serve a purpose. The question has to do with when some government ceases to be useful and transitions into being self-perpetuating solely for it's own continued existence.

Government only does that, when the political system allows it. And that is exactly the problem in the US today. Government has become an ATM for a political elite and its supporters/backers, and hence sustaining the status quo or even expanding it, will become (and has become) the sole driver of Government.

For example, the military industrial complex in the US controls vast sums of government money and hence a large number of politicians. Every time that money wagon has been threatened then the US has gone of and invaded or attacked a country and hence justifying the massive amounts of money being pumped into the military and hence lining the military industrial complex even more. Eisenhower was right when he said that the military industrial complex was the biggest threat to the US.

Another example is your whole healthcare system. Here government is used to limit choice and access for the all important profit margin. Government should be there to protect the population against such abuses... but it aint.

No, you need to focus your rage on the political system not government... since government does nothing without the political establishment. As long as people allow the gerrymandering by the 2 political parties, allow that the same corrupt politicians are voted in, or replaced by just as corrupt politicians.. then you have broken system. And it does not help that the 2 political parties are complicit in keeping the system going at all costs. Every rebel in the ranks are instantly dealt with, and loose at the next election to a party loyalist. We have especially seen it in the GOP the last decade, where moderates have been replaced by supposed hardliners, but in reality with more of the same. The Tea Party is not the big saviour, it is more of the same.. How do we know this? because of the billions of dollars supposed Tea Party people have demanded in pork for their districts..

 

[CalGun]

Wasn't that the original question? A govt program that succeeded and ended?

...yet the bureaucracy remains... doing mostly "busy work".



...and is a question for another thread.



I remember that. I lived in the state at the time, and know a couple people who partook.

My memory tells me, though, that it was a limited program from the very beginning, with a set date to end.



Nobody has said, nor have they implied, that government is useless. Government does indeed serve a purpose. The question has to do with when some government ceases to be useful and transitions into being self-perpetuating solely for it's own continued existence.

 

[Moot]

Pony Express.

 

[Moot]

...Nobody has said, nor have they implied, that government is useless. Government does indeed serve a purpose. The question has to do with when some government ceases to be useful and transitions into being self-perpetuating solely for it's own continued existence.

The railroads. Abraham Lincoln funded the building of railroads, but they continue on for their own continued existence. The exception might be Amtrak which is still government funded for passenger rail.

 

[babilfish]

Can somebody name one... just one... government program that was such an unqualified success, and because it was a success, that it was ended because it was no longer needed?

You clearly don't understand how government works.

 

[radcen]

Government only does that, when the political system allows it. And that is exactly the problem in the US today. Government has become an ATM for a political elite and its supporters/backers, and hence sustaining the status quo or even expanding it, will become (and has become) the sole driver of Government.

For example, the military industrial complex in the US controls vast sums of government money and hence a large number of politicians. Every time that money wagon has been threatened then the US has gone of and invaded or attacked a country and hence justifying the massive amounts of money being pumped into the military and hence lining the military industrial complex even more. Eisenhower was right when he said that the military industrial complex was the biggest threat to the US.

Another example is your whole healthcare system. Here government is used to limit choice and access for the all important profit margin. Government should be there to protect the population against such abuses... but it aint.

No, you need to focus your rage on the political system not government... since government does nothing without the political establishment. As long as people allow the gerrymandering by the 2 political parties, allow that the same corrupt politicians are voted in, or replaced by just as corrupt politicians.. then you have broken system. And it does not help that the 2 political parties are complicit in keeping the system going at all costs. Every rebel in the ranks are instantly dealt with, and loose at the next election to a party loyalist. We have especially seen it in the GOP the last decade, where moderates have been replaced by supposed hardliners, but in reality with more of the same. The Tea Party is not the big saviour, it is more of the same.. How do we know this? because of the billions of dollars supposed Tea Party people have demanded in pork for their districts..

I believe I have because I believe the two have become one and the same.

Wasn't that the original question? A govt program that succeeded and ended?

I question that it was successful.

You clearly don't understand how government works.

Or, maybe I do, and you don't like the answer.

But, hey, for the sake of conversation, let's say you're correct. I note that you made zero effort to enlighten me. Give it a shot.

The railroads. Abraham Lincoln funded the building of railroads, but they continue on for their own continued existence. The exception might be Amtrak which is still government funded for passenger rail.

Good example. It was a different time and era, though. Shoot, back then we even had income taxes that were eventually ended when deemed no longer necessary. I don't see that happening again any time soon.

 

[CalGun]

Comparative to other means of cleaning the air it was certainly a great success. As noted they will spend $110 billion on a high speed rail and claim its for clean air; yet they can't even measure what percentage it will benefit where as this program did in fact make a significant impact for the least amount of money.

I believe I have because I believe the two have become one and the same.



I question that it was successful.



Or, maybe I do, and you don't like the answer.

But, hey, for the sake of conversation, let's say you're correct. I note that you made zero effort to enlighten me. Give it a shot.



Good example. It was a different time and era, though. Shoot, back then we even had income taxes that were eventually ended when deemed no longer necessary. I don't see that happening again any time soon.

 

[radcen]

Comparative to other means of cleaning the air it was certainly a great success. As noted they will spend $110 billion on a high speed rail and claim its for clean air; yet they can't even measure what percentage it will benefit where as this program did in fact make a significant impact for the least amount of money.

I don't doubt it helped, but I question how much. It also did get a lot of dangerous cars off the road. But, it also had the effect of driving up used car prices so that many people with limited incomes couldn't even afford crappy cars for awhile.

I wouldn't call it a total failure, but I do think it had mixed results.

 

[thinkforyoursel]

Hey ...isn't always the claim from the right that government is a waste ...except when it comes to the military?

The $Trillion Dollar military who have been fighting a handful of men running around in slippers in Afghanistan....for 20 years now.

 

[opendebate]

Can somebody name one... just one... government program that was such an unqualified success, and because it was a success, that it was ended because it was no longer needed?

I have long said that, in my opinion, power and prestige corrupts people/politicians more than money. And they won't turn down the money, either. But, as I grow older, and as I learn the history behind so many government programs... i.e.: the so-called "drug war", the "war on crime/terrorism", welfare, even smaller programs that tackle homelessness and illiteracy, etc... they all seem to be set up to give an illusion of wanting to solve the problem, but not really doing serious measures that could solve the problem. They all seem to get stuck in a vicious circle that falls short and really only serves to make sure that enough of a problem always exists to justify their continued existence.

Granted, due to human frailties, none of these problems could have 100% success in the sense that there will always be a homeless person or a drug addict somewhere. But, I don't think it unreasonable that they could be "solved" to the point that the bureaucracies could get smaller because the problem got smaller. Yet, that never seems to happen. Programs always get bigger and more intrusive. A sane person would actually conclude that many of these programs are actually huge failures if they continue to need to grow.

Politicians, in their greed for power and prestige, *need* their little fiefdoms to continue to exist and thrive.

What think you?

I agree that it is not possible to solve these problems. I believe it is the hope to have an impact on the problem. ( i.e.: To have half as many or one third as many living in poverty or illiterate or abused etc.) But as long as humans remain humans we will have prejudice and poverty and corruption etc. And yes, eventually even the most thoughtfully developed and well executed programs with the best of intentions will be taken advantage of so they must continue to evolve as people find ways to abuse them.

If you are really interested in what could be considered a success I found these to ponder:
Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government and this
Government Success Stories

 

[shrubnose]

Can somebody name one... just one... government program that was such an unqualified success, and because it was a success, that it was ended because it was no longer needed?

I have long said that, in my opinion, power and prestige corrupts people/politicians more than money. And they won't turn down the money, either. But, as I grow older, and as I learn the history behind so many government programs... i.e.: the so-called "drug war", the "war on crime/terrorism", welfare, even smaller programs that tackle homelessness and illiteracy, etc... they all seem to be set up to give an illusion of wanting to solve the problem, but not really doing serious measures that could solve the problem. They all seem to get stuck in a vicious circle that falls short and really only serves to make sure that enough of a problem always exists to justify their continued existence.

Granted, due to human frailties, none of these problems could have 100% success in the sense that there will always be a homeless person or a drug addict somewhere. But, I don't think it unreasonable that they could be "solved" to the point that the bureaucracies could get smaller because the problem got smaller. Yet, that never seems to happen. Programs always get bigger and more intrusive. A sane person would actually conclude that many of these programs are actually huge failures if they continue to need to grow.

Politicians, in their greed for power and prestige, *need* their little fiefdoms to continue to exist and thrive.

What think you?

How about Smallpox and Polio, how did those programs turn out? You don't hear about those diseases in the USA any more, do you? That's thanks to government programs.

When you open a water faucet at your house, water comes out, right? When you flush your toilet, the waste goes down the drain, you can get in your car and drive coast to coast on toll-freehighways. All as a result of government programs.

Anyone who doesn't like government programs should try to find a place to live where they will not be helped by them.That might be kind of hard.

 

[shrubnose]

Hey ...isn't always the claim from the right that government is a waste ...except when it comes to the military?

The

$Trillion Dollar military who have been fighting a handful of men running around in slippers in Afghanistan....for 20 years now.

If you don't like the job that our military is doing, why don't you go try to do it for a while?

This has been posted by a guy who was in Vietnam in 1965 &1966, been there, done that.

Anyone can be a Monday morning critic.

Few ever actually get off of their backside and even try to do a damned thing, it's always left for the other guy to do, and then he gets criticized for trying.

Give me a ****ing break here, I've heard this Bull**** a few times too many. Where were you when we needed a little help?

 

[274ina]

The FLSA for one.

But it was corrupted in the end by CEO's. Hopfully that is at an end...........

 

[sangha]

...yet the bureaucracy remains... doing mostly "busy work".

But the program was a success.

That was your question. There's your answer

Here's another - The program to kill Osama bin Laden.

Mission accomplished, and the dept has been shut down

 

[sangha]

Wasn't that the original question? A govt program that succeeded and ended?

Yes, it was.

But now that he's got several answers, he wants to argue about irrelevancies

 

[PeteEU]

I believe I have because I believe the two have become one and the same.

Well they are not and never have been. You are basically insulting every government employee out there.. from the postman to the military grunt living in dirt in Afghanistan. How is it their fault that the political elite are utterly corrupt and have corrupted the system against the people?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

So we are up to what, 0.01% of the government programs that anyone can identify as a success? And we think more government programs are the answer? Why?