Pages

  • Sharebar

Quote:
"Could you define the market -- everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli," Scalia asked during the second day of oral arguments.

Scalia's witty argument attempts to draw an analogy between forcing people to buy broccoli and forcing people (and employers, etc.) to buy into government-regulated and mandated healthcare programs.

What do you think WSO? If the government is going to force us to have health insurance of some sort, they might as well go two steps ahead and get us all to eat healthy foods like broccoli, right?

Link to article

Comments (93)

  • elephonky's picture

    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager and I could make him look like a dipshit for asking the question.

    Is the price of broccoli grossly inflated relative to other goods? If we go to the market to buy broccoli, can we see the price? Does everyone pay the same price, or do some people pay more for broccoli? Can I be prevented from buying broccoli by being unfairly priced out of the market due to a situation out of my control (I have three kids that REALLY like broccoli, for example)?

    Scalia votes one way, and he'll do that in this case. He might as well be ignored altogether.

  • blastoise's picture

    Bro, requiring to purchase healthcare is clearly Constitutional under the commerce clause.

    You are saying they don't have the right to require every one to buy it, you are out of touch with the constitution.

    Also, I bet any one who tries to argue with moi will have to use personal opinion, if you do GL I'm bringing my A game to this discussion.

    Come at me.

  • In reply to elephonky
    blastoise's picture

    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager and I could make him look like a dipshit for asking the question.

    Is the price of broccoli grossly inflated relative to other goods? If we go to the market to buy broccoli, can we see the price? Does everyone pay the same price, or do some people pay more for broccoli? Can I be prevented from buying broccoli by being unfairly priced out of the market due to a situation out of my control (I have three kids that REALLY like broccoli, for example)?

    Scalia votes one way, and he'll do that in this case. He might as well be ignored altogether.

    Hey, this argument makes no sense and I have no clue where you are going with this.
    /next

  • In reply to blastoise
    DonVon's picture

    blastoise wrote:
    Bro, requiring to purchase healthcare is clearly Constitutional under the commerce clause.

    You are saying they don't have the right to require every one to buy it, you are out of touch with the constitution.

    Also, I bet any one who tries to argue with moi will have to use personal opinion, if you do GL I'm bringing my A game to this discussion.

    Come at me.


    You always comment on my threads, yet I never understand what you're saying... :(

    "An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."
    - Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Check out my blog!

  • In reply to elephonky
    gstackle32's picture

    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager

    stopped reading at this point.

  • TheMasao's picture

    Its an idiotic argument from a dolt.

    The government already imposes "health" penalties through taxes on alcohol, tobacco, etc.

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    Surprised he used Broccoli and not some sort of baked good for his example.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • In reply to blastoise
    elephonky's picture

    blastoise wrote:
    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager and I could make him look like a dipshit for asking the question.

    Is the price of broccoli grossly inflated relative to other goods? If we go to the market to buy broccoli, can we see the price? Does everyone pay the same price, or do some people pay more for broccoli? Can I be prevented from buying broccoli by being unfairly priced out of the market due to a situation out of my control (I have three kids that REALLY like broccoli, for example)?

    Scalia votes one way, and he'll do that in this case. He might as well be ignored altogether.

    Hey, this argument makes no sense and I have no clue where you are going with this.
    /next

    Scalia asks about broccoli, which bears little resemblance to health care. I pose questions in an attempt to make the broccoli market seem similar to health care, which fails miserably because broccoli is nothing like health care.

    gstackle32 wrote:
    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager

    stopped reading at this point.

    Ah yes, I forgot, we have some Goldman Sachs people on the forum. I'll dumb down my language next time so you can understand.

    Don't discredit my post because of my age, and I won't discredit your integrity and/or intelligence because you work for Goldman Sachs. Sound fair?

  • In reply to elephonky
    DonVon's picture

    elephonky wrote:
    Don't discredit my post because of my age, and I won't discredit your integrity and/or intelligence because you work for Goldman Sachs. Sound fair?

    I find this to be really funny...sorry if no one else does.

    "An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."
    - Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Check out my blog!

  • TNA's picture

    The government has every right to do this as long as they call it a tax, which is exactly what it is. Obama took the path of least resistance and called it a mandate or fine. It should and pray to god will get thrown out.

    Government has no right to force someone to buy something from a private party. This is what the health mandate is.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    The government has every right to do this as long as they call it a tax, which is exactly what it is. Obama took the path of least resistance and called it a mandate or fine. It should and pray to god will get thrown out.

    Government has no right to force someone to buy something from a private party. This is what the health mandate is.

    Then your in favor of a public insurance system?

  • TNA's picture

    Me, personally, I am in favor of doing everything else to try and reduce costs and allow people to self insure. We will always have people with health issues that need government health insurance (aka subsidized help).

    Listen, I have a sister with heart issues so I know full well what happens with illness and insurance. I have zero issue paying taxes to support people with cancer, life long illnesses, etc. Private business, with the profit motive, is not going to insure people like this.

    With that said, we don't need government taking over things for the vast majority of people. This is about control and power, nothing else. There are countless ways that lower costs for people without insurance. What Obama has proposed is not the answer.

    Forget insurance. The fact that we are now ok with the government forcing people to buy something from a private company is unfounded. People need to think long term with this. What is next once this precedence is established. I realize people in other countries see no issue with this, but this is America and this is a bold move. Obama could have called this a tax and there would have been no interstate commerce issue. If the SCOTUS approves of this they will be setting a dangerous precedence when it comes to what the Fed govt can force private citizens to purchase.

  • In reply to TNA
    blastoise's picture

    ANT wrote:
    The government has every right to do this as long as they call it a tax, which is exactly what it is. Obama took the path of least resistance and called it a mandate or fine. It should and pray to god will get thrown out.

    Government has no right to force someone to buy something from a private party. This is what the health mandate is.

    HAHAHA is it really not labeled as a tax ?!?! LOL oh shit that would be funny that is a game changer, unless you are lying

  • In reply to elephonky
    gstackle32's picture

    elephonky wrote:

    gstackle32 wrote:
    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager

    stopped reading at this point.

    Ah yes, I forgot, we have some Goldman Sachs people on the forum. I'll dumb down my language next time so you can understand.

    Don't discredit my post because of my age, and I won't discredit your integrity and/or intelligence because you work for Goldman Sachs. Sound fair?

    Ok, I'll discredit your post because your analysis of the market for broccoli is idiotic and because you come off as a little twat. Sound fair?

  • In reply to gstackle32
    elephonky's picture

    gstackle32 wrote:
    elephonky wrote:

    gstackle32 wrote:
    elephonky wrote:
    I'm sure Scalia is more intelligent than this quote gives off. I'm a fucking teenager

    stopped reading at this point.

    Ah yes, I forgot, we have some Goldman Sachs people on the forum. I'll dumb down my language next time so you can understand.

    Don't discredit my post because of my age, and I won't discredit your integrity and/or intelligence because you work for Goldman Sachs. Sound fair?

    Ok, I'll discredit your post because your analysis of the market for broccoli is idiotic and because you come off as a little twat. Sound fair?

    It's not an analysis of the broccoli market, it's an application of health care market realities to the broccoli market in an attempt to cast doubt on Scalia's analogy. You can't just take any private market and pretend the health insurance market relates. Sure, on a fundamental level (and for the purposes of Scalia's very conservative ends) the broccoli analogy is an appropriate means; at first glance you'd argue "of course the government can't force people to eat broccoli, that'd be idiotic!" and that's exactly what Scalia wants. Unfortunately, there's a solid argument that anyone with half a brain can make that health insurance is a special case, and is (surprise!) nothing like broccoli.

    What are your views on his analogy then? All you've done in this thread is bash my posts and not provide any constructive thoughts of your own.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Me, personally, I am in favor of doing everything else to try and reduce costs and allow people to self insure. We will always have people with health issues that need government health insurance (aka subsidized help).

    Listen, I have a sister with heart issues so I know full well what happens with illness and insurance. I have zero issue paying taxes to support people with cancer, life long illnesses, etc. Private business, with the profit motive, is not going to insure people like this.

    With that said, we don't need government taking over things for the vast majority of people. This is about control and power, nothing else. There are countless ways that lower costs for people without insurance. What Obama has proposed is not the answer.

    Forget insurance. The fact that we are now ok with the government forcing people to buy something from a private company is unfounded. People need to think long term with this. What is next once this precedence is established. I realize people in other countries see no issue with this, but this is America and this is a bold move. Obama could have called this a tax and there would have been no interstate commerce issue. If the SCOTUS approves of this they will be setting a dangerous precedence when it comes to what the Fed govt can force private citizens to purchase.

    You would agree then, in order to reduce the cost for some, all must pay some minimum through whatever mechanism you wish.

    Agreed, governments shouldn't mandate a purchase from a private company. However, that would mean a public insurance system which would effectively cause most Americans to question themselves. After all, what's more quintessentially American than the ability to separate the wheat from the chafe, and make a profit doing it.

  • In reply to TNA
    elephonky's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Me, personally, I am in favor of doing everything else to try and reduce costs and allow people to self insure. We will always have people with health issues that need government health insurance (aka subsidized help).

    Listen, I have a sister with heart issues so I know full well what happens with illness and insurance. I have zero issue paying taxes to support people with cancer, life long illnesses, etc. Private business, with the profit motive, is not going to insure people like this.

    With that said, we don't need government taking over things for the vast majority of people. This is about control and power, nothing else. There are countless ways that lower costs for people without insurance. What Obama has proposed is not the answer.

    Do you really believe it's about control and power? What kind of control or power is the government gaining through this mandate? The power to make citizens be responsible and buy some fucking health insurance?

    As far as I understand, when they originally set out to do health care they wanted to equalize costs for medical procedures across the board. This was cut later on in favor of the individual mandate, as the first idea didn't have a shot at passing in the House.

    ANT wrote:
    Forget insurance. The fact that we are now ok with the government forcing people to buy something from a private company is unfounded. People need to think long term with this. What is next once this precedence is established. I realize people in other countries see no issue with this, but this is America and this is a bold move. Obama could have called this a tax and there would have been no interstate commerce issue. If the SCOTUS approves of this they will be setting a dangerous precedence when it comes to what the Fed govt can force private citizens to purchase.

    Would you have preferred it being called a tax? The commerce clause has always been sketchy in its use, so that's nothing new.

  • heister's picture

    I guess when we buy insurance it comes in the form of a head of broc. No? Seriously how this idiot is allowed to open his mouth on the SC is beyond me. He has a history of making arguments that bear little correlation to the question at hand.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • TNA's picture

    1) It should be called a tax because that is what it is. Instead Obama has tried calling it a mandate which is very different than a tax. All because he wanted to be cute with things.

    2) Of course this is about control. Once you allow the government to force you to buy something "for your own good" you allow them to force you to do other things. Government is always about control.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    1) It should be called a tax because that is what it is. Instead Obama has tried calling it a mandate which is very different than a tax. All because he wanted to be cute with things.

    2) Of course this is about control. Once you allow the government to force you to buy something "for your own good" you allow them to force you to do other things. Government is always about control.

    By that rationale I should get a massive tax rebate because I don't use the police, fire department, FBI, CIA and well most everything else.

  • TNA's picture

    Where was I talking about a tax rebate? We all use those services, we just cannot see them. Additionally, they fall under the umbrella of national defense, something the Federal government was created to do.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Where was I talking about a tax rebate? We all use those services, we just cannot see them. Additionally, they fall under the umbrella of national defense, something the Federal government was created to do.

    Well, those who aren't sick don't see the benefit in insurance either.

    I seriously doubt the federal government was created to have anything remotely like the CIA or operations in Afghanistan. However, if I follow your logic, then any process or service that was adopted post-creation of the federal government is wrong and an unwarranted threat to the public. Is that correct?

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Where was I talking about a tax rebate? We all use those services, we just cannot see them. Additionally, they fall under the umbrella of national defense, something the Federal government was created to do.

    And why can't I get a rebate? If I don't use insurance or the fire department why do I have to pay for them?

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    You doubt that a basic tenant to government is to gather, analyze and act on intelligence about other countries? The fuck?

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • TNA's picture

    National defense and its extension is why the we have a Federal Government. As for the fire dept argument, most are paid for by local taxes and fees. Not Fed money.

    I fail to see how these off topic questions or arguments support the Federal government forcing private citizens to purchase something from a private company.

  • elephonky's picture

    ANT, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on car insurance requirements?

  • TNA's picture

    Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

    I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

  • In reply to TNA
    elephonky's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

    I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

    So is there no similarity between forcing people to pay for car insurance and forcing them to pay for health insurance (even if one is state-mandated, albeit by all of them, and one is federally mandated)? Both are private markets. But there is a case to be made that both serve the public good despite costing everyone more money.

    The main difference is that you can choose to have or not have a car and thus have or not have insurance. When you don't have a car, the lack of insurance is not an issue because you won't be getting into any vehicle accidents that require insurance to cover. You can't, however, choose to have or not have a body that may require health services at some point. Since insurance is all but required for "accidents" (emergency room visits, etc.), why isn't it mandated (like car insurance) so long as you have a functioning body that may require health services (and thus insurance)?

    For the record, I'd rather eliminate the health insurance game and lower medical costs across the board. But that won't be happening any time soon.

  • heister's picture

    Eleph that is your argument? Seriously because I am alive the government can force me to buy insurance? What kind of fucking clown are you? Why dont we just declare ourselves to be commies? The fuck is wrong with people today.

    Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

    Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

  • Frieds's picture

    I'm not going to get into the whole argument section, but I will say this about Scalia - the man is brilliant. I completely appreciate his comment. Even the limited context of the analogy looks like it's Vintage Scalia. And if anyone really challenges the man's brilliance, I go ahead and read his Supreme Court opinions, especially his dissents. The man is brilliant... just saying.

  • In reply to elephonky
    txjustin's picture

    elephonky wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

    I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

    So is there no similarity between forcing people to pay for car insurance and forcing them to pay for health insurance (even if one is state-mandated, albeit by all of them, and one is federally mandated)? Both are private markets. But there is a case to be made that both serve the public good despite costing everyone more money.

    The main difference is that you can choose to have or not have a car and thus have or not have insurance. When you don't have a car, the lack of insurance is not an issue because you won't be getting into any vehicle accidents that require insurance to cover. You can't, however, choose to have or not have a body that may require health services at some point. Since insurance is all but required for "accidents" (emergency room visits, etc.), why isn't it mandated (like car insurance) so long as you have a functioning body that may require health services (and thus insurance)?

    For the record, I'd rather eliminate the health insurance game and lower medical costs across the board. But that won't be happening any time soon.

    YOu need to learn the difference between state and federal powers as outlined in teh Constitution before commenting. Not being a dick, but there is a giant difference between the two scenarios you gave.

  • In reply to txjustin
    TheMasao's picture

    txjustin wrote:
    elephonky wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    Perfectly fine. I am selling my car now and telling the insurance company to F off. I made the decision not to drive anymore. It is also not a Federal regulation.

    I can drive on my private property without insurance. I can buy, own and sell cars without insurance, I can also choose to drive without insurance and risk the fine/arrest. Insurance is not automatically taken from my taxes and I am not forced to do anything.

    So is there no similarity between forcing people to pay for car insurance and forcing them to pay for health insurance (even if one is state-mandated, albeit by all of them, and one is federally mandated)? Both are private markets. But there is a case to be made that both serve the public good despite costing everyone more money.

    The main difference is that you can choose to have or not have a car and thus have or not have insurance. When you don't have a car, the lack of insurance is not an issue because you won't be getting into any vehicle accidents that require insurance to cover. You can't, however, choose to have or not have a body that may require health services at some point. Since insurance is all but required for "accidents" (emergency room visits, etc.), why isn't it mandated (like car insurance) so long as you have a functioning body that may require health services (and thus insurance)?

    For the record, I'd rather eliminate the health insurance game and lower medical costs across the board. But that won't be happening any time soon.

    YOu need to learn the difference between state and federal powers as outlined in teh Constitution before commenting. Not being a dick, but there is a giant difference between the two scenarios you gave.

    What characteristics of a state make it so different than that of the federal government? Size? So then, in your line of reasoning, cities should supersede the state? and districts within the city should supersede the city?

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    TheMasao's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    You doubt that a basic tenant to government is to gather, analyze and act on intelligence about other countries? The fuck?

    Sure. Switzerland seems to have run fine for quite a long time.

    Just to be clear, your saying the federal government has the obligation to spy, interfere and in some cases invade other countries, but it doesn't have the same obligation to provide basic health insurance or care for its citizens?

  • TNA's picture

    Not this country. Maybe Europe, but this crap is going to be voted down with extreme prejudice.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    National defense and its extension is why the we have a Federal Government. As for the fire dept argument, most are paid for by local taxes and fees. Not Fed money.

    I fail to see how these off topic questions or arguments support the Federal government forcing private citizens to purchase something from a private company.

    So if local taxes were diverted to the federal government it would be ok? My point about the fire department is that it is a public good and you and everyone else who pays taxes subsidize those who don't or can't afford to. This is much the same line of reasoning with health insurance. And if you argue public vs private, I would point out that many police units use private companies on a consistent basis. And really what is the difference between a public force and a private one?

    If your concern is that you are forced to pay any insurer you choose, well you can thank your own party for that. I'm sure Obama would have been much happier with a federal insurance system which would have in effect driven down profits at private insurers.

    My point was that you are forced to buy things on a consistent basis by the powers that be, though the mechanisms may be different.

    On the broader topic, I do find it funny that people debate this in the U.S. as if the vast majority of persons have experience with public health insurance. Ever since leaving the U.S. ten years ago I have yet to live in a country that doesn't have some form of public health insurance (including Hong Kong).

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Not this country. Maybe Europe, but this crap is going to be voted down with extreme prejudice.

    That's your argument?

  • happypantsmcgee's picture

    I'm pretty tired of this Europe > US when they live under the very blanket of safety that we provide. I studied Econ in Austria for a year and one of my professors said the following: 'the Austrian air force has 7 planes and 3 are broken without plans to be repaired. Do you know why? Because if anything happened to us the United States would be here before we could pick up the phone. We don't spend on defense because we don't need to.'

    Oh, and if you think Switzerland doesn't have, and use, CIA type organizations, I have a bridge to sell you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_intelligence_ag...

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • TNA's picture

    It looks like this will be voted down 5-4. Enough argument in my book. Either way who cares. People piss and moan about everything the govt does and then in the same breath ask for more government help. I'll simple pay the fine if I ever need to and then when I need insurance I'll just get on the plan and get every unnecessary test .

  • TNA's picture

    The US can't balance a budget or run social security properly, but hey, let's greatly expand their powers because this time, I promise, they will do what is right. Surrreeeeee.

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    TheMasao's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    I'm pretty tired of this Europe > US when they live under the very blanket of safety that we provide. I studied Econ in Austria for a year and one of my professors said the following: 'the Austrian air force has 7 planes and 3 are broken without plans to be repaired. Do you know why? Because if anything happened to us the United States would be here before we could pick up the phone. We don't spend on defense because we don't need to.'

    Oh, and if you think Switzerland doesn't have, and use, CIA type organizations, I have a bridge to sell you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_intelligence_ag...

    What's your point? That free riders exist both in defence and health care? How is this related to the original health insurance thread?

    And you want to compare the US defence complex with that of Switzerland?

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    The US can't balance a budget or run social security properly, but hey, let's greatly expand their powers because this time, I promise, they will do what is right. Surrreeeeee.

    Therefore the military is run poorly, so is the IRS and every other government body?

    And to be fair, the SEC sucks balls because it doesn't have the budget to compete with the private sector.

  • In reply to TheMasao
    happypantsmcgee's picture

    You brought up Switzerland and implied that they didn't engage in gathering and analyzing intelligence from other countries. My point stands.

    If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

  • TNA's picture

    The military is run well, just wastes money. And yeah, IRS is dick also. So is the DMV, dept of veteran affairs, on and on. There is no one to answer to, no profit motive, no drive towards efficiency.

  • TheKing's picture

    Why is the VA poorly run? That just seems hyperbolic.

  • TNA's picture

    Are you kidding? The VA is always in the news for shitty service or poor healthcare to veterans.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    Are you kidding? The VA is always in the news for shitty service or poor healthcare to veterans.

    And private companies don't fuck up either?

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    The military is run well, just wastes money. And yeah, IRS is dick also. So is the DMV, dept of veteran affairs, on and on. There is no one to answer to, no profit motive, no drive towards efficiency.

    That first sentence is a complete oxymoron.

  • In reply to happypantsmcgee
    TheMasao's picture

    happypantsmcgee wrote:
    You brought up Switzerland and implied that they didn't engage in gathering and analyzing intelligence from other countries. My point stands.

    True. You have me there. However, I believe relative comparisons are in order.

  • In reply to TheMasao
    TNA's picture

    TheMasao wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    The military is run well, just wastes money. And yeah, IRS is dick also. So is the DMV, dept of veteran affairs, on and on. There is no one to answer to, no profit motive, no drive towards efficiency.

    That first sentence is a complete oxymoron.

    No, being well run in and wasting money when it comes to the military are completely different. The US has the best run military in the world. They also are awash in money and have some pork barrel budget issues.

  • In reply to TNA
    TheMasao's picture

    ANT wrote:
    TheMasao wrote:
    ANT wrote:
    The military is run well, just wastes money. And yeah, IRS is dick also. So is the DMV, dept of veteran affairs, on and on. There is no one to answer to, no profit motive, no drive towards efficiency.

    That first sentence is a complete oxymoron.

    No, being well run in and wasting money when it comes to the military are completely different. The US has the best run military in the world. They also are awash in money and have some pork barrel budget issues.

    Sorry Ant, but you clearly have no idea how budgeting is done in the military. What your saying is, accounting and budgeting are not part of operations. If a company was that horribly inefficient with its capital and wasted that much money it would cease to exist.

Pages