Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[steenkh]

But because you don't like this, you are labelling the administration as "far left".

Yes, I also thought it odd that a "far left" administration should privatise shelters, homes for the elderly, etc.

But then I thought the U.S. is a strange place, so why not?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I also thought it odd that a "far left" administration should privatise shelters, homes for the elderly, etc.

But then I thought the U.S. is a strange place, so why not?

Hmmm. Maybe we mean different things by privatization.

The way it works in my city is this: We have a pressing need to provide support services to a wide range of homeless. For this purpose, the city government establishes programs for things like shelters, and counseling, and drug rehabilitation, and so forth. And the city government sets aside funds - significant funds - in the city budget to pay for these homeless support services.

However, the city government does not establish a city agency or department to provide these services. Rather, it engages a number of non-profit organizations to do so. These non-profits receive all the funds raised, with the desired services being provided by them. This is the part I call "privatization". At current count, we have over 190 such non-profits in our city, contracted to provide homeless support services. And just like in your right-wing case, in my left-wing case this has resulted in significant fraud and waste, and very little in the way of services actually provided.

It's like you cannot comprehend that left-wing politicians can be just as incompetent and corrupt as right-wing politicians, or that left-wing voters can be just as naive and stupid as right-wing voters.

 

[dirtywick]

My position is that it doesn't actually require a tax increase and a massive cash infusion, to reform a lot of these things.


Oh god, how I wish that were true. Our city council has been trying to fix budget issues for years, through increased taxation. The budget issues are worse than ever.


I don't think it's purely an issue of cutting spending.


I never assumed the doge stuff would go down the way it did, so I don't really have any second-guessing to do on that front.


I'm not talking about the United States Congress. I'm talking about the Portland City Council, the Multnomah County Commissioners, and more distantly the government of the state of Oregon. More money won't stop Portland's budget problems. It will just shovel more money into the same wasteful and fraudulent systems that have caused so many of our budget problems.

It's like you really cannot conceive of a far-left government, voted in by a far-left electorate, might be very bad at its job.

oh, someone pissed in your cheerios. way to cap off a reasonable response by being a dick

my bad tho, i didn’t realize this discussion was limited to you areas local politics. obviously i don’t have enough information to comment nor the interest to look into whether or not your assessment is correct. not that you’re wrong, which is as conceivable as a city over spending on a far left agenda, i just don’t know. so, again, my bad on that

 

[steenkh]

Hmmm. Maybe we mean different things by privatization.

The way it works in my city is this: We have a pressing need to provide support services to a wide range of homeless. For this purpose, the city government establishes programs for things like shelters, and counseling, and drug rehabilitation, and so forth. And the city government sets aside funds - significant funds - in the city budget to pay for these homeless support services.

However, the city government does not establish a city agency or department to provide these services. Rather, it engages a number of non-profit organizations to do so. These non-profits receive all the funds raised, with the desired services being provided by them. This is the part I call "privatization". At current count, we have over 190 such non-profits in our city, contracted to provide homeless support services. And just like in your right-wing case, in my left-wing case this has resulted in significant fraud and waste, and very little in the way of services actually provided.

It is pretty much the same. By privatisation I understand letting private companies do some work instead of letting a politically led entity do it. In Denmark it usually means letting a profit-oriented company do the job. It can easily lead to disasters. We have examples of care homes where the elderly were left to their own devices whereas the owners lived a life in luxury at the tax payers’ expense.
Cleaning is often privatised, and often it was necessary to take it back to the state, like when hospital infections started to rise, because the cleaning was not thorough enough.

In private companies it is called subcontracting, but the result is the same, whether it is the canteen, or cleaning: the quality sinks because in reality it is only done to save money.

I don’t think it matters what kind of political affiliation the administration has. Right wingers might think that “the state” is bad at running a company, but the case is rather that politicians are bad at running a company.

Privatisation in Denmark is invariably done to save money, but I think it could work if it was done solely to raise quality, and an effective scrutiny of the operation was performed. But this control means more government, so it will never be implemented by the right, and the left will de-privatise.

It's like you cannot comprehend that left-wing politicians can be just as incompetent and corrupt as right-wing politicians, or that left-wing voters can be just as naive and stupid as right-wing voters.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Projecting much?

 

[arthwollipot]

However, the city government does not establish a city agency or department to provide these services. Rather, it engages a number of non-profit organizations to do so. These non-profits receive all the funds raised, with the desired services being provided by them. This is the part I call "privatization". At current count, we have over 190 such non-profits in our city, contracted to provide homeless support services. And just like in your right-wing case, in my left-wing case this has resulted in significant fraud and waste, and very little in the way of services actually provided.

Your solution is to wrap all this up into a government-controlled system? Welcome to socialism!

 

[dirtywick]

that's interesting that privatization is considered the left wing case, but not as interesting as being privatized leading to a bunch of fraud

 

[theprestige]

Your solution is to wrap all this up into a government-controlled system? Welcome to socialism!

Because I think there are some jobs that government should do? Okay, sure.

 

[theprestige]

that's interesting that privatization is considered the left wing case, but not as interesting as being privatized leading to a bunch of fraud

Honestly I never would have expected privatization from the left, before I came to Portland and saw it in action. The degree of fraud and waste that has resulted from this policy here in Portland has also been a pretty big shock.

 

[dirtywick]

so where do you think you go from a failure in the private market?

 

[theprestige]

Your solution is to wrap all this up into a government-controlled system? Welcome to socialism!

It's hardly socialist to want the government to do the job of government. You're getting to the point where anything other than anarcho-libertarianism must be socialism.

 

[theprestige]

so where do you think you go from a failure in the private market?

Depends on the market, depends on the failure. If a movie bombs at the box office, I don't go anywhere. Why would I?

 

[dirtywick]

we could stick with your example in portland

 

[theprestige]

we could stick with your example in portland

But I already did that example.

 

[dirtywick]

But I already did that example.

i guess i don’t follow. link me a post so i can catch up

 

[theprestige]

i guess i don’t follow. link me a post so i can catch up

Don't worry about it. I already got what I needed out of that conversation. I might pick it up again, if anything new gets added.

 

[dirtywick]

Don't worry about it. I already got what I needed out of that conversation. I might pick it up again, if anything new gets added.

i'm just trying to understand what you were saying, and i'm not even asking you to explain it again, i'll go back and read it. but, you know, if you got what you needed i guess that's all that's important lol is that really a way to treat someone?

 

[theprestige]

i'm just trying to understand what you were saying, and i'm not even asking you to explain it again, i'll go back and read it. but, you know, if you got what you needed i guess that's all that's important lol is that really a way to treat someone?

My posts aren't intended to cater to your needs and wants, any more than yours are intended to cater to mine.

Remember when you barged into my conversation with steenkh, and missed the context because you hadn't bothered to review the conversation so far, and I had to correct you? That was your second opportunity to review the conversation so far. If you'd taken either of those opportunities, you'd understand exactly what I'm saying. Now you're on your third opportunity, and you think I'm supposed to be more charitable? Third time's the curse in this case.

If it helps, I'm sorry for your loss. It sucks when a whole conversation begins and ends before you have a chance butt in strike while the iron is hot.

---

Let's try a different angle. Where do you go when the left-wing government you voted for outsources government services, resulting ridiculous amounts of fraud and waste?

I've already given my answer. Let's see if yours matches mine.

 

[dirtywick]

My posts aren't intended to cater to your needs and wants, any more than yours are intended to cater to mine.

Remember when you barged into my conversation with steenkh, and missed the context because you hadn't bothered to review the conversation so far, and I had to correct you? That was your second opportunity to review the conversation so far. If you'd taken either of those opportunities, you'd understand exactly what I'm saying. Now you're on your third opportunity, and you think I'm supposed to be more charitable? Third time's the curse in this case.

If it helps, I'm sorry for your loss. It sucks when a whole conversation begins and ends before you have a chance butt in strike while the iron is hot.

i don't really feel like that's what i was doing but i could see how you could get that impression and i understand where you're coming from. that said, my opinion is you're making the choice of being as big of an ass as possible about it, which could come as no surprise is a bit annoying to me.
so i guess that explains that situation from my point, and i think i'll take you up on not giving a ◊◊◊◊ what your thoughts about it are anymore, as suggested. i won't worry about it.

Let's try a different angle. Where do you go when the left-wing government you voted for outsources government services, resulting ridiculous amounts of fraud and waste?

I've already given my answer. Let's see if yours matches mine.

third party or the other leftist, i suppose. where i live right wingers run unopposed, i would assume that's the case but in reverse in portland. obviously voting for conservatives would be a dire mistake that would only make that situation worse. the left in portland is making a bunch of right wing decisions in privatizing anyway, certainly will get more of that voting for people expressedly committed to doing that. it's like the john fetterman thing, yeah he ran as a progressive and a dem but man, not really in practice.

i mean, they'd have to go, i would be pissed at them too.

i agree, it's a bit of a conundrum.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Excessive Profit Taxes would be an obvious thing to have.
You can have exceptions for small companies and startups.
But when profits are a kind of profiteering, instead of regulating that, just tax them to the point where companies themselves see no point in doing it.

 

[steenkh]

Because I think there are some jobs that government should do?

Actually, it is a wide-spread right-wing position that there is very little the government should do. So if we want to draw a line between right and left-wing positions (not necessarily your own position on this), we need to define where to draw the line between what the government should do and what not. We have Ayn Rand-admirers on one side, and anarcho-syndicalists on the other side, and somewhere between them there is the line between right and left. Possibly,we should also define a grey area called the "moderates".