appears (do not necessarily believe what he says an economist) that the state spends too much money and that it is imperative to save all this does not go to hell.
By one of those strange turns of fate, it turns out that when deciding on what to save have decided that will save us (especially civil servants and pensioners).
Indeed, such initiatives have been criticized ... generally considered to have had to have been made earlier (ie, they have wasted too much on us to eat) or insufficiency. When trying to find out what one would have to be cut as well (or instead of) does not get more than a series of dark and demagogic reasons, but is left with the feeling that what we want is to make us "pay" more, not less.
It made everybody has their opinion and not my intention to convince anyone of anything, so that everyone has the provider as well. But as to what can be done, we will take a constructive exercise and suggesting where you can cut more costs to the State, given that everyone seems to be lacking in ideas, and without prejudice to the better approach.
are in first place all those private organizations that are helping to maintain. I can think of two clear examples: the Church and trade unions. Both of the others have settled into the life of Grant and left abandoned to their bases, given that they do not need to survive. In both cases, membership in these organizations is voluntary. And while allegedly met with a social work, and it is also clear that within it there are people who really care and work for the good of others, (you're reading this is a good example) generally consist of ranks careerists trying to survive rather out of work than anything else.
The solution to these is that they are their own members who bear the expenses of the organization. This certainly would benefit all, for then these organizations would be concerned that their bases were happy, making sure to work much closer to one in which their respective founders were thinking.
Then there are other organizations with lax law, we consider semi-public, such as political parties. Certainly his role in the organization of society is important (excessive, I think, but you have to have what you have). There are many people "living" at the expense political parties, and they live in much of the state budget. As in the previous case, I believe to be its supporters or members who pay their survival.
There is here certainly a risk that the need to raise money be taken in by spurious interests and have to return, also on account of all the favors obtained. Well, too late, they are already doing. So the best thing is that donations have to be public (a website might be the best option) so that everyone knows whom he is playing the quarter. And at least we do not cost money.
following is deeper in some budgetary issues especially in relation to local and regional administrations and also with universities, to name just three examples. It is not just the money they earn officials (which usually is not too, really). The bleeding comes from all those official cars, civil engineering offered small finger, excessive staffing, wasteful spending on unnecessary equipment or have just held "private" and so on.
Here it is necessary, and certainly lacks the administrative organization, a hierarchy is effective and not subject to political power. Certainly this approach is unrealistic, because this power exists on paper, but unfortunately in practice usually diluted in corporatism and apathy, and into the sickly attempt not to cause problems to political power.
certainly is here where the lion's share of our deficit. Only councils have a deficit of close to 30.000.000.000 € (in number more impressive.)
However, they still have plenty of official cars, carguillos, commissions, seafood, etc. The same occurs in the regional administrations. They all take refuge in that guilt is the "State." Error. They are the State. They can not continue taking advantage of that revenue to make another hit and hide the hand.
Maybe some autonomous communities they raise their own taxes? Better a Federal State? I do not see why not, if it keeps us invisible cost much money (as they see the results of the investment by any side).
Anyway, we have over 2,700,000 employees. So many need? How many politicians have charged?
is where the secret is, believe it. Of course, no one throws stones at his own roof.
Unless you pay the settlement and he takes another commission, unclear.
By one of those strange turns of fate, it turns out that when deciding on what to save have decided that will save us (especially civil servants and pensioners).
Indeed, such initiatives have been criticized ... generally considered to have had to have been made earlier (ie, they have wasted too much on us to eat) or insufficiency. When trying to find out what one would have to be cut as well (or instead of) does not get more than a series of dark and demagogic reasons, but is left with the feeling that what we want is to make us "pay" more, not less.
It made everybody has their opinion and not my intention to convince anyone of anything, so that everyone has the provider as well. But as to what can be done, we will take a constructive exercise and suggesting where you can cut more costs to the State, given that everyone seems to be lacking in ideas, and without prejudice to the better approach.
are in first place all those private organizations that are helping to maintain. I can think of two clear examples: the Church and trade unions. Both of the others have settled into the life of Grant and left abandoned to their bases, given that they do not need to survive. In both cases, membership in these organizations is voluntary. And while allegedly met with a social work, and it is also clear that within it there are people who really care and work for the good of others, (you're reading this is a good example) generally consist of ranks careerists trying to survive rather out of work than anything else.
The solution to these is that they are their own members who bear the expenses of the organization. This certainly would benefit all, for then these organizations would be concerned that their bases were happy, making sure to work much closer to one in which their respective founders were thinking.
Then there are other organizations with lax law, we consider semi-public, such as political parties. Certainly his role in the organization of society is important (excessive, I think, but you have to have what you have). There are many people "living" at the expense political parties, and they live in much of the state budget. As in the previous case, I believe to be its supporters or members who pay their survival.
There is here certainly a risk that the need to raise money be taken in by spurious interests and have to return, also on account of all the favors obtained. Well, too late, they are already doing. So the best thing is that donations have to be public (a website might be the best option) so that everyone knows whom he is playing the quarter. And at least we do not cost money.
following is deeper in some budgetary issues especially in relation to local and regional administrations and also with universities, to name just three examples. It is not just the money they earn officials (which usually is not too, really). The bleeding comes from all those official cars, civil engineering offered small finger, excessive staffing, wasteful spending on unnecessary equipment or have just held "private" and so on.
Here it is necessary, and certainly lacks the administrative organization, a hierarchy is effective and not subject to political power. Certainly this approach is unrealistic, because this power exists on paper, but unfortunately in practice usually diluted in corporatism and apathy, and into the sickly attempt not to cause problems to political power.
certainly is here where the lion's share of our deficit. Only councils have a deficit of close to 30.000.000.000 € (in number more impressive.)
However, they still have plenty of official cars, carguillos, commissions, seafood, etc. The same occurs in the regional administrations. They all take refuge in that guilt is the "State." Error. They are the State. They can not continue taking advantage of that revenue to make another hit and hide the hand.
Maybe some autonomous communities they raise their own taxes? Better a Federal State? I do not see why not, if it keeps us invisible cost much money (as they see the results of the investment by any side).
Anyway, we have over 2,700,000 employees. So many need? How many politicians have charged?
is where the secret is, believe it. Of course, no one throws stones at his own roof.
Unless you pay the settlement and he takes another commission, unclear.
0 comments:
Post a Comment