Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[reallyoldman]

I have followed this thread and tried to find the historical origin of the attitude that many have about "government employees". The Great Depression gave way to make work projects to create employment for those that were struggling. One of those efforts was the Civilian Conservation Corp. My father-in-law was a Forman on some of those projects above DeBeque CO. They built access trails above Roan Creek. He told me many stories about "make work" projects and all included not only discouraged and required a very slow pace. I have had first hand experience dealing with federal, state and county road programs..all were "the slower the better". One federal project my company furnished all of the aggregator processing equipment on. It started out as a $50M project and somehow became a $500M project.. loaded with in efficiency. We need certain functions to be performed by various government agencies and many are staffed by hard working people BUT the norm in my experience is many are pretty casual in their performance.

 

[BigHornRam]

Will we be OK? No I sure don't think so. God help anyone trying to reach the IRS For help on the phone now. A few years back it was an hour on hold for me to do so.

Easy peezy. Refund is already in my bank account.

https://www.hrblock.com/online-tax-filing/?utm_medium=Paidsearch&utm_source=admedia&utm_campaign=Search_7_HRBlock_Brand_Assisted&gad_source=1

 

[texwest44]

The premise to this thread is to relax and let it unfold. I disagree with that premise.

In the pile of straw men and red herrings being amassed in this thread, this is the key point right here.

@dranrab, it isn't that we're necessarily trying to change your mind or be dismissive of your perspective, it's that you've missed our point entirely in why we aren't happy, and sometimes we can't tell if it's in good faith or not. This is a message board where public land wellness is a key issue, and where the focus regularly comes back to the ever-evolving schemes to privatize that land. The groups who are working to privatize aren't just relaxing and assuming everything will work out the way they want, and neither are we. It's an ongoing battle, and requires us to be alert and cognizant of what's happening in real time, and relies on us to be proactive where we can. I feel like someone with military or NG or CG experience should understand that concept more plainly.

I like to believe you want to have this conversation in good faith, which we can still do, but we can't do that effectively with false equivalencies, mismatched comparisons to other departments of the federal government, and all mixed in with a half dozen other irrelevant conversations.

 

[trackerbacker]

If thats really how you think - you arent at all convincable and youre thinking about it too simplistically.

Good day to you.

No. I'm being realistic. There is my point. Wheres your complex solution? Somehow my property is yours, though I pay (not enough) taxes on it that you should tell me how much to.....

......ohhh I get the complex solution now. Is it control you want ceded over?

I live in the real world, with real things happening, with real money, real property rights, real laws. Not theoretical applications. Whether first hand or second, proving in a court of law the uphill neighbor is directly responsible will land you into well which up hill? Who's at fault? Who exceeds state fault limits? What if you have 10 uphill neighbors, does each get 10% blame or the last one 100%? Is it laddered/tiered or graduated? What if that neighbor just moved in taking possession of his uphill house, how's he at fault, he just put the uhaul in the Driveway

what if you state says 50+1 for at fault, now you lose almost before even being heard, and you have more losses coming....

So let's talk. I'm open, you're opting to not have the dialogue now. Toss out your complex solution.

 

[Elky Welky]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the govt can be more efficient and bureaucracy is frustrating.

But there's a reason surgeons use scalpels and not chainsaws. I appreciated reading the OP's opinion, but it is limited in it's scope and relevance, particularly in fire country.

Aside from the very human and sad horror of lifelong public servants losing their jobs for the sake of "efficiency;" my personal fear is not just choking on forest fire smoke every other summer, but every year. Without forest employees out there doing what they do best, the fire danger in the West only goes up. The unintended consequences of "break it now, fix it later" are only going to accelerate all the problems we've seen for years now.

Yes, make cuts where it makes sense. But that requires careful study and analysis, internal review, and public input. The concept of due process should apply here as much as anywhere. What's happening now, however, is truly bad new bears.

 

[trackerbacker]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the govt can be more efficient and bureaucracy is frustrating.

But there's a reason surgeons use scalpels and not chainsaws. I appreciated reading the OP's opinion, but it is limited in it's scope and relevance, particularly in fire country.

Aside from the very human and sad horror of lifelong public servants losing their jobs for the sake of "efficiency;" my personal fear is not just choking on forest fire smoke every other summer, but every year. Without forest employees out there doing what they do best, the fire danger in the West only goes up. The unintended consequences of "break it now, fix it later" are only going to accelerate all the problems we've seen for years now.

Yes, make cuts where it makes sense. But that requires careful study and analysis, internal review, and public input. The concept of due process should apply here as much as anywhere. What's happening now, however, is truly bad new bears.

Wasn't "due process' for the executive branch just held back in November? Seems it was..

So you would advise studying a drunken sailor spending for 4 years, and then, knowingly be able to do nothing because of time?

If my legs bleeding out under a 18" I beam, I want the doctor who's going to save me, not the doctor trying to save my leg. Or wonder if he can call me sir or ma'am. Or wonder if my wife will be okay with the fact I have only half a leg tattoo.

Save me, not the leg. We've been saving legs (toes mostly, and others at that) for far too long

This is corrective behavior, what you're proposing does nothing and will achieve nothing, because time. Both teams know this.

 

[hunter49]

Diarrhea of the mouth^

Just keeps going and going.

 

[elkduds]

Wasn't "due process' for the executive branch just held back in November? Seems it was..

We used to have a Supreme Court that ruled on legal perspectives like "due process." They abdicated that when they said voters override courts, crime and punishment vis a vis the Presidency. Massive threat to tripartite gov't checks and balances envisioned and outlined by Founders.

 

[El Jason]

But what's the point of winning if you won't rub the losers face in it?

If you were stuck or broken down in the middle of nowhere, I would gladly help you out. If you had an elk down in a hole and I came across you, I would grab a quarter and help pack it out.

However, this statement of yours is a prime illustration of exactly what is wrong with our country, and why our political climate is what it is. we are all on the same team. We are all Americans. Until we can come to grips with that, then the in your face attitude will continue and nothing will ever get better unless it’s your side that is currently winning.

 

[Forkyfinder]

No. I'm being realistic. There is my point. Wheres your complex solution? Somehow my property is yours, though I pay (not enough) taxes on it that you should tell me how much to.....

......ohhh I get the complex solution now. Is it control you want ceded over?

I live in the real world, with real things happening, with real money, real property rights, real laws. Not theoretical applications. Whether first hand or second, proving in a court of law the uphill neighbor is directly responsible will land you into well which up hill? Who's at fault? Who exceeds state fault limits? What if you have 10 uphill neighbors, does each get 10% blame or the last one 100%? Is it laddered/tiered or graduated? What if that neighbor just moved in taking possession of his uphill house, how's he at fault, he just put the uhaul in the Driveway

what if you state says 50+1 for at fault, now you lose almost before even being heard, and you have more losses coming....

So let's talk. I'm open, you're opting to not have the dialogue now. Toss out your complex solution.

Look as someone who does their own share of unconvincing self rants - you arent convincing anyone.

Back to flooding point - as i feel you are still missing it entirely. I dont want to take anyones property at all - i just want to limit the damage you can do to my property through how you change your own.

So if you build a house to a certain height or elevation, - and the adjacent upslope property is pastureland - and it exists 50 years without flooding....

Then me - having specifically no regard for backtrackers property - builds the entire upstream area into an asphalt parking lot. The first spring (and a dry one at that) after my beautiful parking lot is constructed - your house floods (water flows much faster and concentrates more quickly on asphalt than grass) because no regulations stopped me from doing what i wanted with my property.

Another example - perhaps your neighbors property rights are impeded on, as you must spew bull shit all over at home too, right? They have the reasonable right/expectation to not bear the smell of stench as they eat dinner. Mostly kidding.

Tell me you see the nuance now?

 

[rjthehunter]

And I could show you a ton of threads, some being Buzz's threads, that managed to get shut down by others being a douche. And those folks who acted like a douche are still here, also. Does that mean they get special treatment, also? Or does your observation only apply to people you disagree with?

If you don't like how this forum is moderated, rather than spend most your morning complaining about it, you can send me a PM and ask that your account be deleted.

Yes, some people are dicks occasionally. Most don't make it a hobby though. I replied to a comment on his thread, then was called out for trying to derail his thread. I guess it's just odd to me to see someone who consistently derails threads, and is undoubtedly the most condescending person on this site being protected by mods. I was just making an observation.

Moving on.

I posted a thread a few days ago about DOGE and some interesting findings. It was deleted pretty quickly after. Why? It would be a good place to see some of the most interesting pieces of overspending in the government. I had seen several screenshots that were posted on other threads, and it is intriguing how much money is being wasted.

 

[Elky Welky]

So you would advise studying a drunken sailor spending for 4 years, and then, knowingly be able to do nothing because of time?

I think the drunken sailor problem has been resolved for many many years, with some solutions including: shave his belly with a rusty razor, put him in a long boat until he's sober, stick him in a scupper with a hosepipe bottom, and put him in bed with the captain's daughter. I would advise any of the above.

 

[trackerbacker]

Look as someone who does their own share of unconvincing self rants - you arent convincing anyone.

Back to flooding point - as i feel you are still missing it entirely. I dont want to take anyones property at all - i just want to limit the damage you can do to my property through how you change your own.

So if you build a house to a certain height or elevation, - and the adjacent upslope property is pastureland - and it exists 50 years without flooding.

Then me - having specifically no regard for backtrackers property - builds the entire upstream area into an asphalt parking lot. The first spring after my beautiful parking lot is constructed - your house floods (water flows much faster and concentrates more quickly on asphalt than grass) because no regulations stopped me from doing what i wanted with my property.

I mean, if we keep adding details from the generic your uphill neighbor theoretical...then yes, in that case, surely. In the generic water runs downhill and your uphill neighbor drivel, no.

See how nuances being added bolsters your argument? I would absolutely trample my neighbor's rights to help him out then. 100%. Probably free of charge for the fun of it if he chose to deal with me long term...

However, if your two neighbors got a typical April rain as your story much more posited originally vs intentional negligence and a host of other issues...

See how details matter? Yes. I agree in your theoretical, but not in the (vaguely) general, which is probably a 3:1 general: theoretical conservatively in real life. But, I enjoy outliers.

Another example - perhaps your neighbors property rights are impeded on, as you must spew bull shit all over at home too, right Mostly kidding.

Tell me you see the nuance now?

Possibly. Neighbors got a barking dog. Bloodhound. Can hear it anytime of day. Only bothers me on our shared fence line over 'there'. As its the loudest there.

But buster barks. Buster barks and barks and barks. It's a "which way did they go george, which way did they go" type of bark..but still, most of the day....and a good portion of the evening.

He started barking A LOT MORE a few weeks into late last summer/early fall. So much so, the neighbor bought a bark collar heading into winter. Buster barks much less now. Much much less.

And thank God too! Those 17 chickens I bought and built a coop for over there late last summer/early fall have really pay dividends with egg prices. Wasn't sure what I was going to do long term with 17 chickens.

 

[dranrab]

In the pile of straw men and red herrings being amassed in this thread, this is the key point right here.

@dranrab, it isn't that we're necessarily trying to change your mind or be dismissive of your perspective, it's that you've missed our point entirely in why we aren't happy, and sometimes we can't tell if it's in good faith or not. This is a message board where public land wellness is a key issue, and where the focus regularly comes back to the ever-evolving schemes to privatize that land. The groups who are working to privatize aren't just relaxing and assuming everything will work out the way they want, and neither are we. It's an ongoing battle, and requires us to be alert and cognizant of what's happening in real time, and relies on us to be proactive where we can. I feel like someone with military or NG or CG experience should understand that concept more plainly.

I like to believe you want to have this conversation in good faith, which we can still do, but we can't do that effectively with false equivalencies, mismatched comparisons to other departments of the federal government, and all mixed in with a half dozen other irrelevant conversations.

If you are saying your fear is that Trump's shotgun approach to downsizing government is a precursor to the privatization of public lands, then no, I hadn't picked up on that in this discussion. I also don't believe it.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I mean, if we keep adding details from the generic your uphill neighbor theoretical...then yes, in that case, surely. In the generic water runs downhill and your uphill neighbor drivel, no.

See how nuances being added bolsters your argument? I would absolutely trample my neighbor's rights to help him out then. 100%. Probably free of charge for the fun of it if he chose to deal with me long term...

However, if your two neighbors got a typical April rain as your story much more posited originally vs intentional negligence and a host of other issues...

See how details matter? Yes. I agree in your theoretical, but not in the (vaguely) general, which is probably a 3:1 general: theoretical conservatively in real life. But, I enjoy outliers.

Possibly. Neighbors got a barking dog. Bloodhound. Can hear it anytime of day. Only bothers me on our shared fence line over 'there'. As its the loudest there.

But buster barks. Buster barks and barks and barks. It's a "which way did they go george, which way did they go" type of bark..but still, most of the day....and a good portion of the evening.

He started barking A LOT MORE a few weeks into late last summer/early fall. So much so, the neighbor bought a bark collar heading into winter. Buster barks much less now. Much much less.

And thank God too! Those 17 chickens I bought and built a coop for over there late last summer/early fall have really pay dividends with egg prices. Wasn't sure what I was going to do long term with 17 chickens.

It isnt an outlier - its a reality that every developer literally deals with and engineers/builds around. The need/complexity of those requirements is a fact of private property rights. See how the "rights" dont quite end on the property line?

I used an extreme example - because extreme examples of things bring logic to its conclusion and filter it to reality that i keep trying to describe for you. Generally - you have to be legally responsible for the flood you create on your neighbors property - if someone can reasonably prove that you caused it. Further - why i wanted an extreme example, i didnt want to argue the semantics of science/physics with you.

Regulations requiring engineers to maintain pre-existing flow rates is preservation of property rights - not destruction. The guy upstream still maintains his right to develop, but he must put in controls (detention ponds for example) to stop additional flow on to your property.

 

[MTGomer]

I don’t know that floods plain surveys and LOMRs and CLOMRs are quite as simplistic as they’re being made out to be

 

[trackerbacker]

It isnt an outlier - its a reality that every developer literally deals with and engineers/builds around. The need/complexity of those requirements is a fact of private property rights. See how the "rights" dont quite end on the property line?

I used an extreme example - because extreme examples of bring logic to its conclusion and filter it to reality that i keep trying to describe for you. Generally - you have to be legally responsible for the flood you create on your neighbors property - if someone can reasonably prove that you caused it. Further - why i wanted an extreme example, i didnt want to argue the semantics of science/physics with you.

Regulations requiring engineers to maintain pre-existing flow rates is preservation of property rights - not destruction. The guy upstream still maintains his right to develop, but he must put in controls (detention ponds for example) to stop additional flow on to your property.

Ok. Extreme real example-

Head over to the ambler's thread here. Then, come back here. You can practice all your theory, and when you enter reality, we can discuss again.

Otherwise, you're real extreme examples do nothing but serve your point, hence the need to go extreme.

And yes, the parking lot happens all the time...and people complain. All the time. Most of those complaints NEVER come to actual fruition. The few that do actually don't go to court, the ones that do usually wind up with 'well prove to me your foundation, your waterproofing are all adequately, competently installed Because just proving whatever I did that did not interrupt water flowing downhill to you, doesn't mean your structure is good to begin with

Enter more costs for downhill Harry homeowner. And it's valid. And it's what would occur. Then-after all that discovery and cost, we'll meet again, where downhill will be asked again- simply building a AHJ APPROVED, PERMITTED, INSPECTED AND VERIFIED (ie- ahj now owns liability and culpability), something that AHJ deemed safe and applicable....etc etc legalities and insurance.....more money...

Your Insurance is paying more than likely, unless you didn't inform them prior to suit, then 50/50 they pay.. More than likely not mine without you going uphill legally against the AHJ itself and me and winning....

So now, You're at least on a bad day 2:1 outspending me on legal fees, insurance will probably not cover your flood damage as A-act of God, B- you didn't provide insurance enough time prior to suit notification, and your choice, is sit and spend for 12 months minimum, regardless verdict.

At the end, win lose or draw on the deal I'm covered multiple ways, as is the city, you've spent thousands and at least a year in court, I've spent a few thousand that'll go against my burden on taxes and, probably, was already factored into the project as legal fees, and if there's some left over...bonuses.

So, your theoretical extreme vs my old everyday reality. Which do you think will win? Which is proven? The theory you stand behind at its extremes, or the realities of everyday life?

And a victory in court is not in the verdict but the quit. A win is a win is a win. And attrition gets an A for effort.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I mean, if we keep adding details from the generic your uphill neighbor theoretical...then yes, in that case, surely. In the generic water runs downhill and your uphill neighbor drivel, no.

See how nuances being added bolsters your argument? I would absolutely trample my neighbor's rights to help him out then. 100%. Probably free of charge for the fun of it if he chose to deal with me long term...

However, if your two neighbors got a typical April rain as your story much more posited originally vs intentional negligence and a host of other issues...

See how details matter? Yes. I agree in your theoretical, but not in the (vaguely) general, which is probably a 3:1 general: theoretical conservatively in real life. But, I enjoy outliers.

Possibly. Neighbors got a barking dog. Bloodhound. Can hear it anytime of day. Only bothers me on our shared fence line over 'there'. As its the loudest there.

But buster barks. Buster barks and barks and barks. It's a "which way did they go george, which way did they go" type of bark..but still, most of the day....and a good portion of the evening.

He started barking A LOT MORE a few weeks into late last summer/early fall. So much so, the neighbor bought a bark collar heading into winter. Buster barks much less now. Much much less.

And thank God too! Those 17 chickens I bought and built a coop for over there late last summer/early fall have really pay dividends with egg prices. Wasn't sure what I was going to do long term with 17 chickens.

Arent you in Wy?

If you are, perhaps Casper, than your neighbor with his nice dog were breaking the law. Heres some of their muni code.

"50."Public nuisance" means any animal is considered a public nuisance if it:a.Trespasses on school grounds; or,b.Damages private or public property; or,c.Interferes with passersby or a passing vehicle, to include bicycles; or,d.Either individually or in concert, barks, whines, howls or otherwise makes noise in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion; or,"

Anyway.... good luck in your search for the gov boogeyman. Lemme know when ya get him!

 

[Forkyfinder]

I don’t know that floods plain surveys and LOMRs and CLOMRs are quite as simplistic as they’re being made out to be

I tried to make it very simplistic. Itd have really not gone well going deeper...

 

[Gulf of America]

Ok. Extreme real example-

Head over to the ambler's thread here. Then, come back here. You can practice all your theory, and when you enter reality, we can discuss again.

Otherwise, you're real extreme examples do nothing but serve your point, hence the need to go extreme.

And yes, the parking lot happens all the time...and people complain. All the time. Most of those complaints NEVER come to actual fruition. The few that do actually don't go to court, the ones that do usually wind up with 'well prove to me your foundation, your waterproofing are all adequately, competently installed Because just proving whatever I did that did not interrupt water flowing downhill to you, doesn't mean your structure is good to begin with

Enter more costs for downhill Harry homeowner. And it's valid. And it's what would occur. Then-after all that discovery and cost, we'll meet again, where downhill will be asked again- simply building a AHJ APPROVED, PERMITTED, INSPECTED AND VERIFIED (ie- ahj now owns liability and culpability), something that AHJ deemed safe and applicable....etc etc legalities and insurance.....more money...

Your Insurance is paying more than likely, unless you didn't inform them prior to suit, then 50/50 they pay.. More than likely not mine without you going uphill legally against the AHJ itself and me and winning....

So now, You're at least on a bad day 2:1 outspending me on legal fees, insurance will probably not cover your flood damage as A-act of God, B- you didn't provide insurance enough time prior to suit notification, and your choice, is sit and spend for 12 months minimum, regardless verdict.

At the end, win lose or draw on the deal I'm covered multiple ways, as is the city, you've spent thousands and at least a year in court, I've spent a few thousand that'll go against my burden on taxes and, probably, was already factored into the project as legal fees, and if there's some left over...bonuses.

So, your theoretical extreme vs my old everyday reality. Which do you think will win? Which is proven? The theory you stand behind at its extremes, or the realities of everyday life?

And a victory in court is not in the verdict but the quit. A win is a win is a win. And attrition gets an A for effort.

Good lord it's hard to wade through your word salad just to find there isn't a damn thing but nasty kale in said salad.