Cisco
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4196
Registered: 12-30-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
A contemporary report and history of what is CBP.
Found this noted on OT. Very interesting article/report. Contains:
"The United States today spends more money each year on border and immigration enforcement than the combined budgets of the FBI, ATF, DEA, Secret
Service and U.S. Marshals—plus the entire NYPD annual budget. Altogether, the country has invested more than $100 billion in border and immigration
control since 9/11.
It has paid for quite a force: Customs and Border Protection not only employs some 60,000 total personnel—everything from desert agents on horseback
to insect inspectors at airports—but also operates a fleet of some 250 planes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator drones the
military sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, making CBP both the largest law enforcement air force in the world and equivalent roughly to the size of
Brazil’s entire combat air force.
The Border Patrol wing of this vast apparatus has experienced particularly dramatic growth: By the time the Bush administration left Washington, the
fiercely independent agency—part police force, part occupying army, part frontier cavalry—had gone from being a comparatively tiny, undermanned
backwater of the Justice Department to a 21,000-person arm of the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol...
The article goes from the inception of the service, it's roots and history to today.
Excellent read.
|
|
|
J.P.
Super Nomad
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
They left out the one most obvious fact, IT'S THE MOST INEFFICENT BRANCH OF GOVT.
[Edited on 12-29-2014 by J.P.]
|
|
|
vandenberg
Elite Nomad
Posts: 5118
Registered: 6-21-2005
Location: Nopolo
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow
|
|
Anything to do with government is inefficient. 
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Private businesses are also very, very, very inefficient...that is why there is such a high failure rate...especially among new business ventures AND
even among many long standing businesses that we have all seen go out of business.
The belief that business per se is efficient is nonsense, and there is an abundance of proof of that.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by MitchMan  | Private businesses are also very, very, very inefficient...that is why there is such a high failure rate...especially among new business ventures AND
even among many long standing businesses that we have all seen go out of business.
The belief that business per se is efficient is nonsense, and there is an abundance of proof of that. |
True, but I submit, a relative statement. Is there credible info that Private business is MORE inefficient than Govt. run entities???? I have always
believed not!!! and I think the stats support my belief. As long as a plethora of ineffective and conflicting laws and policies concerning illegal
border activities and crossings remain, then we will never gain control of our borders--------THAT is what the argument is all about, IMO, and the
incredible waste of resources----chasing one's tails around and around.
Barry
|
|
|
C205Driver
Nomad
Posts: 266
Registered: 8-25-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: Life is Good
|
|
Mitch my Man. . .Government does NOT have competition AND they have UNLIMITED backing; not so for the private sector. . .LOTS of private business fail
because of a POOR business model, lack of financing & competition & illness, & etc.. . . YMMV. . .I do not by your argument
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry, the intent and mission and objectives for business are different than for government. Business is about self-interest for the owner,
maximizing profit. Sometimes that may mean efficiency, but many other times maximizing profit may have nothing to do with efficiency such as gaining
controlling market share, out advertising ones competitors, finding a niche, going to a location where there is little to no competition, paying a
competitor not to manufacture a generic drug, buying a competitor and putting their product out of production, spending more on promotion, etc., etc.,
etc. Barry, there are businesses that are inefficient and can still make money.
Certainly there are some businesses that are more efficient that others, but most often the product that businesses sell are uniquely different than
the service or product that governments are charged with providing.
You may have 'always' believed that there is no credible info that private business is MORE inefficient than government run entities, but be careful
about referring to stats that support your broad belief because you would then have to explain why so many businesses go out of business if your
belief is to be supported. Why aren't May Company and Broadway still around? Lehman Brothers? Maybe we should turn over the government to one of
the CEO's on Wall Street since they did such a stellar job on the financial structure in 2007/8? What do your 'stats' say about that? And...what
about those lost and wasted 'resources'.
Maybe the founders of our nation got it wrong and should have aligned themselves with your lack of confidence in government and created a for profit
corporation with a CEO to replace the Confederacy instead of the Constitution and the three branches of our government?
Barry, I think what you have to understand is that you and I are 'works in progress', our families, our communities, our cities, states and this
nation's governance are all "Works in Progress". And, yes, even all businesses are works in progress. And that, IMO, is what this argument is all
about. If you expect perfection and nothing less of any business or any government, you are in a fantasy alternative universe.
Our founders did their best to write a Constitution that left room for growth and change so that it could adapt to unforeseen challenges in the
future. The founders had our best interest at heart. Good luck in believing that business has your best interest at heart instead of their bottom
line.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MitchMan---------Since I have made the bulk of my income, and built net-worth for well over 45 years from owning stocks in Worldwide Private
companies, it is hard for me to bad-mouth them and say they do NOT have my "best interests" at heart-----------they (most of them) certainly have
consistently rewarded me long term big-time. There certainly have been stinkers, but by far most of them have done well by me, and way outperformed
& off-set the stinkers. As you say, "nothing is perfect" but I trust Private Industry a lot more than the fickle Government, as Govt. managers
and employees have no profit motive to keep them efficient. I worked for the Fed. Government (29 yrs) because the job was fun, not because it was
profitable (for me) or efficient, which it wasn't.
C205Driver addressed why some business's go out-of-business in the above post, so I won't address that, and you certainly know what he meant.
I would have liked to "turn over the Govt." to a CEO type person, which is why I voted for Mitt Romney, who in my opinion is the most qualified man in
my history of voting.
IMO the Founder's wrote a very specific Constitution, with just enough vagueness to yes, allow for "change and progress" WITHIN their general
guidelines which they outlined very clearly and specifically. It's an inspired document, which is why it has been the gold-standard for many other
Countries since.
On balance, I obviously take a conservative view of almost everything, because by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all
of us. (some more than others)
Barry
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MitchMan---------Since I have made the bulk of my income, and built net-worth for well over 45 years from owning stocks in Worldwide Private
companies, it is hard for me to bad-mouth them and say they do NOT have my "best interests" at heart-----------they (most of them) certainly have
consistently rewarded me long term big-time. There certainly have been stinkers, but by far most of them have done well by me, and way outperformed
& off-set the stinkers. As you say, "nothing is perfect" but I trust Private Industry a lot more than the fickle Government, as Govt. managers
and employees have no profit motive to keep them efficient. I worked for the Fed. Government (29 yrs) because the job was fun, not because it was
profitable (for me) or efficient, which it wasn't.
C205Driver addressed why some business's go out-of-business in the above post, so I won't address that, and you certainly know what he meant.
I would have liked to "turn over the Govt." to a CEO type person, which is why I voted for Mitt Romney, who in my opinion is the most qualified man in
my history of voting.
IMO the Founder's wrote a very specific Constitution, with just enough vagueness to yes, allow for "change and progress" WITHIN their general
guidelines which they outlined very clearly and specifically. It's an inspired document, which is why it has been the gold-standard for many other
Countries since.
On balance, I obviously take a conservative view of almost everything, because by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all
of us. (some more than others)
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Driver, are you saying that most all businesses are efficient but they have only gone out of business largely for the reasons you stated?
BTW, don't you think that creating a poor business model is an inefficiency? I do. If the business was efficient, it would have exercised that
efficiency and created good business model. You know business models are not made in a vacuum. It is "efficient" to do adequate and sufficient due
diligence in the process of creating a business model, use researched assumptions and make efficient examinations of the market and the product and
the plan for putting out the product together with documented/supported coherent forecasts for both costs and revenues.
It is quite an inefficiency to actually launch a business without adequate financing which goes back to the inefficient business model that either
didn't reflect the required financing (as a proper and efficient business model is supposed to do) or the entrepreneur himself was so inefficient that
he launched the business before securing adequate financing.
Underestimating competition is an unforgivable inefficiency...reflects, among other things, not doing a workup on the market...lack of obvious due
diligence. And, not to do due diligence is a massive inefficiency.
I'll give you the "illness" factor, but, have you ever heard of "Key Man" insurance?
My goal in my first post was to discredit the common and mistaken belief among many that businesses are per se efficient. They are not. The fact
that many, many businesses have gone out of business, are going out business now, and many more will go out of business in the future is most often a
reflection of some and often many inefficiencies.
There are other reasons, many actually, that businesses go out of business, and may not have been for lack of efficiency alone. And, the point there
is that "a business" is not a good model to compare to government. Especially because so many businesses go out of business due to inefficiency and
due to other factors as well, mostly always due to bad business decisions by owners/management.
Given the preceding recognition of the fallibility of business, the lack of longevity with its horrible track record of failures, I wouldn't want a
for profit corporation running the country...and neither would the founders.
I don't know, maybe you would.
I dare you to prove anything thing I said in my first post was incorrect or false. Then tell me specifically what part of what I said that you 'do
not by(sic)".
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
The problem is - I see it - A large majority of elected/appointed government officials at all levels (federal/state/local) have never worked in
private business or industry They have never had to hustle for business, deal with customers, provide a quality product, meet payroll or manage a
budget........
Speaking of government budgets......most are of the model - Spend it all this year or we won't get as much next year. There is no incentive for
government agencies or managers to save money or return money not spent, unlike a private business. After all, it's not "their" money
No thinking outside the box, "we have always done it this way" and any change is like trying to stop the sun from rising
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry, while I am happy for you that your investing has turned out well, that data set is not adequate or sufficient a representation of business
taken as a whole. That's just your personal experience and that, on the big picture of things, is just not representative of the whole.
I have no objection to having a CEO type person as President, so long as that person has the proper vision and requisite knowledge and character to
have only the best interest of ALL of the citizens of this country at his heart. Mitt Romney was exposed as not having ALL of this country's citizens
best interest in his heart. I think that was made quite evident publicly. Also, it is quite evident that Mitt Romney has his self interest as his
primary motivation in life as evidenced by his unusual personal financial machinations and related resistance to full disclosure.
BTW, I don't know that the Native American Indians and slaves that were emancipate during the mid 18oo's would necessarily agree with your statement
that "by and large it has worked so well for the past 200 plus years for all of us".
Also, Barry, it is not 'your conservative view' that has worked so well for the past 200 years. That's a bit assumptive and overly simplistic, don't
you think? There has been a great deal of 'evolution' in our government and it has come from Amendments to the Constitution together with the
morphing and adaptation of local, state, and federal governance through much legislation and thousands of court decisions and legal doctrines, agency
responsiveness, and creation of many institutions, not to mention changing culture and values. What has survived is this US Constitutionally based
democracy for over 200 years and declare that it is "conservatism" that accounts for it borders on hubris and error. Keep in mind that conservatism
is based on an aversion to change while the reason that our Constitutional government has survived is due to successful adaption through change...that
is the sole purpose of legislation and the branch of government embodied in the Congress.
I know what Driver said, and based on that, I just think he's coming from an erred position on the matter. I don't presume to read minds, I just
limit my take based on what he has written.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
As in the past, MitchMan, I think it best to just "agree to disagree" on these matters. You are a skilled debater, and I don't have the memory, or
facts at my disposal to adequately defend my position, nor the interest, and that is obvious.
Still, (risking a cry of cop-out) I believe that you, and others, know roughly where I am coming from, but for reasons only you know, are interested
in only the debate from a competitive point of view. I am not equipped or interested in playing that game.
Life (for me and mine) is good, and I planned it that way which is only possible in a free society where ANYBODY can succeed. I am so lucky to be
born in the USA.
HAPPY NEW YEAR , tho. 
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
bajaguy, what you said is incorrect. Most elected and appointed (I take you mean 'hired') officials have worked in the private sector at one time or
another, have lived in households where the parents and brothers and sisters and extended family have worked in the private sector. Also, governments
have to meet payrolls every pay period, have to meet budgets also, just like the private sector...been going on for centuries. Actually, many
businesses don't have budgets, especially the small ones which is most businesses. Also, government has to deal with citizens all the time. Sounds
like what you wrote is what I hear almost verbatim on talk radio. You have to watch out for repetition, could take you down a rabbit hole.
BTW, the only person who owns the money in a business is the owner. So, the vast majority of people in business...it's not their money either. And,
I guess you have never worked for a big business that has a budget because, the managers also go buy spending their entire budget, because if they
don't, their budgeted amount will be reduced next year...everybody knows that. It's not just government that works that way.
No thinking outside the box, mmm. If business thinks outside the box so much, why did the Japanese beat the crap out of the US automobile industry?
Why is Sears going away? JC Penny? Why are the Chinese accelerating their research so much more than our businesses? Why is our democracy and
Constitutional government so much better than those in the rest of the world?
It sounds like you guys want to Scrap the USA and create one big Corporation to run the country? Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, John Jay, Franklin,
Washington, John Adams would all disagree with you. Where is your patriotism? Don't you like your country? Which country do you guys like better?
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by bajaguy | The problem is - I see it - A large majority of elected/appointed government officials at all levels (federal/state/local) have never worked in
private business or industry They have never had to hustle for business, deal with customers, provide a quality product, meet payroll or manage a
budget........
Speaking of government budgets......most are of the model - Spend it all this year or we won't get as much next year. There is no incentive for
government agencies or managers to save money or return money not spent, unlike a private business. After all, it's not "their" money
No thinking outside the box, "we have always done it this way" and any change is like trying to stop the sun from rising |
Boy BajaGuy, you got that right!!!
In my 13 years as a Govt. Supervisor and Program Chief, I ALWAYS turned money back in at the end of the year, and ALWAYS I was derided for doing it,
and my Bosses gave my returns to other areas where they had run over-budget on purpose, so as to increase their budget next year. After 13 years of
beating my head against the wall, I went back into the field and just did my thing, which was a LOT more fun.
My conclusion: it's baked into the Government model, and cannot be ripped out since the participants have no incentive to do so other than their own
integrity which appears to be sadly lacking much of the time. I am not, and was not then, bitter----reality "is what it is", but I don't have to
participate in that. I spent the last 10 years of my Fed. career solo in the field where I could be much more effective (though poorer), and get
things done. THAT was fun for me.
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
BArry, you are a gem. I mean that sincerely.
All my life I have been surrounded by right wingers. I like it. It makes the world more interesting for me. All my bosses, my two business
partners, and my high school chums who were formative to me were all conservative. Most everyone I associate with is conservative. We all are
friends to the end.
What I have realized is that most all people come from a good center, the same center in fact. The people that I call friends are honest,
intelligent, hard working, knowledgeable, have integrity, and must have compassion if they are going to be my friend. The problem is that we differ
on the facts.
Barry, you call yourself a conservative, but, you have the heart of a liberal...sorry. And, IMO, you are mistaken on the facts and how the facts work
together. Accordingly, you fail to see enough of the big picture accurately.
I come from a formal business background and my colleagues do too. I disagree with most all of them because they fail to integrate economic theory
into their understanding of finance, accounting, and business in general. It is, in fact, all integrated and consistent within. It s like the
immutable laws of physics and it is all on paper. The facts are all there but few people put it all together. Most people see the trees but not the
forest and that is the problem.
|
|
|
tripledigitken
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4848
Registered: 9-27-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Mitchman,
You obviously don't realise just how condescending and pompus you sound?
Have a Happy New Year.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Ref. MitchMan-------That's ok with me, Ken. I have always liked people who appear to (or actually do) know what they are talking about, and show it,
but I don't have to agree with them on all things, and I don't.
I am a disciple of the Supply-Side theory of Economics, and MitchMan appears to be a Keynesian-----and the two will NEVER agree on most Economic
ideas. I follow the ideas of Milton Friedman, John Taylor, Arthur Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Jack Welch, Newt Gingrich, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan (after he
got rid of David Stockman), Marti Feldstein, to name a few reputable Economists that at least admit that there is something to Supply-Side economics.
That alone makes me one of "the enemy" and a fool to boot. 
My son just gave me a book for Christmas on R. Reagan's first 100 days as President-------guaranteed to be fascinating (to me).
------and the beat goes on-----------! 
Besides, MITCHMAN DID say some pretty nice things about me (my interpretation, possibly not yours)--------that alone increases his credibility, eh??
Barry
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ken, I guess if your only take on this is limited to a comment on style instead of your own contribution with something of substance on the issue,
have another glass of champagne and toast to having missed the point altogether.
Supply side economics has crashed and burned and according to most all nationally and internationally recognized economists was largely due to blame
for the Crash of 2007/8. Barry, except for Friedman, those that you listed are not well recognized on a national or international basis for their
economic acumen, actually, quite the opposite.
But, read what they have to say and then do a little more research and look at the salient stats from 1980 forward regarding GDP, real wages by income
strata, national debt as % of GDP, household debt, trend of networth per taxpayer and income per taxpayer, % of tax paid since 1980, trend of marginal
tax rate, and then correlate the performance of supply side economics to those trends and you will get the real picture. If you don't do that little
bit more of research, you will forever be in the dark and out of touch with reality. I am suggesting more info, not giving you an opinion...you be
the judge of the facts. That's the informed responsible thing to do, is it not?
BTW, if you get that book from your kids about Reagan, you probably have more books that Reagan did. He was reputed to have owned more horses than
books.
I hope that I haven't bruised your sensitivities, Ken. I don't want to hurt your feelings. It is New Years, so, the best to one and all.
Nomads rock! Especially the ones with good critical thinking skills. Come on, you know who you are.
|
|
|
WhackAMolE
Nomad
Posts: 121
Registered: 1-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by J.P. | They left out the one most obvious fact, IT'S THE MOST INEFFICENT BRANCH OF GOVT.
[Edited on 12-29-2014 by J.P.] |
I believe this is due to the fact that the government is actually opposed to their mission. They're supposed to keep cheap labor out of the country.
While the rest of the country loves the hell out of the cheap labor. It's a losing proposition from the start. And I hardly need to mention Americans'
voracious appetite for drugs. So the border patrol is doomed to fail from the start, because nobody wants them to succeed. Of course we have to pay
lip service to enforcing the borders and keeping the kids safe from drugs. So the border patrol exists to put up a front that anyone cares about those
agendas; and to placate those who claim they do.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
