Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
The retards you blame happen to be the exact type of folks that are the ones in government signing ANY privatization contract. Just look up NMCI, it's worse than the NASA . A lot worse. About 2000/month for two laptops on the desk. You do the math, considering they are 1.0G P3's with only 20GB HD's and 256MB of RAM.
Gee, so the problem isn't with privatization. It's with the retards running the government agencies. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I'm not finding THT's example compelling. There's no incentive for your average government worker to reduce costs and operate more efficiently. The IRS has been trying to get off legacy computer systems. Project delays and cost overruns leaves the project in a bad state. Now if a business had to modernize or close up shop one way or the other it would be resolved. I don't think the IRS is going to lose business anytime soon.
Right. The government enjoys a monopoly in many services and as such has no compelling reason to work hard to operate more efficiently. It's much easier to raise taxes, borrow more money, or print more money. Of course, everyone ends up paying for that in the end no matter how you slice it.
Since it was unconvincing to you guys, what will it take to convince you?
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Right. The government enjoys a monopoly in many services and as such has no compelling reason to work hard to operate more efficiently. It's much easier to raise taxes, borrow more money, or print more money. Of course, everyone ends up paying for that in the end no matter how you slice it.
The cost of running government services is not the primary factor in the growth of the federal budget. The vast majority of the budget goes to contracts. 95% of the Dept of Energy's budget goes to contracts. 70% of NASA's budget goes to contracts. I'd be highly surprised if any gov't dept does not consist contracted services. It's basically the law these days to have any gov't service done by contracters.
And yeah, I think the services (aerosciences and flight mechanics) my division provides is second to none in the world.
I'm not trying to derail too much but wanted to point out that Cheney is still getting money from Halliburton:
Quote:
Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he ?severed all my ties with the company,? he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars. He has announced that he will donate proceeds from the stock options to charity.
Why do you think it would make the cost of mail cheaper? What mechanisms will make shipping something cheaper?
I'm sorry if I implied that it will be cheaper. It could be more, but then we would be paying closer to the actual cost of delivering mail, assuming the government is subsidizing the cost. I was under the impression that the USPS tries to 'break even' rather than make a profit or lose lots of money, but I don't know for sure. As for the cost of shipping, they would still have to compete with FedEx, UPS, and the like.
What I'm getting down to is this. What is the real benefit of the US government running the postal service? Why should we have to pay taxes to run it, when that cost could (and should) be covered by what we pay to have mail delivered?
Comments
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by AirSluf
The retards you blame happen to be the exact type of folks that are the ones in government signing ANY privatization contract. Just look up NMCI, it's worse than the NASA . A lot worse. About 2000/month for two laptops on the desk. You do the math, considering they are 1.0G P3's with only 20GB HD's and 256MB of RAM.
Gee, so the problem isn't with privatization. It's with the retards running the government agencies. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Originally posted by Scott
I'm not finding THT's example compelling. There's no incentive for your average government worker to reduce costs and operate more efficiently. The IRS has been trying to get off legacy computer systems. Project delays and cost overruns leaves the project in a bad state. Now if a business had to modernize or close up shop one way or the other it would be resolved. I don't think the IRS is going to lose business anytime soon.
Right. The government enjoys a monopoly in many services and as such has no compelling reason to work hard to operate more efficiently. It's much easier to raise taxes, borrow more money, or print more money. Of course, everyone ends up paying for that in the end no matter how you slice it.
Originally posted by rogue master
I could go on listing pluses and minuses, but I think that it would be a much bigger plus overall to spin it off. What do you think?
Why do you think it would make the cost of mail cheaper? What mechanisms will make shipping something cheaper?
Originally posted by BR
Right. The government enjoys a monopoly in many services and as such has no compelling reason to work hard to operate more efficiently. It's much easier to raise taxes, borrow more money, or print more money. Of course, everyone ends up paying for that in the end no matter how you slice it.
The cost of running government services is not the primary factor in the growth of the federal budget. The vast majority of the budget goes to contracts. 95% of the Dept of Energy's budget goes to contracts. 70% of NASA's budget goes to contracts. I'd be highly surprised if any gov't dept does not consist contracted services. It's basically the law these days to have any gov't service done by contracters.
And yeah, I think the services (aerosciences and flight mechanics) my division provides is second to none in the world.
Cheney earned forty-four million dollars during his tenure at Halliburton. Although he has said that he ?severed all my ties with the company,? he continues to collect deferred compensation worth approximately a hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, and he retains stock options worth more than eighteen million dollars. He has announced that he will donate proceeds from the stock options to charity.
This is from: The New Yorker
Originally posted by THT
Why do you think it would make the cost of mail cheaper? What mechanisms will make shipping something cheaper?
I'm sorry if I implied that it will be cheaper. It could be more, but then we would be paying closer to the actual cost of delivering mail, assuming the government is subsidizing the cost. I was under the impression that the USPS tries to 'break even' rather than make a profit or lose lots of money, but I don't know for sure. As for the cost of shipping, they would still have to compete with FedEx, UPS, and the like.
What I'm getting down to is this. What is the real benefit of the US government running the postal service? Why should we have to pay taxes to run it, when that cost could (and should) be covered by what we pay to have mail delivered?