Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
From MSNBC
Critics say part of the problem may be an Army decision last year to contract out maintenance and support at Walter Reed to a private company, even though government workers argued they could do it better, and for less. "They were moving, come hell or high water, to contract these jobs out," says John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. Critics cite ineptness at Walter Reed - Lisa Myers & the NBC News Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com Not saying it's true or false. Just a reminder that privatization is not the be-all and end-all solutions. That any private company is capable of major screwups that exceeds those at the federal/state level. Next time anyone mentions privatizing social security, medicare, etc. Think about Walter Reed. Think long and hard. |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
I believe it.
International American Products. Hmm. Al Neffgen was COO at KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) Crosland preps for uptown move; Neffgen moves on - Charlotte Business Journal: Dave Swindle was a VP at KBR http://www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/Swindle_BIO_2-06.pdf Does the corruption never end? |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
any private company is capable of major screwups that exceeds those at the federal/state level. Not true - Government is capable of worse screw-ups than private businesses. Which is not to say 'private' is always and inherently better than 'government' - This appears certainly to be an example of the opposite. The general rule still holds tho, assuming it is privatized in a responsible manner that allows for competition rather than in a way that benefits the politically connected.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
Not true - Government is capable of worse screw-ups than private businesses. Which is not to say 'private' is always and inherently better than 'government' - This appears certainly to be an example of the opposite. The general rule still holds tho, assuming it is privatized in a responsible manner that allows for competition rather than in a way that benefits the politically connected. You cannot take one exception and apply it as if it really means anything. Even with privatization in this example - the government is still liable for the screw up - turning over something as important as caring for war wounded without oversight is criminally irresponsible to the taxpayer. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Not true - Government is capable of worse screw-ups than private businesses. Which is not to say 'private' is always and inherently better than 'government' - This appears certainly to be an example of the opposite. The general rule still holds tho, assuming it is privatized in a responsible manner that allows for competition rather than in a way that benefits the politically connected. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
The Iraq Police Academy was licensed out to private contractors.
Heralded Iraq Police Academy a 'Disaster' - washingtonpost.com |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
As long a there's a Bush in the White House privatization will always mean worse than government "It's All Bush's Fault!" doesn't cut it - Clinton was as corrupt as the day is long, he just didn't use privatization as a vehicle towards his own ends. If he had, I'm sure we'd be seeing the fallout. (Or perhaps we are - When was WRH maintenance privatized? Not attempting to shift blame, just asking an honest question.)
The problem is that once you have corrupt officials in government, they're the ones that make the rules, and they craft those rules to facilitate more corruption. (This has been going on in the US for decades at least.) This is the root of revolutions. Hopefully enough people will wake up and we can get by with simply cleaning house (and senate!), as that's a lot less messy. |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|