Agreed with voideater ...government contracts with private companies are about the last thing that guarantee efficiency. Take the war. Rumsfeld rejects Gen Shinsekis recommendation that we will need at least 400,000 troops AFTER we take Baghdad. We go in under prepared. We don't have enough troops. They begin outsourcing essential services to contractors, who pay people $65-$70,000 a year to help feed/serve the troops. Still not enough troops, so they outsource the training of the Iraq police to companies that hire ex-police officers at $125,000 a year. Still not enough so they hire Blackwater to provide security throughout Iraq....on and on it goes....so you have a soldier in harms way making $30,000 a year getting served a $6 coke by a $65,000 a year employee while an excop makes $125,000 a year doing what under normal circumstances he may do. So what does the soldier do when his tour is up?? He rejects the $50,000 signing bonus that the military now has to offer to compete with the contractors, and takes a job working for Blackwater making $125,000. The number of contract employees is nearly equal to the number of troops we have in Iraq, and you can be sure that they are costing a lot more than the soldiers. Government has a role and should be limited, however just because you transfer billions from the government to the private sector, you haven't reduced government spending, you've merely shuffled tax payer dollars around and flushed a lot down the toilet.
GIVE ME YOUR INFORMED OPINION........
by Terry 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
XJW4EVR
"1.What does Government do that isn't wasteful, inept and costly that the private sector can't do better?"
The military at the federal level, though there are problems here, too. At the state & local level, law enforcement & fire protection. Another poster mentioned roads. I recently saw a PBS program that focused on the rebuilding of a portion of freeway in the Bay area of California. The bridge, that collapsed, was built in 1/3 of the time allotted, and is considered safer than the two pieces that this section connects. This occurred by cause the private sector was allowed to function with the minimal oversight of the state government.
"2.Why do people disagree on the role of government when there are thousands of examples of where Government fails to provide?"
I think that the reason their is disagreement is because people think that the wrong people are running the government program. Case in point, some liberal actor (I forget his name) was quoted as being outraged over some military jets flying over the first Clinton inauguration. Then he caught himself, and said something to the effect that the military was okay now that a Democrat is Commander-in-Chief.
"3.Do you think Government automatically becomes efficient, orderly and manageable when YOUR PREFERRED PARTY takes office?"
I no longer believe that due to my study of American political history. Both parties are a pox on American politics. Neither one has all the answers to the issues that America faces. -
hillary_step
Terry,
Interesting questions. Lemeesee....
1.What does Government do that isn't wasteful, inept and costly that the private sector can't do better.
Very little, though I am not sure that your question attends to the moral issues involved in such 'governing'. I think that it is the way that the private sector 'governs' that is in question. The US medical system is one such example. If the private sector respects the individual and affirms equality, or at the very least respect for the individual, then I doubt that many care about who provides what. What you seem to be missing on both fronts Terry is the dismal failure of human nature, which is innerrantly self-absorbed, to provide stability for society - its only means of progressive growth. It must be remembered that the desire for a government that controls the private sector has been borne from historical abuses over centuries shown by those who control the Private sector.
2.Why do people disagree on the role of government when there are thousands of examples of where Government fails to provide?
Again, my own feeling is that the present agendas and past history of the private sector is one that might make a large part of the community nervous about giving it too much power. The UK has the MCC which designed to allow Government to intervene in granting any one set of companies too much power for this very reason. I think it a good idea given the historical inability for Capital to curb the appetites that might put too much power in one place (a l halliburton) , subsequently unhinging a sector of society.
3.Do you think Government automatically becomes efficient, orderly and manageable when YOUR PREFERRED PARTY takes office?
Of course not, though imo there are worst things than an inept government, and that is Private Enterprise without a moral compass. One can be voted out and the pieces picked up, the other changes the planet irreversibly.
HS
-
Terry
hillary_step: I am not sure that your question attends to the moral issues involved in such 'governing'. I think that it is the way that the private sector 'governs' that is in question. The US medical system is one such example. If the private sector respects the individual and affirms equality, or at the very least respect for the individual, then I doubt that many care about who provides what. What you seem to be missing on both fronts Terry is the dismal failure of human nature, which is innerrantly self-absorbed, to provide stability for society - its only means of progressive growth. It must be remembered that the desire for a government that controls the private sector has been borne from historical abuses over centuries shown by those who control the Private sector.
My eye lingered over your phrase..."the dismal failure of human nature, which is inerrantly self-absorbed, to provide stability for society.."
Society is an extension of self, certainly. There is no morality or ethics until there is more than one person involved, surely.
The competition for resources is the basis for survival conflicts. By extension, our policies as a group, become policies of our governance.
How is this a failure of human nature, I wonder?
To compete is the moral imperative which is the test of our survival as an individual and as a political body.
Can it be otherwise?
Rational men employ arguments, reason and data to push out failed policy. Irrational men use weapons.
GOVERNMENT cannot be better than man himself. The question becomes...better for WHICH particular men?
Perhaps the failure of government is actually the failure of the weak, the voiceless and the disenfranchised and that is the self-same failure of NATURE itself?
Survival of the fittest is presumably another way of saying "the weak lose."
The fact that a Democratic Government can even be conceived of by arrogant, self-absorbed, natural humanity is a kind of trancendant success, wouldn't you say?
It is an Emersonian hitching of one's wagon to a star.
Provide for the weak and the defenseless at cost to the strong? An amazing idea. If not from nature--then where?
-
Siddhashunyata
"Perhaps the failure of government is actually the failure of the weak, the voiceless and the disenfranchised and that is the self-same failure of NATURE itself? "
"It is an Emersonian hitching of one's wagon to a star.
Provide for the weak and the defenseless at cost to the strong? An amazing idea. If not from nature--then where? "
I think Emerson would not agree that Nature fails at any thing therefore, from his viewpoint, the failure must come from ignorant men working against Nature. Hitching one's wagon to the star of loving your neighbor as yourself is basic to spreading Emersonian self-sufficiency.
-
Bring_the_Light
1.What does Government do that isn't wasteful, inept and costly that the private sector can't do better?
Regulate the private sector. Its ugly (I'm a regulatory consultant to industry) but it works. It can be done better. If it was done well, I wouldn't have a job. We need to pay government employees more. Make and enforce laws, fight wars, provide for social and economic issues. Yes the government does do stuff that's important, yes its terribly run most of the time. Republicans don't do better, they make messes for Democrats to clean up.
Government needs to fund basic science and research. Its a pet peeve of mine, the Bush Administration has all but destroyed the intellectual community.
2.Why do people disagree on the role of government when there are thousands of examples of where Government fails to provide?
Because there are thousands of issues that people want addressed. They ask their government to address them, then the political system tries to figure out which should be addressed.
3.Do you think Government automatically becomes efficient, orderly and manageable when YOUR PREFERRED PARTY takes office?
I know that i want at least 2 parties fighting over every issue at all times. I vote Democrat, because when I don't things like George W. Bush happen. It is fear of the worst Republicans, not being impressed with Democrats. My chosen poison. I don't want to win all the time. I want a balance, and I want all extremists punished (left or right)