snip
You whole premise is predicated on the assumption that government
workers are efficient, and that the private sector workers are lazy and
corrupt. Yet, in another breath, you throw accolades at unions. That
seems to be an inconsistant viewpoint.

My complaint was your generalization that all unions are corrupt, and all
union workers are lazy. The union worker I have worked with have been pretty
good.


If you are going to privatize everything tell my how we won't pay more
in
the way of profit for the company doing the work.

A for-profit company comes up with a price up front, based on a mutual
understanding of the scope of work. If they fail to meet the deadline,
they lose profit. That's the incentive for them to get the job done.
Inspectors, ensure that the job is done properly.


Is your only answer in
letting some private company cut wages and benefits for the worker so
you
can have a clean conscious about screwing the worker doing the job? Or
is
the saving going to be in the corners cut?

Why must every answer involve screwing over someone? Even at inflated
union wages, the private sector is still more efficient than the
government.

I don't advocate that the services have to be delivered in an inefficient
way. I advocate that they be delivered. If you want to make the delivery of
government services efficient, then we are on the same page.

Can private enterprise be part of this? I would have to agree that this is
so in many cases. Perhaps not in all. I have trouble with certain jobs being
performed by the private sector. The apportionment between public and
private delivery of these services is what good governance is all about.

The selection of what services *should* be part of every life should be the
heart of the political discussion.

Take health care. I agree that the government is likely to be a poor choice
for delivery of this service. This should be administered by the employer.
The government role in this is an effective and enforced set of rules that
all employees should receive this service. You work, you get healthcare. As
it stands, a big chunk of the economy now bypasses this rule by claiming
that all the 39.9 hours per week jobs are not full time, so there is no need
to provide this service. This drives many poor onto the welfare roles so
they have the care they need for their children. Now I have to pay for these
welfare moms so you get $1.00 burgers. Allowing these sorts of loop holes is
services provided is bad governance. We end up paying a much higher price in
the long run.

As far as my personal experience with privatizing government services;
In
the USA the military has gone to private subcontractors to do the lab
calibration work. Since this has started we have seen a massive increase
in
shoddy work and just plain incompetence in the work done to the
equipment we
provide to the military.

The obvious conclusion: The company you were using, was not a good one.
It's a stretch to project that the whole concept of privatization, is
somehow at fault.

You don't get the picture. The labs that do this work are scattered all over
the country. As the military has privatized this service, I have seen a
massive increase in shoddy work on our equipment all over the country. We
are suffering greatly for this, as the problems look like they are
originating in our equipment. In all cases that I have investigated, the
problems are coming from sub-standard work by private contractors.

The "magic' of the marketplace does not
automatically insure that we will get better and cheaper services.

It does as long as there is competition.

Do keep in mind that in nature it is acceptable for a species to die out. If
a necessary service is "not economical" to provide that does not lessen our
dependence on it.

Effective competition involves a bundle of conditions to work effectively. A
manipulated economic environment may not favor the most effective answer.
Take an example: The rail service. This is easily the most efficient way to
move good long distances. From a purely technical point of view, containers
and rail should be moving almost everything between every major city. I have
no question in my mind that had evolution of the system continued, rail
would be vastly more efficient and useful than it is now. Automated loading,
unloading, scheduling and dispatch could easily make the rails a valuable
addition to companies like UPS. Rails could be moving goods and passengers
at 300 mph between city centers at low cost. Instead, the influence of big
money has brought this valuable resource to virtual ruin. The odds of
another private rail system springing up to take its place are virtually
nil.

As far a bureaucracies go - I have a lot of respect for ours. When you
flush
a toilet, it does, thanks to some officious government workers hounding
private contractors until they get it right.

It should. The government is willing to pay $300 for a toilet seat. The
private sector is a little more discriminating.

Bad example. Do a little research on this case. That seat was not the one
you use at home. This was part of the fancy molded assembly on an aircraft
toilet assembly. Aerospace materials + low volume = high prices.

Better example: The $300 hammer. This is what happens when an agency puts an
item out for bid and nobody bids on it. You should like this part: These
second offerings like this are listed in the federal register; a private
industry has sprung up around filling these orders. They get to charge large
fees as the only providers of the part. I know how you believe that
competition will magically solve every problem; here is your chance to get
rich! You can go into this business and charge less.

These silly rules about putting items up for bid are a response to rampant
corruption. Before this, buyers made bad deals for huge kickbacks. Now we
have open competitive bidding for the items the military buys. I see it as a
failure of the private market to respond to the open bids the government
puts out. Now, how should we fix this?

We pay our government workers
enough that pervasive corruption is not a part of our lives.

You think the very human weakness of greed and corruption, is magically
removed once you're in the government? You must think Bush is a saint
then.......

Nice sarcasm.

I am leaving for Indonesia for a 1.5 week trip today. I will be looking at
all the example of how well their government works with poorly paid
government workers. Do you think I will get the same good services I am used
to in the USA? Assuming that I don't get kidnapped and held for ransom, I
will report back what I see.

In countries
where they have lower taxes and pay the workers less you must still pay
everybody to do their jobs; you grease every palm in sight to get
anything
done. They still have to make a living; think of it as user fees: you
pay to
get your letters mailed or delivered, you pay to get the police to leave
you
alone, you pay to get your marriage license, you pay to get your trash
picked up.

I do much of that now. Hell, I find that the trash men now consider it
an insult, if you don't "tip" them. A TIP for doing what they're
supposed to do? Gimmeabreak....

This is my point. You live in the USA and can't image having to pay
government workers to get something done that is supposed to be part of
their job.

You *would* pay the government workers if you lived in India. Or else you
would not get any services. Ask anybody who has lived there. Anybody else on
the list want to weigh in on having to pay little bribes to get government
services in either the USA or other countries?

It goes on and on. Ask anybody who has spent any time in India or
China. Bribes are a fact of life, it sucks - lots. From what I have
seen,
the jobs are usually done very poorly. The big problem is when you pay
your
bribe to get your permits, the quality of the job has nothing to do with
it.
That is why building fall down in these countries after earthquakes.

You're going on that wild ride again, and painting a picture that looks
more like a Mexican jail, than the private sector of the US.

Please elaborate. Are you saying that the fussy USA building inspectors
don't really do anything? Or are you saying that the building inspectors in
Iran do? Before you answer you may wish to do a little google'ing on the
damage and loss of life by earthquakes in various parts of the world.

You may not like paying the full price for government service, but you
really do need to see how bad it is when you don't pay much for it; you
don't get very much!

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see the waste that a bloated
bureaucracy such as a governmental agency has. As long as they don't
have to show a profit, or are accountable to the people who pay them
(The taxpayers) they are free to dip a little deeper whenever they run a
little short. There is simply no incentive for a government agency to be
the most efficient. Where is the competition?

Dave

If you just think that stopping the services is the right answer, then we
are in disagreement.

You see ways to deliver these services more efficiently? For all citizens
equally? Bring it on; I will be right there with you.

I get no joy out of wasting my money. It is our shared responsibility to
keep the system efficient. That said, I think that our system works better
than anywhere else I have ever been. I see what we get here and compare it
to what I see when I travel the rest of the world and I like what I get in
the USA.

Mark Browne

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Translation:

As usual, I pulled this from my ass

Translation:
I too stupid and narrow minded to use the web to do some simple
research.

You are the one who made the claim, not me. You provide the proof.
You cant because your full of ****.

You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You
must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral
costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.


Your a fool.

Do you disagree that the above costs are DIRECT costs of the war?

Yes

How? Please provide reference to refute.

Again, you made the claim you provide the proof.


PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?
Go back and read it V E R Y slowly, you effing dumb ass, and you just
may comprehend it.

Do you still believe a judicial nominee has ever been filibustered?

Here is your statement (wrong)

Currently, a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, is
blocking the nominations of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Texas Supreme Court
Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, even
though both nominees have the support of at least 51 senators.
Democrats have also threatened to filibuster the nominations of
Carolyn Kuhn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Alabama
Attorney General William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals if their nominations are brought to the floor

And then my post for which you never responded:

In 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme
Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United
States. Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to
support for the nominee.

He was NOT filibustered.

http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1206583.html

Your wrong again.

Now, I've given examples, all of which are readily available to ANYONE
with enough intelligence and enough fortitude to get there lazy ass
off of the couch, put out the cigarette, finish there beer, and LOOK.

Your full of ****.

No....I've given examples. Did you check them out? If so, you'd KNOW
that I'm right, but because you're lacking any semblance of manhood,
you have to try to make yourself look correct, so you spin, and
spin....must be getting dizzy, because you're certainly incorrect.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Translation:

As usual, I pulled this from my ass

Translation:
I too stupid and narrow minded to use the web to do some simple
research.

You are the one who made the claim, not me. You provide the proof.
You cant because your full of ****.

You said:

" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You
must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"

You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral
costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.

You're an idiot.

Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.


Your a fool.

Do you disagree that the above costs are DIRECT costs of the war?

Yes

How? Please provide reference to refute.

Again, you made the claim you provide the proof.


PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?
Go back and read it V E R Y slowly, you effing dumb ass, and you just
may comprehend it.

Do you still believe a judicial nominee has ever been filibustered?

Here is your statement (wrong)

Currently, a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, is
blocking the nominations of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Texas Supreme Court
Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, even
though both nominees have the support of at least 51 senators.
Democrats have also threatened to filibuster the nominations of
Carolyn Kuhn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Alabama
Attorney General William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals if their nominations are brought to the floor

And then my post for which you never responded:

In 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme
Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United
States. Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to
support for the nominee.

He was NOT filibustered.

http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1206583.html

Your wrong again.

Now, I've given examples, all of which are readily available to ANYONE
with enough intelligence and enough fortitude to get there lazy ass
off of the couch, put out the cigarette, finish there beer, and LOOK.

Your full of ****.

Funny, this article, by a republican senator, makes reference to one.

SENATOR JON KYL

East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona)

March 2, 2003





As I write this, Senate Democrats are continuing a weekslong
filibuster of Miguel Estrada, who would be the first Latino ever to
serve on the D.C. Circuit Court, the second-highest court in the
nation.



On Wednesday this paper urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster -
a commendable position taken by more than 50 other newspapers across
the country.



But while indicating that the filibuster was wrong, the editorial
excused the behavior with the argument that the obstruction of Estrada
is mere political "payback" for similar transgressions by Republican
senators against nominees selected by President Clinton.



That argument is false. President Clinton got the vast majority of his
judicial nominees (90 percent) confirmed by the Senate, even though it
was controlled by Republicans for six of his eight years in office.



Nearly every one of the circuit court nominations he made during his
first two years won Senate confirmation within that time frame. And
overall, the number of President Clinton's confirmed judges was just
five short of the all-time leader in confirmations, Ronald Reagan.



Most of Clinton's judicial nominees who did not get a Senate vote were
nominated at the end of Clinton's second term, when there was little
time to go through the full confirmation process.



While over 90 percent of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton circuit court
nominees were confirmed in their first two years in office, less than
half of President Bush's original circuit court nominations have even
had an up or down vote in the Senate. Some have waited nearly two
years for even a hearing.



Senate Democrats have repeatedly tried to change the rules in the
confirmation process - some arguing, for example, that judges might
even have a presumption of disqualification until they prove
otherwise.

Miguel Estrada did not receive a committee vote for 20 months!



The Estrada filibuster is, in fact, an unprecedented departure from
past judicial battles. It marks the first time in Senate history that
any political party has used such a tactic to obstruct a nominee for
the federal circuit court.



Only once in Senate history has there been a filibuster against any
judicial nominee, and that was a bipartisan effort against a Supreme
Court Justice, Abe Fortas.



This is not mere "payback." It is an escalation of a bitter battle by
Senate Democrats to keep judges with potentially conservative
political views off the courts at any cost.



That is extremely disappointing. And dangerous. If the Democrats
succeed with this filibuster – which requires 60 votes to break - they
will have effectively changed the rules that have governed our country
since its founding.



Henceforth, any nomination that a minority faction finds
"controversial " would no longer need majority support - 50 votes -
but a supermajority of 60. That is a recipe for endless gridlock and a
terrible disservice to the American people.



More than that, it is a great injustice to Miguel Estrada, an
immigrant success story and a role model for the Latino community.



This is a man whose qualifications no one seriously disputes, who
overcame a speech impediment and a language barrier to become a
Harvard-trained lawyer, a Supreme Court clerk, and an attorney for
both the Bush and Clinton administrations. The American Bar
Association - by whose standards Democrats insist all judicial
nominees be measured - unanimously rated him "well qualified." And
he's been endorsed by the Hispanic civil-rights organization LULAC,
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and even Vice President Gore's
former chief counsel.



Senate Democrats have tried in vain to piece together a coherent
argument against Estrada's confirmation. Yet, as even the Washington
Post - no ally of President Bush - recently editorialized, the
Democratic opposition to Mr. Estrada's confirmation "range from the
unpersuasive to the offensive."



The injustice being committed against Miguel Estrada must not be aided
by ignorance of judicial battles in the past. He should be given an up
or down vote in the United States Senate, a courtesy given to nearly
all of President Clinton's nominees.



Mr. Estrada certainly deserves better than being cavalierly shrugged
off as just another victim of Washington infighting.

Funny, this article, by a republican senator, makes reference to one.

SENATOR JON KYL

East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona)

March 2, 2003


snip

He is as wrong as you are.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
Funny, this article, by a republican senator, makes reference to one.

SENATOR JON KYL

East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona)

March 2, 2003


snip

He is as wrong as you are.

So, Joe, are you now saying that you know more about politics than a
senator? You must think you're quite something. You know more about
politics than a politician, you know more about engineering than an
engineer, you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist. Your heads going to explode, you pompous ass.

So, Joe, are you now saying that you know more about politics than a
senator?

No I don't, but I do research things that interest me. When Sen. Cornyn was
quoted saying "There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee, now
there are two" it sparked my curiosity. After some research I found he was
right and most everybody else was wrong. The corrections and retractions are
now beginning.

http://cornyn.senate.gov/060403filibusterrules.html

you know more about engineering than an engineer

I am an engineer.

you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist.

While now expired, I have held top certifications from ASE.

Your heads going to explode, you pompous ass.

From what, toying with you? Never.

"Joe" wrote in message ...
So, Joe, are you now saying that you know more about politics than a
senator?

No I don't, but I do research things that interest me. When Sen. Cornyn was
quoted saying "There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee, now
there are two" it sparked my curiosity. After some research I found he was
right and most everybody else was wrong. The corrections and retractions are
now beginning.

http://cornyn.senate.gov/060403filibusterrules.html

you know more about engineering than an engineer

I am an engineer.

you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist.

While now expired, I have held top certifications from ASE.

haaahaa!!!! THAT'S a good one!!!! You are a liar.

Your heads going to explode, you pompous ass.

From what, toying with you? Never.

You don't toy with me, you show your stupidity to me.

snip
you know more about engineering than an engineer

I am an engineer.

you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist.

While now expired, I have held top certifications from ASE.

haaahaa!!!! THAT'S a good one!!!! You are a liar.

Here ya go Asslicker, here's a link to a pic of my ASE certification, and
one of my GM Certifications (have a few more, have to find them).
Sorry, but my Engineering Cert is not going through my roller scanner. I
will be happy to post that also once I have access to flatbed scanner.

http://photos.yahoo.com/recboats


Where's yours?

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
snip
you know more about engineering than an engineer

I am an engineer.

you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist.

While now expired, I have held top certifications from ASE.

haaahaa!!!! THAT'S a good one!!!! You are a liar.

Here ya go Asslicker, here's a link to a pic of my ASE certification, and
one of my GM Certifications (have a few more, have to find them).
Sorry, but my Engineering Cert is not going through my roller scanner. I
will be happy to post that also once I have access to flatbed scanner.

http://photos.yahoo.com/recboats


Where's yours?

Now you're an engineer?? In WHAT discipline? Licensed in what states?

"Joe" wrote in message .. .
snip
you know more about engineering than an engineer

I am an engineer.

you know more about mechanics/machinist than an aircraft
machinist.

While now expired, I have held top certifications from ASE.

haaahaa!!!! THAT'S a good one!!!! You are a liar.

Here ya go Asslicker, here's a link to a pic of my ASE certification, and
one of my GM Certifications (have a few more, have to find them).
Sorry, but my Engineering Cert is not going through my roller scanner. I
will be happy to post that also once I have access to flatbed scanner.

http://photos.yahoo.com/recboats

there blank. nothing there.


Where's yours?