So, what is the end game with this never-ending U.S. public debt?

[dozu888]

That's exactly the nativity I'm reffering to! The Air Force One project is huge and complex, and if you buy the whole "Trump negotiated" line of bullshit it demonstrates ones lack of knowledge on that particular procurement is eclipsed only by one's blind acceptance of the tweets of an imbicle with a similarly limited understanding of complexity ("who knew health care was so complicated"!).

But more importantly, you are either contradicting yourself or don't realize that Halliburton is the private sector which you seem to think is universally more efficient than government? Are you asserting that the government should have outsourced the outsourcing of providing combat civil engineering support? What would have been your "private sector" solution to the Halliburton debacle that Bush/Cheney foisted on us? I agree, that no bid contract was horrible. I see no way you could have "privatized" that decision though, what's your "private industry" solution to that. It's really a textbook case of why we need government, you do realize that sole source contracts in the private sector are more the rule than the exception, don't you? So go private sector and you get sole source contracts everywhere. What's your private industry solution to Air Force One, again Boeing is a private company. You're really making little sense here.

And seriously, controlling pollution causes poverty? What kind of fever dream does the idea that you have to trade one off the other come from! Its actually the opposite, pollution is a massive drag on the economy, $5 Trillion dollars a year, worldwide, to put a number on it https://www.theguardian.com/global-...rillions-holds-back-poor-countries-world-bank You seriously think we need thousands of hospitalizations, lost work days, and premature deaths to "unleash the economy"? That's some messed up thinking, on so many levels.

too many logical errors.

- besides the AF1 there is also the F35 deal with Lockeed;
- of course Halliburton itself would gladly take the contract. a multi-vendor bid is probably the path to price improvement. if you want to argue that gov operates more efficiently than private, there is just no chance you can win. govs have experimented planned economy around the world, all have failed miserably.
- why is pollution a bigger problem in developing countries? because pollution control has to take a back seat. proof that the bigger evil is poverty. when people have to choose food on the table or cleaner air, they choose food.

 

[Sig]

too many logical errors.

- besides the AF1 there is also the F35 deal with Lockeed;
- of course Halliburton itself would gladly take the contract. a multi-vendor bid is probably the path to price improvement. if you want to argue that gov operates more efficiently than private, there is just no chance you can win. govs have experimented planned economy around the world, all have failed miserably.
- why is pollution a bigger problem in developing countries? because pollution control has to take a back seat. proof that the bigger evil is poverty. when people have to choose food on the table or cleaner air, they choose food.

Simple question you can't seem to answer, what was the "private sector" solution to the Halliburton no bid contract? What is the "private sector" solution to the F-35? I'm open to any "logic" you care to share, so far you just keep repeatedly saying we need "private sector" solutions and citing problems where you literally name private sector companies! Stop avoiding the question, it surely can't be too hard for you to answer as sure as you are in a simplistic view of the world?

Clearly you've never been to a highly polluted area in the third world and asked anyone if they chose pollution to get food, that's patently absurd and insulting. You clearly don't need to polluted to get economic progress and as I just pointed out pollution is in fact a huge drag on economic progress. We don't have anyone going hungry in the U.S., and you want dirtier air and water because it will "unleash the economy"? And in the height of hipocrisy, it's fine for Pruitt to squander money on a bullet proof desk as long as he's doing a good job increasing pollution? WTF is wrong with you?

 

[sss12]

Impressive arguments here.

The US is the the greatest and most powerful country in the world, so if we have another financial crisis we'll threaten everyone. Yea, that's how free markets work.

When 51 Million US households cannot afford the basics, the answer is those are not really basics, ya know, they're made up by leftist media. Here's what poverty really is "insert 3rd world country situation". Yup, US went from being the greatest country in the world to being a 3rd world undeveloped nation.

I love this thread.

Of course you do..when the world ends BTC will come to its rescue. But the world and the U.S. Economy is not comming to an end. GDP is scaring 3%, tech and fracking are keeping inflation in check. And as I've said before if it hits the fan BTC is the first to go.

 

[dozu888]

Simple question you can't seem to answer, what was the "private sector" solution to the Halliburton no bid contract? What is the "private sector" solution to the F-35? I'm open to any "logic" you care to share, so far you just keep repeatedly saying we need "private sector" solutions and citing problems where you literally name private sector companies! Stop avoiding the question, it surely can't be too hard for you to answer as sure as you are in a simplistic view of the world?

Clearly you've never been to a highly polluted area in the third world and asked anyone if they chose pollution to get food, that's patently absurd and insulting. You clearly don't need to polluted to get economic progress and as I just pointed out pollution is in fact a huge drag on economic progress. We don't have anyone going hungry in the U.S., and you want dirtier air and water because it will "unleash the economy"? And in the height of hipocrisy, it's fine for Pruitt to squander money on a bullet proof desk as long as he's doing a good job increasing pollution? WTF is wrong with you?

still too many logical errors..

- AF1 and F35 are examples to show the waste, which was your original question. then you shifted to asking about solutions. Details of solutions are irrelevant. private is more efficient than gov.

- there is no hunger in the USA? check facts.

 

[Sig]

still too many logical errors..

- AF1 and F35 are examples to show the waste, which was your original question. then you shifted to asking about solutions. Details of solutions are irrelevant. private is more efficient than gov.

- there is no hunger in the USA? check facts.

Dude, AF1 is built by Boeing, a PRIVATE COMPANY! The F35 is built by Lockheed Martin, A PRIVATE COMPANY! Halliburton is a PRIVATE COMPANY! Your examples make no sense, how could the F-35 have been done more effectively with your vaunted "private sector"? Find a double secret private private company to do it, not just a private company?

Details are only irrelevant to the armchair warrior who has only a facile understanding of actually running a major program, or accomplishing anything of note for that matter. But really, you couldn't have been more effective in making my point that this assertion is unsupportable and reflective of a naively simplistic view of the world.

And you still are fine with the EPA Administrator squandering money on a bulletproof desk as long as he steps up pollution because poverty. Got it.

 

[dozu888]

Dude, AF1 is built by Boeing, a PRIVATE COMPANY! The F35 is built by Lockheed Martin, A PRIVATE COMPANY! Halliburton is a PRIVATE COMPANY! Your examples make no sense, how could the F-35 have been done more effectively with your vaunted "private sector"? Find a double secret private private company to do it, not just a private company?

Details are only irrelevant to the armchair warrior who has only a facile understanding of actually running a major program, or accomplishing anything of note for that matter. But really, you couldn't have been more effective in making my point that this assertion is unsupportable and reflective of a naively simplistic view of the world.

And you still are fine with the EPA Administrator squandering money on a bulletproof desk as long as he steps up pollution because poverty. Got it.

- right, private companies ripping off the DoD with jacked up pricing, because the spender is a gov.

- there are numerous examples of privatizing certain segments of the gov work, and the result is usually a more efficient operation... for essential services like the DoD it maybe tricky to privatizing, but it doesn't mean it's impossible... it will be a too lengthy discussion for this thread, but the evidence is there.. free enterprise always more efficient than gov bureaucracy.

- a desk is peanuts... yes that is wasteful spending... and you couldn't answer which is the bigger evil, more poverty or more pollution... and you didn't answer to that you got the fact wrong - 14% Americans are suffering from hunger... and your 'pollution is a drag on economy' is completely backwards.... it is only a drag because of the regulations.. in developing countries where regulations are not as complete, people are more free to pollute, and when they have to choose from food on the table vs. cleaner air, they choose eating, which is why the major pollution problem in China, India, Africa, virtually all developing countries... because eating is a higher priority and people can't afford to abide stricter pollution regulations.

go ahead bang your head on the wall some more.... your arguments are so full of logical errors that I have to correct in every of my reply.... hopefully the error rate can come down a bit with some more banging.......

 

[Sig]

- right, private companies ripping off the DoD with jacked up pricing, because the spender is a gov.

- there are numerous examples of privatizing certain segments of the gov work, and the result is usually a more efficient operation... for essential services like the DoD it maybe tricky to privatizing, but it doesn't mean it's impossible... it will be a too lengthy discussion for this thread, but the evidence is there.. free enterprise always more efficient than gov bureaucracy.

You still haven't answered what should be a very simple question for you, how do you privatize F-35 production spending, which is what you're now apparently talking about? Lockheed Martin just builds them on spec and then charges everyone a per bullet or per missile fee when they defend their house? It's not too lengthy a discussion, it's an impossible one for your to have because it's utterly senseless!

Everything in government, including DoD, that can be privatized already is under A-76. Not sure how many times I have to tell you that before you grasp it. You have read and understand A-76, since you're pontificating on this right? I agree, much can be done by the private sector more effectively than government, something I learned firsthand from 20 years serving in the military and 2 successful startups in the private sector afterward. What I'm telling you is that we're already doing that. Some things, like ordering and operating F-35s, are inherently governmental functions. There's just no way around it, and until you can demonstrate that there is it's idiotic to keep mindlessly repeating "it should be done by the private sector". Can we do a better job in contracting, perhaps but it's pretty damn hard if you've ever actually done it since every measure to make the process fair and get a better price also makes it more lengthy and more expensive. Can the "private sector" do more than they're already doing in DoD? No, just flat out no. Any private company any time can do an A-76 challenge to anything govt is currently doing. If there's anything govt is currently doing, it's because no private company has stepped up to do it. When you can provide a single example of how, in practice we can accomplish this "private sector" being more efficient in DoD we can have an intelligent discussion, until then you're simply spouting talking points that you have only the vaguest understanding of.

Poverty isn't caused by clean air and water. I've provided you actual facts and numbers that you can't refute that shows the opposite, pollution hurts the economy. Your question is the same as asking "which is the bigger evil, killing babies or poverty", it's what we call an "either/or" fallacy in formal logic, which you've surely studied given all your talk of "logical errors". And enough with this "people choose pollution" BS. Any solidly democratic company with rule of law, i.e. a place where people actually do make choices on things like pollution laws, has strong pollution laws. The wealthy who pollute the poor in autocracies and corrupt countries are the opposite of "the people choosing" pollution. Like I said, it's both idiotic and insulting as well as indicative of someone who's never been to one of these places to claim that poor people "choose" pollution. Seriously, where have you been where you asked a number of poor people this and got that reply?

 

[dozu888]

You still haven't answered what should be a very simple question for you, how do you privatize F-35 production spending, which is what you're now apparently talking about? Lockheed Martin just builds them on spec and then charges everyone a per bullet or per missile fee when they defend their house? It's not too lengthy a discussion, it's an impossible one for your to have because it's utterly senseless!

Everything in government, including DoD, that can be privatized already is under A-76. Not sure how many times I have to tell you that before you grasp it. You have read and understand A-76, since you're pontificating on this right? I agree, much can be done by the private sector more effectively than government, something I learned firsthand from 20 years serving in the military and 2 successful startups in the private sector afterward. What I'm telling you is that we're already doing that. Some things, like ordering and operating F-35s, are inherently governmental functions. There's just no way around it, and until you can demonstrate that there is it's idiotic to keep mindlessly repeating "it should be done by the private sector". Can we do a better job in contracting, perhaps but it's pretty damn hard if you've ever actually done it since every measure to make the process fair and get a better price also makes it more lengthy and more expensive. Can the "private sector" do more than they're already doing in DoD? No, just flat out no. Any private company any time can do an A-76 challenge to anything govt is currently doing. If there's anything govt is currently doing, it's because no private company has stepped up to do it. When you can provide a single example of how, in practice we can accomplish this "private sector" being more efficient in DoD we can have an intelligent discussion, until then you're simply spouting talking points that you have only the vaguest understanding of.

Poverty isn't caused by clean air and water. I've provided you actual facts and numbers that you can't refute that shows the opposite, pollution hurts the economy. Your question is the same as asking "which is the bigger evil, killing babies or poverty", it's what we call an "either/or" fallacy in formal logic, which you've surely studied given all your talk of "logical errors".

ok, so the gov shows you A-76, and then that's it, maximum privatization achieved.... yet there are still obvious waste in the AF1, the F35, and that desk... thinking inside the box much? how about reforming the audit system, so the A-76 is decided in more favor of the private? how about applying AI in purchasing decisions - the optimal vendors and pricing? there are plenty of ideas, and I am not even an expert in this... people specialized in this field will sure have more ideas..... just like in anything else, what is existing is not necessarily the optimal... that's the very definition of progress and advancement, a step to go from the status quo to something better.

regulation hurts the economy... why were so many factories moved to developing countries with less strict regulations? less regulation, more pollution, less cost to clean up, more revenue, more profit..... and you need to 'run numbers'? basic common sense and actual facts right in front of your eyes.

 

[Sig]

ok, so the gov shows you A-76, and then that's it, maximum privatization achieved.... yet there are still obvious waste in the AF1, the F35, and that desk... thinking inside the box much? how about reforming the audit system, so the A-76 is decided in more favor of the private? how about applying AI in purchasing decisions - the optimal vendors and pricing? there are plenty of ideas, and I am not even an expert in this... people specialized in this field will sure have more ideas..... just like in anything else, what is existing is not necessarily the optimal... that's the very definition of progress and advancement, a step to go from the status quo to something better.

regulation hurts the economy... why were so many factories moved to developing countries with less strict regulations? less regulation, more pollution, less cost to clean up, more revenue, more profit..... and you need to 'run numbers'? basic common sense and actual facts right in front of your eyes.

Well good, we've progressed from the point where you think the mythical "private sector" can buy F-35's to the point where you simply think we should try to be more efficient in government procurement. Well done! I agree. If there's a problem with A-76 determinations I'm all for reforming it, although in my experience the problem is that no private sector company steps up for the job, not that the A-76 finds against privatizing. Your experience differs?

Better procurement, people specializing in the field, innovations...all for it. Many of those experts work in procurement. I was one of them, switched a bunch of contracts from time and materials to performance based logistics where contractors were paid based on performance and got to keep a bunch of the savings if they were more efficient. This stuff is already happening, lots of smart and extremely hard-working folks in govt doing it. That's what I've been saying all along. You throwing stones as an armchair warrior who doesn't even know the basics of what's going on is not only unhelpful but basically just a jackass move.

Again, good job that you now realize that poor people don't choose pollution and it's a logical fallacy to state that there's a binary choice between clean air and water and eating. You're moving to a less and less supportable point though, now you're saying that companies moving to places where there's fewer pollution regulations is proof that pollution is a good thing? It's proof that rich companies take advantage of poor countries with corrupt leaders to dump pollution on a bunch of people who have no say in the matter while enriching said corrupt leaders. That's an absolutely horrid thing in my opinion, you support it?

 

[dozu888]

Well good, we've progressed from the point where you think the mythical "private sector" can buy F-35's to the point where you simply think we should try to be more efficient in government procurement. Well done! I agree. If there's a problem with A-76 determinations I'm all for reforming it, although in my experience the problem is that no private sector company steps up for the job, not that the A-76 finds against privatizing. Your experience differs?

Better procurement, people specializing in the field, innovations...all for it. Many of those experts work in procurement. I was one of them, switched a bunch of contracts from time and materials to performance based logistics where contractors were paid based on performance and got to keep a bunch of the savings if they were more efficient. This stuff is already happening, lots of smart and extremely hard-working folks in govt doing it. That's what I've been saying all along. You throwing stones as an armchair warrior who doesn't even know the basics of what's going on is not only unhelpful but basically just a jackass move.

Again, good job that you now realize that poor people don't choose pollution and it's a logical fallacy to state that there's a binary choice between clean air and water and eating. You're moving to a less and less supportable point though, now you're saying that companies moving to places where there's fewer pollution regulations is proof that pollution is a good thing? It's proof that rich companies take advantage of poor countries with corrupt leaders to dump pollution on a bunch of people who have no say in the matter while enriching said corrupt leaders. That's an absolutely horrid thing in my opinion, you support it?

still too many logical errors... how do you trade the market by the way? logical errors usually mean losses hehehe.

not an expert in A-76... observations still look like thinking inside the box though... no privates stepping up? there is money to grab and nobody wants it? or is it the A-76 process so costly that the privates don't think they worth the odds to get approved? too common to have something labeled as 'open for business', only when you try it you find the barriers are too high.... again, just common sense, govs do not have incentive to operate efficiently... gov people's priority is not to get fired.. and usually you don't get fired by following the status quo.... the privates have investors to answer to, have to drive to revenue/profit goals, have to hit bonus targets etc... common sense.

who said pollution is a good thing... you keep making these basic logical errors.. in developing countries, quite often it IS a binary choice.... if you clean up and your competitor get away with not cleaning up, your cost is higher and you go out of business and your children starve. Your eyes are wide shut my friend... to the point of say there is nobody going hungry in the US.... I dont' blame you if you couldn't come up with the poverty/hunger rate off the top of your head... I had to look it up too... 14% suffer from hunger in the USA... 14%!!

But sure you have seen soup kitchens around you?

eyes wide shut?