3 ms·

No. They certainly enter into and administer contracts with private companies that are unfit, incompetent, and corrupt though. I've seen it more than once. You

No. They certainly enter into and administer contracts with private companies that are unfit, incompetent, and corrupt though. I've seen it more than once. You didn't actually believe elected politicians all personally carry out the bidding and contract process and oversee the projects themselves, hopefully.

Eisenstein 2y ago
The person you responded to was making the point that by underfunding government agencies, then they couldn't do their jobs properly and then that would be evidence that government was ineffective at doing that job, which would be used to rationalize privatizing that job. Then you said that it was the government which was responsible for doing that in the first place so that is evidence that the government is bad at its job. I then pointed out that there are policy makers in government, and employees of government, and that the two have separate responsibilities. Are you saying that employee corruption and private contracts are directly responsible for government agencies being given inadequate funding and staff so that they cannot be effective? I seems to me that policy makers cutting the budget or not allocating enough of a budget for staffing would be responsible for this, and that private contracting is more of an effect of not being able to hire adequate staff.
- starspangled 2y ago
  > [...] The thread is right here to read. The attempted point was basically that privatization is bad, but the poster made up this convoluted scenario that seemed to miss the fact that this is a government service, and in any case horrible and corrupt privatization contracts are made by governments. > Are you saying that employee corruption and private contracts are directly responsible for government agencies being given inadequate funding and staff so that they cannot be effective? Also no. I'm saying what I wrote, no more or less.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    That scenario has been used since the Reagan administration to destroy government services. If you want to say that it hasn't, then argue for that. Don't bring up unrelated issues related to contracts and corruption. Address the 'convoluted scenario'. > Also no. I'm saying what I wrote, no more or less. > But this is the government failing! So you are saying that defunding government is a government failure. Is there another way to read that? I can't do all your work for you. If you want to say something, why don't you say it, instead of repeating 'the thread is there, read it' when you wrote one sentence and then refused any given interpretation of it. It is like asking a child what they want and they repeat the same ambiguous thing over and over. I have decided either you have no idea what you mean or you do not care to make it known, so, good luck with that.
    - starspangled 2y ago
      > That scenario has been used since the Reagan administration to destroy government services. If you want to say that it hasn't, then argue for that. Don't bring up unrelated issues related to contracts and corruption. Address the 'convoluted scenario'. That "scenario" of government incompetence and corruption makes for government waste and poor services yes. I didn't bring up anything unrelated. > So you are saying that defunding government is a government failure. Is there another way to read that? Trying to put words in my mouth and taking wild stabs in the dark or deliberately misconstructing what I am saying is not "doing all my work", lol. DOn't do the stupid internet arguing style of "Oh so you're saying ...". I'm saying what I'm saying, if you're unclear about it just ask a normal proper question.
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        Continuing to say 'I am saying what I am saying' without clarifying anything despite repeated request while scolding me for being stupid after specifically asked you what else it could mean is hands down the the most asinine thing I have heard from anyone on the whole internet for this past month.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        But you didn't actually say anything of substance. All you said was, "But this is the government failing!" What is the "this" that you are talking about?

Eisenstein 2y ago

The person you responded to was making the point that by underfunding government agencies, then they couldn't do their jobs properly and then that would be evidence that government was ineffective at doing that job, which would be used to rationalize privatizing that job. Then you said that it was the government which was responsible for doing that in the first place so that is evidence that the government is bad at its job. I then pointed out that there are policy makers in government, and employees of government, and that the two have separate responsibilities. Are you saying that employee corruption and private contracts are directly responsible for government agencies being given inadequate funding and staff so that they cannot be effective? I seems to me that policy makers cutting the budget or not allocating enough of a budget for staffing would be responsible for this, and that private contracting is more of an effect of not being able to hire adequate staff.

starspangled 2y ago
> [...] The thread is right here to read. The attempted point was basically that privatization is bad, but the poster made up this convoluted scenario that seemed to miss the fact that this is a government service, and in any case horrible and corrupt privatization contracts are made by governments. > Are you saying that employee corruption and private contracts are directly responsible for government agencies being given inadequate funding and staff so that they cannot be effective? Also no. I'm saying what I wrote, no more or less.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  That scenario has been used since the Reagan administration to destroy government services. If you want to say that it hasn't, then argue for that. Don't bring up unrelated issues related to contracts and corruption. Address the 'convoluted scenario'. > Also no. I'm saying what I wrote, no more or less. > But this is the government failing! So you are saying that defunding government is a government failure. Is there another way to read that? I can't do all your work for you. If you want to say something, why don't you say it, instead of repeating 'the thread is there, read it' when you wrote one sentence and then refused any given interpretation of it. It is like asking a child what they want and they repeat the same ambiguous thing over and over. I have decided either you have no idea what you mean or you do not care to make it known, so, good luck with that.
  - starspangled 2y ago
    > That scenario has been used since the Reagan administration to destroy government services. If you want to say that it hasn't, then argue for that. Don't bring up unrelated issues related to contracts and corruption. Address the 'convoluted scenario'. That "scenario" of government incompetence and corruption makes for government waste and poor services yes. I didn't bring up anything unrelated. > So you are saying that defunding government is a government failure. Is there another way to read that? Trying to put words in my mouth and taking wild stabs in the dark or deliberately misconstructing what I am saying is not "doing all my work", lol. DOn't do the stupid internet arguing style of "Oh so you're saying ...". I'm saying what I'm saying, if you're unclear about it just ask a normal proper question.
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      Continuing to say 'I am saying what I am saying' without clarifying anything despite repeated request while scolding me for being stupid after specifically asked you what else it could mean is hands down the the most asinine thing I have heard from anyone on the whole internet for this past month.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      But you didn't actually say anything of substance. All you said was, "But this is the government failing!" What is the "this" that you are talking about?