Ignoring the GSA again?

The General Services Administration has had some serious misconduct issues since it's founding, but really? ...no one here has posted a thread about the Las Vegas fiasco yet? Fine. I will then lol

My primary source of information about the agency, and the various incidents it's been involved in, has come from a wikipedia article on the GSA. The citations in the article have links to a number of stories and blogs from both the left and the right, so it's a bi-partisan thing lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Services_Administration

So, anyone interested in giving their two cents on the incident in Las Vegas or the GSA in general?

 

I just wonder why anyone would get excited about a few hundred thousand when we hand over billions to the oil industry. This chicken feed wouldn't even cover the interest on the money that we hand out daily to the wealthy when we tax tham at less than 15%. I just can't get outraged or even raise a concerned eyebrow over this stuff. I guess it does distract though.

Like the Right says, it won't lower the debt, it won't lower gas prices, but it does give us a target.

 

And that is exactly the attitude that explains why the government is the absolute worst place to take care of your money.

 

I think the worst reason is because Republicans will take a few hundred thousand in campaign donations to pass legislation that makes multimillion dollar corporations pay nothing in taxes. What a deal! Selling our tax base to the highest bidder would come in as the best reason why politicians are not the people you want to handle our collective tax dollars.

Using the term "government" paints every single public employee with the same broad paint brush. That's nonsense. We only have one political party that is a wholly owned subsidiary of the wealthy elite in this country and of course those ideologues that carry their water.

Hence....​

|​

|​

|​

\/​

 

You mean like Peolsi, Blogo, Jefferson, GSA, fast and furious, Solyndra, Ener1, Fisker, etc. And, BTW, listing Republican fiascoes will do nothing except enhance my preface that the government is the absolute worst place to entrust you moneys.

 

So exactly who would you trust our tax money to? Just curious since you paint the entire government with one brush. Who are you suggesting that we trust with our tax money?

Scratch head on this one...

 

WOW! You actually got my point. Although I realize that some government money handling is a necessity, they have absolutely no regulations to control them except the press. The press used to have some minor scruples in what they were doing, but that is nearly completely gone. So, in direct answer to your question, no one! And you have definitely added your 2¢ to my argument that they should not be trusted with anyone's money.

 

So if we can't trust anyone to handle our tax money, what is your alternative? Do we stop paying taxes? I'm just sort of confused about where you are going with this rant. Specifically, who should manage our tax money if the "government" isn't an option?

 

As close to that as feasible.

BTW, this is your rant about "why anyone would get excited about a few hundred thousand".

 

That's not very specific. You don't seem to have an alternative way to manage our collective tax dollars but you seem to know for sure that it is currently being done the wrong way. If you have a better alternative, I know I'd like to hear it.

 

If only I did, you would have heard about it a long time ago. The onliest solution I know of today is to minimize what the government handles.

BTW, this is syill your rant about "why anyone would get excited about a few hundred thousand".

 

Miminize what the "government" handles how? Specifically? I'd like some of your details.

 

Maybe not specifics, but an example. There is one major airport where the TSA is recognized as the most efficient (as in minimal passenger waiting times), the most accurate (as in intercepting contraband), and operates on the least money. Care to tell me which and why they are operating so much better than the rest? Also, most interesting why most media has never mentioned this little tidbit.

BTW, this is syill your rant about "why anyone would get excited about a few hundred thousand".

 

I doubt that I can explain a situation that I have no familiarity with, but back to my original question. Different areas of both the states and the federal government are inevitably going to have varying degrees of efficiencies associated with their operations. There is no avoiding that reality. What I’d like to know is exactly who should manage our tax dollars if not the collective entity we call the government? What is the alternative here?

 

It's interesting that Bush Jr. would replace David Safavian, who was found guilty four felony charges related to the Jack Abramoff scandal, with Lurita Doan, who attempted to minimize the effectiveness of the Inspector General (the IG investigates fraud, and people like David Safavian) and violated the Hatch Act... which was enacted to prohibit Executive Branch employees from engaging in partisan politics... the President and Vice-President excluded of course.

But the GSA's issue are bipartisan, or non-partisan really:

Nominated by Obama, Martha Johnson had issues with paperwork, bypassing the proper procedures for funding a public relations firm, most notably ignoring the need to have congress authorize it first. Johnson resigned after the Las Vegas incident came to light... a woman can only bury issues for so long you know.

There was also an issue with health and safety, as in the Bannister Federal Complex controversy. It was that incident that led to the hiring of the public relations firm.

 

Well, I guess you are going to have to learn.

Back to your "why anyone would get excited about a few hundred thousand". The IG has now recommended that charges be brought against several GSA employees and "The IG report released April 2 detailed numerous instances where GSA employees did not follow established regulations regarding contract spending." Note the use of the word numerous. I would interpret that to mean that there are more than one of the "few hundred thousand" boondoggles. Further, my guess is since these are BO employees, Holder will do the least possible.

 

Maybe a somewhat closer look at how the GSA works is necessary:

Core Concepts that Govern the Operation of a GSA Schedule

 

rlm... in respect to the GSA (and possibly all government agencies)... is it your view that it shouldn't exist? I ask 'cause it sounds like you have some libertarian tendencies.

 

Am I to interpret your lack of an answer to the question of an alternative source for government handling of our tax monies as having no answer but still feeling justified in railing against the "government" as incapable of the job?

I suppose if this proves nothing else, it clearly demonstrates that once you address a specific blanket criticism of an entire entity and dig just under the surface of that criticism, there is really no substance to it but an irrational adherence to the criticism just the same.

That is unless you can actually come up with a specific alternative as I’ve repeatedly asked you for.

 

With no joking. I think most people feel that the corruption and misspending in Washington is as worse as it ever was. True liberals that I know are very upset with Obama and felt lied to by his promise of change. That is why I think why no one is up at arms with this type of stuff for it is typical of an Obama mismanged government.