... why it's bad for the U.S. government to compete with private industry for contracts, but it's apparently okay for foreign governments to do so?  (I'm specifically thinking of the UAE debacle)
120773
The United States government could compete for the contract, if it so chose.  But what generally happens is that the US government does not actually do the work, but subcontracts it out to private companies.  That is what happened in the UAE ports deal.  The US was subsidizing out security operations to a private company.  However, in the UAE, the government actually owns, operates and profits from certain companies (capitalistic societies, especially the US, try to minimize this).\n\nSo the US government is in charge of the port security. They hire a company to oversee it on behalf of the government.  That company is bought by a company that is owned by the UAE government.  Since the late 1990s, a good number of US ports on the West Coast have been operated by China in the same manner, and the UAE actually oversees a number of other ports from late 2002 that they were given in another contract.\n\nCompetition of any type is good in a free-market, as long as it is done fairly and ethically.
456283
Isn't being a bad citizen too broad?  Wouldn't major law and guidelines have to be broken?  If not, who would be the judge?  I think that you know that money pays a big part in this consideration.  I think that it an enlightening idea, I just wonder at first glance- how would it be regulated?   Money is the big player.  Thanks for making me think about something different.
307707
The bottom line is it is about the all mighty dollar.  Maintaining access to foreign goods means that our government feels a need to exhaust our resources to "make nice" with other countries to help them with their strife--at the sacrifice of our own needs.  Sure there are some of the richest people on the planet here, but not all.  There are also a lot of severely impoverished as well.  We need to get our priorities straight as a nation.
44342
Despite what the others say I do think that the goverment had something to do with 9/11.my thoughts are slightly different though.I think the government wanted to start a war so that they wouldn't look so bad starting a fight over oil, money, or drug dealings gone bad.They blamed the whole thing on one terrorist but went after a different one.Here it is one war and another term later the issue of 9/11 and the truth still hasn't been understood. it is rarley even talked about. All those people died so that "key players" wouldn't look guilty.This is just an opinion not a fact.
364475
Yes, there is a huge contradiction. It appears to me that conservatives want the government to regulate everyone else's private lives. i.e. private acts between consenting adults. The conservatives don't want government regulating how much a business can rip someone off or how much they can pollute the environment.
39326
The US government will not build a private corporation in Iraq. However, there is a strong liklihood that some sort of freiegn Wal*Mart and McDonald's will be built in Iraq.  Both already have a presence in other Mid East nations. If the security of Irawq gets better and the economy improves, then the Capitalistic American way would require that they be built in Iraq.
629545
reason.... the best of the best is not chosen when aircraft and military eguipment, or for that matter government contracts are accepted by our government. its the vendor/manufacturer  that put the clowns in office that get these contracts. It is fact that a simple thing like dust can take these helicopters down.  as for someones comments on the lost life in the helicopter, blame those who voted for this fool and his cabinet. the contract was pushed along by his dumb republican father.
293325
To take Saddam's oil.  I'm guessing the U.S. tried to make a deal with him in the 80's but it didn't go well, so the U.S. decided to make him 'an offer he wouldn't refuse'.  But he did, and look what happened.  How would you feel if the price of gas shot up to $3/L or $10/gallon?  << THAT'S WHY.  In order for our way of life to continue someone's else way of life has to be altered.
138901
They are doing it with General Motors cars as well. Televisions from RCA (Thompson Electronics), and I am sure thousands of other things America has given them with our outsourcing. Our trade with Communist China is upside down too with the Republican Administration of George Bush. 3% from us to them, and over 20% from them to America. They have broken Americas trade agreement for years now, and Bush wont do anything about it. They are Communists and an enemy to the United States. They are using the extra revenue to extend their military also. It's a bad deal all around. America is going to try to remove the republicans from our Congress in November hopefully.
254283
Peace and Love? Are you serious? We are there for the MONEY and nothing else...wake up! Does the name Halliburton ring any bells? We are in the business of EXPLOITATION not peace and love and brotherhood and all that nonsense. We practice WAR corporatism, and we are damned GOOD at it.
579517
pachl@sbcglo: Why is it when the government is trying to help poor people do better things and help them that Republicans cry about it, but when Republicans try to help companies by giving them more money, it's ok?\n\nOil companies can use the tax cuts to pad their profits, just as easy as welfare recipients can use their money for cigarettes.. the only difference is one is probably a few billion dollars and the other is $4... \n\nThe fact is you don't know any more what the oil companies are doing with the extra money than you do the welfare people...
470975
I liked your answer on one of my questions and followed you here.  Muahaha!\n\nUm, it was interesting.  You have to wonder if "the law" followed that principle on all consensual agreements between people.  For instance, once you started building a house, you couldn't cancel for any reason.  Once you bought a product, you couldn't return it.  After you begin to form a company, you cannot stop the formation.\n\nThe article is food for thought.  My initial reaction is "no means STOP what you're doing right now."
464411
You're making 2 good points.  That's called offshoring and it is terrible for our economy.  The only ones who gain are the big businesses.  The common labor force in America is becoming a thing of the past and that creates a country with no middle class.  Yes I do think that they should be boycotted and penelized but I can't see any president instituting any penalties since they are all owned and backed by big business themselves.  It's so irritating getting tech support from India or somewhere not only because you can't understand them but because it's such a slap in the face to America that this job was offshored.  Thanks for the question.
55629
give me a break.  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nthere is actually no new deal being made.  The British comapany that already manages the ports is being bought out by a corporation owned primarily by citizens of the United Arab Emarites.  The question at hand is wether or not to try to get out of our contract.  Since the British company will still be managing our ports, there is no reason to suspect that a terrorist plot is going on.  Micheal Moore Edits Answers that he doesn't like from his films and usually slants what is included.  Maybe if you read somthing other than Liberal propaganda (including the textbooks found in public and some private schools) you would get the whole story.
268020
You HAVE noticed it is not about countries anymore, have you?\n\nThe U.S. is not competing with anyone. Big corporations - with support from free market governments - have allowed China to set the world standards of cost and quality of many INDUSTRIAL products and of employee productivity in general. Other economies will suffer for this. \n\nChina is now the Latin America and the Southeast Asia of the 70's and 80's and 90's. Why would the government of a free market country want to kill the golden goose of modern day industrial corporations?\n\nI think you should be more concern with China having so much interest in U.S. treasury bills!!!   50%, my friend.
110031
The violation of the contract would be a civil matter. If, however, there was fraud (as often is the case with some "contractors" after a disaster) then that would be a criminal matter.
63432
Well, I wouldn't say that we aren't getting cared for, but I see your point. The U.S. government gets into other countries' business a lot. They throw millions of bucks into these causes without asking. They think they are doing good, which they could be doing. But what if they MADE SURE we were O.K. first, and THEN got OUR support on the project? Easier and better solution.