An A for effort.....
 

Note that I referred to "programs," not weapons. Sorry if "destroyed" was the wrong word. After an awful lot of work, my understanding is that David Kay concluded that when Clinton left office, Iraq no longer had WMD programs. Of course, we may not ever know for sure, because documents were destroyed and people have died, etc. But it appears that containment worked.

So I gather that you're no longer suggesting that what I quoted Ricks as saying is absurd. Because you said something like that, but you now seem to have backed away.

An A for effort.....
 

I don't think we really know what happened to the WMDs. We can guess. We also can't know how effective Operation Desert Fox was and I am sckeptical of anyone that says they know.

If you will notice, when you asked for reasons for my sceptcism of Ricks I focused on his sweeping generalizations and his use of anonymous sources. In addition, you kind of alluded to this, but when it was popular to be pro-pentagon he was, and when it wasn't, he wasn't. I just think he is a sloppy reporter, he draws too many conclusions from insufficient evidence and then states such conclusions like they are irrefutable facts. Common problem with modern reporters and in my opinino, very annoying.

There is something wrong with her numbers. But even if you figure the 80x ratio is wrong, the 8x ration is pretty bad.

The first paragraph specifically says that the comparisons are apples to apples, for the same work.

An A for effort.....
 

Perhaps we will never "really" know, whatever that means, but you seem to be suggesting that in the absence of perfect information there's no use in trying at all. Are you angling for DoD job? It's very Republican of you.

Why are you so confident that airport screeners are doing a good job, but so suspicious that David Kay learned anything with all the time and resources invested in figuring out what happened with the WMD?

In other words, you don't like Ricks, but don't specifically dispute anything I quoted him as saying.

• For less than that fee, the IRS could hire staff who would bring in about eight times as much revenue as the private collection agencies are projected to, according to former IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti. In testimony before the House of Representatives, Everson freely admitted that hiring more staff is far more efficient than privatization. But inadequate appropriations for the IRS, he claims, have made it impossible to hire new staff.

source

1) That may be. But I still suspect that the estimate is based not on marginal enforcement, but on average enforcement. This is marginal enforcement.

2) Apparently it's not IRS's fault, but rather Congress's.

1) OK. If it's twice as costly to outsource, it's still a waste of taxpayer dollars.

2) I don't doubt that for a second. The IRS would surely rather hire more people. But the politicians like the outsourcing, because the availability of government contracts led to increased campaign donations and lobbying opportunities. It's loot-and-pillage Republicanism.

Maybe, but so what?

Because if you don't tell us what the marginal cost of collecting those additional tax dollars is, how can we meaningingfully determine how bad a deal the goverment has been forced to cut?

23% is better than most credit collection services charge.

If the IRS can get it down to 3%, why haven't they all been hired by the debt collectors?

An A for effort.....
 

The current adminnistration wouldn't hire me to clean their toilets.

I fly a lot, and I always think, if I were going to try to hijack this plane, how could I do it (hello guys at DHS - I am sure your spider software picked that one up). Seems to me, with the current screening, it would be really difficult.

If the administration doesn't know what happened to the WMDs (and they have the entire resources of the US government at their disposal and are occupying the country) I doubt a lone reporter could figure it out - possible but unlikely.

I'm just guessing, but because the government gets to make the rules (hi Hank!), I'll bet the IRS can whack you for not paying your taxes in ways that private debt collectors can only fantasize about.

An A for effort.....
 

I would have thought this was clear well before this point in the conversation, but I don't think Ricks is doing anything more than relating what his sources in the military accept as true. I don't believe that he's pretending to have done reporting on where the WMD went.

Although I suspect that some at teh IRS also fantasize about the ways that some private debt collectors can whack you. But fair point otherwise.

The 3% is the marginal cost of keeping the additional collections work in-house which the IRS is now going to contract out. That's the basis for comparing the cost of contracting this work.

I doubt the same debt collectors would not be as efficient in a private operation, and a fair amount of the percentage cost is going to the private firms' profit margins.

You got that right.

An A for effort.....
 

The point of the conversation was that you averred that Clinton, through Operation Desert Fox, either wiped out, or seriously damaged Saddam Hussein's WMD program (so that is where they "went"). You used Rick to support your argument. I doubt Operation Desert Fox did what you say it did, but I don't think either of us can know for sure, and I don't think Ricks allegations back up your assertions. That is the argument. Is it not?