While I don't like the idea of any one media company controlling a majority of the outlets, this is not a traditional anti-trust argument.
No one is forcing media outlets to sell to Clear Channel or any other conglomerate. If you want to focus on greed, focus on the small-time stations that decided to "sell-out" because CC was offering the bucks. Where is your rage about that?
Unions are obsolete. They had their place 100 years ago.
We have labor laws today that govern working conditions, minimum wage, safety, etc. These laws are the result of early unions. Today, unions serve no other purpose except to line the pockets of their leaders and control politicians.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
It does get simpler. You said nothing about cost of living in the respective states. I bet it's a helluva lot cheaper to live in Texas than closed-shop states.
It's changed, for the worse, into more of a cheerleading outfit these days...
I disagree with that statement. While you may have seen many "positive" reports on the Iraq war, there's still plenty of "negative" going on as well. Part of the difference between our current war and, say, Vietnam, is the sheer one-sided victory by the US military. It just doens't leave much negative to report in that sense.
If you are referring to politics in general, I would have to question what news you've been watching for the past month. It seems the major headline every day has something to do with the WMD claims and the impact they had on the war.
If you compare press coverage today to press coverage at similar crisis periods during US history, I would say that we have had very diverse news coverage with a plethora of opposing opinions. Much of the nightly news is dedicated to the latest opining by the Democratic presidential candidates, which usually include slamming the current president.
Something to keep in mind, however, is that a President (no matter who he is) usually gets the luxury of having the press heavily cover him and his administration. Every president takes advantage of the press coverage in this way - Democrat or Republican.
The identified legal and
administrative problems included:
The IRS' legal interpretations prevented the pilot from being a true test of private contractors' ability to collect delinquent taxes. For example, private contractors are not able to actually collect taxes owed.
Systems and operations problems made it difficult to identify, select, and transmit cases to collection agencies.
The pilot measurement plan did not include a
comparison of the best practices of private collectors with the IRS' own collection techniques.
In other words: the IRS crippled the the pilot program from the start.
The IRS' low return on investment was addressed in a December 1997 IRS Inspection Service (now Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) report. We reported that the majority of cases delivered to the collection agencies were small dollar delinquencies that the IRS can collect at a minimal cost. For example:
The contracts called for only 6 percent of the cases sent to the collection agencies to be small dollar delinquencies compared to the 53 percent that were actually provided.
Over 5,000 cases provided to the collection agencies would result in the contractor being paid more than the taxes that would have been collected.
So the IRS was only supposed to provide private collectors a very small percentage of small dollar delinquencies (6%). Instead, they saddled them with 53% small dollar delinquencies. It would be interesting to see how things went if private collectors were given the cases they were supposed to get.
At the recommendation of the Congress when the pilot was canceled, the IRS and GAO met in February 1998. The IRS' Chief Operations Officer informed the GAO that because of the IRS' reorganization, contracting out tax debt collection activities was not an appropriate use of IRS resources since the reorganization was planned to take several years, and then the impact of the reorganization would have to be assessed. The IRS concluded that the contracting out to collection agencies would not happen in the short term and perhaps not in the long term.
Now that the IRS has reorganized into four business units that are focused on different segments of the taxpayer population, we believe the IRS should reconsider the use of collection agencies to help it reduce the growing tax debt receivables.
It seems their argument is that the IRS is more organized than it was seven years ago, and consequently can conduct a more realistic test of using private collectors.
Key Laws and Provisions Dictating Actions Collection Agencies Must
Adhere to When Acting as Instruments of the Internal Revenue Service:
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 note, & 1692-1692o (1994 & Supp. IV 1998): Sets standards that collection agencies must follow. These standards include the manner in which the collection agency communicates with the taxpayer (e.g., calls must be made within certain hours) and that collection agencies may not engage in any conduct which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in the collection of a tax debt.
Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR2), Pub. L. No. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452 (1996) (codified
as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.): Requires the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to ensure that taxpayers are informed of their rights during the collection process. These laws detail specific information to be included in tax delinquency notices and establish new guidance regarding installment agreements.
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (1994 & Supp. IV 1998): Contains safeguards preventing the disclosure of information in government files if such disclosure would violate the privacy of individual citizens.
That wasn't me... Check names before you make accusations...
You are correct. I apologize for the mistake.
As for as info that private organizations have...when is the last time a credit reporting agency asked your permission before they compiled a file on you? I am directly addressing your point about willful disclosure of information.
Would you feel comfortable, for example, entrusting all the murder investigations in your area to a private corporation? Or would you feel better if those investigations were carried out by government employees who are at least nominally motivated by the pursuit of justice instead of a profit motive?
Straw man. You're talking about two totally different things.
Look at it this way: Law enforcement should be done by the government, not private entities.
Wouldn't you agree, however, that in the case of say, a mortgage, laws apply? The law says I have to pay the bank back according to the contracted agreement set forth when I got the loan. How is this different?
The final figures indicated that IRS Revenue Officers not only collect money more efficiently than the private sector (almost THIRTY times more efficiently) but they do so without abusing debtors at all hours of the day and night and without running roughshod over their right to be treated like human beings.
Can you provide any official statistics to back this claim up? If it's so obvious that IRS Revenue Officers are much more efficient, why is the government looking to private collectors? There's something missing in your argument.
I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of organizations that have both your SS# and a complete, itemized breakdown of everything you earned as well as near-complete insight into how you live your life and plan your finances since you entered the work force, all in one place.
IRS, Social Security Administration, Department of Education, three different credit reporting agencies, state tax division, my CPA, my financial advisors/analysts...and that's who I can think of in the first few minutes here. I'm sure there are more.
Interesting how you think you can see into my motivations just because of what sources I choose to quote.
I think your sources indicate your bias - in this case, you're worried about losing your job. Give me some official IRS statistics on how much more efficient (what was it, 30x?) you and your fellow collectors are than a private collection agency and I'll be a little more sympathetic.
Collecting debt due the government is different then a private business. A private business sells your debt to a collector at a fraction of what is actually owed. Your debt is written off and you no longer owe the original company money.
Several years ago I was in a major auto accident and spent about a week in the hospital. Insurance was pretty good about covering everything they were supposed to.
About three months after I got home, though, I got a notice from a collector. It said I owed money to an X-ray company and they were collecting it. I ended up speaking with the X-ray company. They had not been turning expenses over to my insurer, and on top of that were mailing bills to the wrong address. I corrected everything with them and the collector left me alone.
So obviously, your explanation isn't totally accurate.
I personally am very worried about all of the work being done on the people's dime (taxes) by people with no responsibility to anyone, or anything but profit (private corps). I want accountability, I want freedom of information. If someone fucks up, I want them to answer to me (citizen), not to some CEO who doesn't have much incentive to care unless they will loose money over the incident.
Profit is the thing that makes them responsible. If a worker at a private firm fucks up, their bosses will have much more incentive to fire them because the person is a risk to the company being able to keep doing the collecting. Are you blind enough to really think a government worker is responsible to you?
Like I said (regardless if you entered into the agreement willfully or not), many different private organizations have your information - banks, credit reporting agencies, credit card companies, doctors, hospitals, schools, etc. Has this ever been a problem? If so, how did you deal with it?
Besides, you gave yourself away with your rant about unions and government workers losing their jobs.
Actually, "poor suckers" don't pay taxes either. In fact, there's a bill afoot in Congress to give tax breaks to those in the lower income brackets that don't pay taxes in the first place.
So, if you want to bemoan anyone, it should be the middle class.
1. Clicked "Reply to This"
2. Typed a message
3. Songs starts playing as I press "Submit"...oh wait...that means I'd have to change my message. Ok...
1. Clicked "Reply to This"
2. Song started playing
3. Wrote about song and pressed "Submit"..wait...I said the song started playing as I pressed submit! Damn!
Students don't pay for school, their parents do...
Is there any way you can tell my parents this news? Also, can you contact the agencies that loaned me money and tell them all future bills go to mom and pop?
Thanks! And thanks for the great news! You made my day:)
The current administration wants to give away fully one quarter of our (that's you and me, the taxpayers) delinquent accounts receivable to private contractors to collect the money.
Private businesses turn over delinquent accounts to a third party collector all the time. What's the difference?
The simple idea of just hiring more government employees whose job is to collect taxes (and who do so umpteen times more efficiently than private industry) just doesn't occur to the powers-that-be.
You're arguing that a government entity would be more efficient than a private company? Where have you been for the past century? Besides, most collectors don't get paid on a contract basis - they get a percentage of what's collected. This gives them much more incentive to collect than a government desk worker.
To top that off, all your computerized records at the IRS will soon be controlled by private company employees because the Office of Management and Budget has recently (illegally) revised the rules (a document named Circular A-76) for contracting out work so as to make virtually no government job safe from easy privatization.
I bet you couldn't count on both hands the number of private organizations that have your SS# and other private info in their databases. If this is a problem for you, you might consider disconnecting your electricity and telephone, never getting medical attention again, and keeping your money under your mattress.
For references, just google on NTEU (one of the unions fighting this crap) and A-76.
Wait...I thought your concern was for privacy? It seems you're only concerned about upholding an obsolete union system.
I don't wish for anyone to lose their job. Hell, I'm currently unemployed, so don't say I don't understand. But come back and whine when you have a legitimate argument.
Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to start it, and another one to end it. Tell me, which Constitutional amendment authorizes prohibition of (some) drugs?
You are right that no Constitutional amendment exists banning particular drugs. But this can be said for many laws that don't carry a Constitutional amendment. What do you propose is the solution?
It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist.
Have you ever heard of the Federal court system? Federal judges daily "interpret" the Constitution to grant rights to individuals that the Constitution doesn't explicitly list. Surely you are aware of this, or you've been living in a cave your entire life.
Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.
Non-US citizens are entitled to basic human rights. This does not mean, however, that non-citizens should have all of the privileges of a US citizen.
We are above the law in the sense that we can change it, yes. But the law is above us in the sense that it applies to everyone, equally.
Yes, people routinely violated the Prohibition laws and they were eventually overturned. Maybe the same will happen with marijuana some day.
The difference in violating the law in protest and what the parent poster implied is quite large, though. He wanted a cop to be afraid for his life when coming to arrest him for drug use (a violation of law). To simply violate drug laws - but accept the consequences when you get caught - is different.
My point was if smoking pot is more important to you than threatening the life of a cop you're one sorry-ass SOB. There are many rights worth shedding blood over, but the "right" to smoke weed isn't one of them.
If you're really looking to do high-end printing, and don't want to have to worry about the capital outlay, maintenance, supplies, etc., why not lease?
I bet with the economy the way it is office equipment suppliers would have some excellent package deals that you just couldn't beat trying to DIY.
No, I don't have any statistics but I read about it in the papers every single day about how a drug dealer got off b/c of illegal searches.
1. If you read about it "every day" in the paper you should be able to point to very many cases of this happening. Where are they?
2. You yourself noted that drug dealers get off b/c of illegal searches. Now, I have heard about situations like this, but not on a daily basis. In fact, I hear more about it from TV shows than reality. Regardless, the fact that they get off implies the cops didn't get away with the illegal search, doesn't it?
Finally...you should probably quit listening to the pot-smoking grapevine gossip (or TV shows/movies). Due to the abundance of lawyers and civil suits filed in this country on a daily basis, police departments tend to be very careful when it comes to following the law so that the perp can be prosecuted without problems such as illegal searches arising during trial.
Except that the cops you're talking about are criminals-- they took a pledge to uphold the constution. The minute they violate it (by busting someone for drugs) they became the criminal in the situation.
How are someone's constitutional rights violated when they are busted for drugs? Please show me the amendment that makes our drug laws unconstitutional.
I don't think there are any clean cops in this country anymore. They are addicted to "cocaine money" that they sieze from people who have never done cocaine in their lives- let alone dealt it, or any other drug.
Where do you people get this shit? Movies?
Do you personally know any cops or have any in your family? Do you know them to be "dirty?"
There are bad apples in any profession in the world - always have been, always will be. But to say there are no "clean" cops left at all is a remarkably ignorant statement.
Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men.
Can you provide any official statistics for this, or are you making a baseless blanket accusation based on the last cops-and-robbers movie you watched?
If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.
No shit. The parent post said nothing about illegal searches. The poster simply wanted to be able to scare a cop with his massive arsenal, thereby enabling said poster to continue his pot smoking.
And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.
Again...any official statistics you can cite to back up your argument?
From my experience with non-fiction (college textbooks) in a "brick-and-mortar" store, the books are usually sealed shut with plastic wrap. That only goes for new books, of course.
Besides, in college you usually don't have a choice about which textbook to use for the class. I guess you could always purchase supplemental books, but those are usually out of the price range/interest level/time scope of many college students.
you shouldn't be disappointed or surprised - the UN is little more than a US plaything
Troll, but I'll respond.
What does your statement have to do with Kofi Annan's view on WiFi?
Have US companies been awarded UN contracts for WiFi setups in third world countries? Even if they have, wouldn't it be the fault of the UN and/or the country getting the service, rather than the company being contracted?
Do you have any evidence at all to support your ambiguous assertions?
Slashdot Mirror
Relatively speaking, the President's approval ratings are actually pretty high, even in light of the recent uranium/Africa subject.
No one is forcing media outlets to sell to Clear Channel or any other conglomerate. If you want to focus on greed, focus on the small-time stations that decided to "sell-out" because CC was offering the bucks. Where is your rage about that?
We have labor laws today that govern working conditions, minimum wage, safety, etc. These laws are the result of early unions. Today, unions serve no other purpose except to line the pockets of their leaders and control politicians.
My main argument in favor of unions is simple: Where I live (Texas) unions don't have much clout, and wages here are around 20%-30% lower than they are in the average union state. It doesn't get much simpler than that.
It does get simpler. You said nothing about cost of living in the respective states. I bet it's a helluva lot cheaper to live in Texas than closed-shop states.
to say Salon is independent is a bit of a stretch. They may print what you like to read, but independent is not an accurate description.
I disagree with that statement. While you may have seen many "positive" reports on the Iraq war, there's still plenty of "negative" going on as well. Part of the difference between our current war and, say, Vietnam, is the sheer one-sided victory by the US military. It just doens't leave much negative to report in that sense.
If you are referring to politics in general, I would have to question what news you've been watching for the past month. It seems the major headline every day has something to do with the WMD claims and the impact they had on the war.
If you compare press coverage today to press coverage at similar crisis periods during US history, I would say that we have had very diverse news coverage with a plethora of opposing opinions. Much of the nightly news is dedicated to the latest opining by the Democratic presidential candidates, which usually include slamming the current president.
Something to keep in mind, however, is that a President (no matter who he is) usually gets the luxury of having the press heavily cover him and his administration. Every president takes advantage of the press coverage in this way - Democrat or Republican.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this situation. :)
The identified legal and administrative problems included:
In other words: the IRS crippled the the pilot program from the start.
The IRS' low return on investment was addressed in a December 1997 IRS Inspection Service (now Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) report. We reported that the majority of cases delivered to the collection agencies were small dollar delinquencies that the IRS can collect at a minimal cost. For example:
So the IRS was only supposed to provide private collectors a very small percentage of small dollar delinquencies (6%). Instead, they saddled them with 53% small dollar delinquencies. It would be interesting to see how things went if private collectors were given the cases they were supposed to get.
At the recommendation of the Congress when the pilot was canceled, the IRS and GAO met in February 1998. The IRS' Chief Operations Officer informed the GAO that because of the IRS' reorganization, contracting out tax debt collection activities was not an appropriate use of IRS resources since the reorganization was planned to take several years, and then the impact of the reorganization would have to be assessed. The IRS concluded that the contracting out to collection agencies would not happen in the short term and perhaps not in the long term.
Now that the IRS has reorganized into four business units that are focused on different segments of the taxpayer population, we believe the IRS should reconsider the use of collection agencies to help it reduce the growing tax debt receivables.
It seems their argument is that the IRS is more organized than it was seven years ago, and consequently can conduct a more realistic test of using private collectors.
Key Laws and Provisions Dictating Actions Collection Agencies Must Adhere to When Acting as Instruments of the Internal Revenue Service:
You are correct. I apologize for the mistake.
As for as info that private organizations have...when is the last time a credit reporting agency asked your permission before they compiled a file on you? I am directly addressing your point about willful disclosure of information.
Straw man. You're talking about two totally different things.
Look at it this way: Law enforcement should be done by the government, not private entities.
Wouldn't you agree, however, that in the case of say, a mortgage, laws apply? The law says I have to pay the bank back according to the contracted agreement set forth when I got the loan. How is this different?
The final figures indicated that IRS Revenue Officers not only collect money more efficiently than the private sector (almost THIRTY times more efficiently) but they do so without abusing debtors at all hours of the day and night and without running roughshod over their right to be treated like human beings.
Can you provide any official statistics to back this claim up? If it's so obvious that IRS Revenue Officers are much more efficient, why is the government looking to private collectors? There's something missing in your argument.
I'll bet you can count on one finger the number of organizations that have both your SS# and a complete, itemized breakdown of everything you earned as well as near-complete insight into how you live your life and plan your finances since you entered the work force, all in one place.
IRS, Social Security Administration, Department of Education, three different credit reporting agencies, state tax division, my CPA, my financial advisors/analysts...and that's who I can think of in the first few minutes here. I'm sure there are more.
Interesting how you think you can see into my motivations just because of what sources I choose to quote.
I think your sources indicate your bias - in this case, you're worried about losing your job. Give me some official IRS statistics on how much more efficient (what was it, 30x?) you and your fellow collectors are than a private collection agency and I'll be a little more sympathetic.
Several years ago I was in a major auto accident and spent about a week in the hospital. Insurance was pretty good about covering everything they were supposed to.
About three months after I got home, though, I got a notice from a collector. It said I owed money to an X-ray company and they were collecting it. I ended up speaking with the X-ray company. They had not been turning expenses over to my insurer, and on top of that were mailing bills to the wrong address. I corrected everything with them and the collector left me alone.
So obviously, your explanation isn't totally accurate.
Profit is the thing that makes them responsible. If a worker at a private firm fucks up, their bosses will have much more incentive to fire them because the person is a risk to the company being able to keep doing the collecting. Are you blind enough to really think a government worker is responsible to you?
Like I said (regardless if you entered into the agreement willfully or not), many different private organizations have your information - banks, credit reporting agencies, credit card companies, doctors, hospitals, schools, etc. Has this ever been a problem? If so, how did you deal with it?
Besides, you gave yourself away with your rant about unions and government workers losing their jobs.
So, if you want to bemoan anyone, it should be the middle class.
1. Clicked "Reply to This"
2. Typed a message
3. Songs starts playing as I press "Submit"...oh wait...that means I'd have to change my message. Ok...
1. Clicked "Reply to This"
2. Song started playing
3. Wrote about song and pressed "Submit"..wait...I said the song started playing as I pressed submit! Damn!
I know...such a smartass.
Is there any way you can tell my parents this news? Also, can you contact the agencies that loaned me money and tell them all future bills go to mom and pop?
Thanks! And thanks for the great news! You made my day :)
What!? But...you said... ;)
Private businesses turn over delinquent accounts to a third party collector all the time. What's the difference?
The simple idea of just hiring more government employees whose job is to collect taxes (and who do so umpteen times more efficiently than private industry) just doesn't occur to the powers-that-be.
You're arguing that a government entity would be more efficient than a private company? Where have you been for the past century? Besides, most collectors don't get paid on a contract basis - they get a percentage of what's collected. This gives them much more incentive to collect than a government desk worker.
To top that off, all your computerized records at the IRS will soon be controlled by private company employees because the Office of Management and Budget has recently (illegally) revised the rules (a document named Circular A-76) for contracting out work so as to make virtually no government job safe from easy privatization.
I bet you couldn't count on both hands the number of private organizations that have your SS# and other private info in their databases. If this is a problem for you, you might consider disconnecting your electricity and telephone, never getting medical attention again, and keeping your money under your mattress.
For references, just google on NTEU (one of the unions fighting this crap) and A-76.
Wait...I thought your concern was for privacy? It seems you're only concerned about upholding an obsolete union system.
I don't wish for anyone to lose their job. Hell, I'm currently unemployed, so don't say I don't understand. But come back and whine when you have a legitimate argument.
You are right that no Constitutional amendment exists banning particular drugs. But this can be said for many laws that don't carry a Constitutional amendment. What do you propose is the solution?
It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist.
Have you ever heard of the Federal court system? Federal judges daily "interpret" the Constitution to grant rights to individuals that the Constitution doesn't explicitly list. Surely you are aware of this, or you've been living in a cave your entire life.
Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.
Non-US citizens are entitled to basic human rights. This does not mean, however, that non-citizens should have all of the privileges of a US citizen.
Yes, people routinely violated the Prohibition laws and they were eventually overturned. Maybe the same will happen with marijuana some day.
The difference in violating the law in protest and what the parent poster implied is quite large, though. He wanted a cop to be afraid for his life when coming to arrest him for drug use (a violation of law). To simply violate drug laws - but accept the consequences when you get caught - is different.
My point was if smoking pot is more important to you than threatening the life of a cop you're one sorry-ass SOB. There are many rights worth shedding blood over, but the "right" to smoke weed isn't one of them.
I bet with the economy the way it is office equipment suppliers would have some excellent package deals that you just couldn't beat trying to DIY.
Powering it back on resulted in a warm-up process that consumed alot of the expensive color sticks (or wax cartridges).
1. If you read about it "every day" in the paper you should be able to point to very many cases of this happening. Where are they?
2. You yourself noted that drug dealers get off b/c of illegal searches. Now, I have heard about situations like this, but not on a daily basis. In fact, I hear more about it from TV shows than reality. Regardless, the fact that they get off implies the cops didn't get away with the illegal search, doesn't it?
Finally...you should probably quit listening to the pot-smoking grapevine gossip (or TV shows/movies). Due to the abundance of lawyers and civil suits filed in this country on a daily basis, police departments tend to be very careful when it comes to following the law so that the perp can be prosecuted without problems such as illegal searches arising during trial.
How are someone's constitutional rights violated when they are busted for drugs? Please show me the amendment that makes our drug laws unconstitutional.
I don't think there are any clean cops in this country anymore. They are addicted to "cocaine money" that they sieze from people who have never done cocaine in their lives- let alone dealt it, or any other drug.
Where do you people get this shit? Movies?
Do you personally know any cops or have any in your family? Do you know them to be "dirty?"
There are bad apples in any profession in the world - always have been, always will be. But to say there are no "clean" cops left at all is a remarkably ignorant statement.
Can you provide any official statistics for this, or are you making a baseless blanket accusation based on the last cops-and-robbers movie you watched?
If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.
No shit. The parent post said nothing about illegal searches. The poster simply wanted to be able to scare a cop with his massive arsenal, thereby enabling said poster to continue his pot smoking.
And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.
Again...any official statistics you can cite to back up your argument?
Besides, in college you usually don't have a choice about which textbook to use for the class. I guess you could always purchase supplemental books, but those are usually out of the price range/interest level/time scope of many college students.
Troll, but I'll respond.
What does your statement have to do with Kofi Annan's view on WiFi?
Have US companies been awarded UN contracts for WiFi setups in third world countries? Even if they have, wouldn't it be the fault of the UN and/or the country getting the service, rather than the company being contracted?
Do you have any evidence at all to support your ambiguous assertions?