The White House Wants To Know

#2
#2
I think it's a good start. I'm sure there are quite a few companies that get contracts based on donations to certain political affiliates.
 
#3
#3
I don't see why it was cost jobs, in general...that is, unless no contract would have been given at all if not for the donations. In that case, would arguing that this would cost jobs not being equivalent to saying government spending does indeed create net jobs?
 
#4
#4
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I think it's a good start. I'm sure there are quite a few companies that get contracts based on donations to certain political affiliates.
Click to expand...

let's say you donated the maximum individual amount to Senator Blowhard's reelection campaign, the good Senator has a reputation of being anti-labor union, now let's say your company has a shot at a sweet federal contract, but your donation catches the eye of the current administration, who is union friendly to the point of cronyism. The White House decides to award the contract to one of your competitors because their employees either didn't donate, or donated to the "right" politicians.

what you think is a good start is a way to create an "enemies list".
 
#6
#6
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
 
#7
#7
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
Click to expand...

There's a reason for no bid contracts.
 
#8
#8
MG1968 said:
let's say you donated the maximum individual amount to Senator Blowhard's reelection campaign, the good Senator has a reputation of being anti-labor union, now let's say your company has a shot at a sweet federal contract, but your donation catches the eye of the current administration, who is union friendly to the point of cronyism. The White House decides to award the contract to one of your competitors because their employees either didn't donate, or donated to the "right" politicians.

what you think is a good start is a way to create an "enemies list".
Click to expand...

Good point.

PoochPunt3rdDown said:
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
Click to expand...

Also, good point.
 
#9
#9
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
Click to expand...

is this a serious point? you got a contract with halliburton that by all accounts barely made any money compared to hundreds of billions of pensions and pay raises?
 
#10
#10
droski said:
is this a serious point? you got a contract with halliburton that by all accounts barely made any money compared to hundreds of billions of pensions and pay raises?
Click to expand...

That deal was so good for Haliburton, that they ended up spinning off that part of the company. Nothing makes a stock go higher than awesome stories like your truck drivers being killed on a daily basis
 
#11
#11
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
Click to expand...

Halliburton/KBR was one of the only companies that could have provided the services they did. Also, the first contract for their support in GWOT was no bid because they were already under contract by the government to provide such services; the extra services that Halliburton and KBR provided led to drastic net losses in income. When the contract was up and open to bids, KBR underbid every other contractor at an increased cost to the government and was therefore able to finally begin to see profits midway through 2005.

The Halliburton/KBR complaint has always appeared to me to be one of the most misinformed grievances ever directed at the federal government.
 
#12
#12
So Halliburton and KBR were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and patriot duty. That seems as far-fetched as the elaborate Cheney profiteer conspiracies.
 
#13
#13
IPorange said:
So Halliburton and KBR were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and patriot duty. That seems as far-fetched as the elaborate Cheney profiteer conspiracies.
Click to expand...

Not at all. They were already under contract to provide such services; however, when that contract was awarded, neither Halliburton/KBR nor the Federal Government saw either war on the horizon and, therefore, projected costs were much, much lower. The "cost plus" contract at the time only figured in certain kinds of costs that were not covered until 2005.

From 2008:
therealUT said:
Halliburton loves nothing more than their net losses of $820M and $979M, in 2003 and 2004, respectively under the "no-bid contract".

In the first quarter of fiscal year 2005, they began operating under the competitively bid for contracts. Under the contracts in which Halliburton out-bid other contractors, Halliburton earned $2.3B and $2.3B of net income, 2005 and 2006.

When Halliburton finally got rid of KBR and KBR continued to provide the brunt of the contracting work in OIF and OEF, Halliburton pulled down $3.5B of net income, 2007.
Click to expand...
 
#14
#14
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
Yeah. Because the Unions are the ones who have benefited from the most profitable of government contracts. Cheney. Halliburton.

Let's let the Halliburton faulty wiring shock some more troops in the shower!
Click to expand...

you really need to read about halliburton beyond cheney and quit reading moveon.org talking points. do you know how many contract were awarded to halliburton by clinton admin? a crap load. Gore gave halliburton an award for their work, before you lib sheep heard of cheney.

halliburton has tried to sell their military branch of the company because it wasn't making a decent profit.

there are a lot of nobid contracts that halliburton won before bush came into office. Halliburton is the only company big enough to perform many of the contracts due to the size and logistics.
 
#16
#16
It's been awhile since Halliburton was demonized. Glad to see it's still the "go to" argument.

Carry on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top