Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing

[ezmoney5150]

I hope you understand that those same democrats that you wish to regulate big business are just as willing to regulate you and your gun rights. Gun rights are a big issue for me as well, and that is probably the main reason why my conscience does not allow me to vote for most democrats.

That's a scare tactic by right wingers to win elections. If you vote for a repub because you think dems are going to take your guns away then you need to read more.

You should be thinking about keeping your job instead of keeping your gun. Threre are republicans that are paid in campaign cash to do their best to eliminate unions. I'm not sure if you know this but UPS doesn't pay us out of the goodness of their heart. They pay us because we speak collectively. And that goes for management and hourly.

 

[ezmoney5150]

There always have been, and always will be a few RINOS in the republican party.

The repubs will do anything that corporate america tell it to do. And most democrats also.


As far as your notion that the NRA manufactures opposition its actually quite ludicrous. The NRA is a non-profit organization so it has no real desire to secretly support gun legislation to oppose. Secondly, there are many more organizations that are anti gun, like gun control, inc., or the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence. Lets not get into international pressures to curb gun rights such as the works of IANSA or the UN in general for that matter. There is plenty of opposition to what the NRA strives for. No manufacturing opposition required.

So you don't think there's any motive to keep the gun controversy alive in american politics?

How about this:

Special Report: What Does Wayne LaPierre Do For His Approximately $1,000,000 a Year?

Wayne LaPierre isn't just leading the obscene fight against common sense gun laws in this country-- he's making a killing off of it.
Most gun owners would be floored to know that the NRA Executive Vice-President makes $633,823 in salary, plus another $258,343 in benefits in 2004 (Gun Guys has obtained the NRA's 990 form from 2004-- to read it, click here). It is possible that his total compensation package from the NRA for 2005 exceeded $1 million (the 2005 tax reports are not yet available).
In fact, it takes more than 35,000 NRA membership renewals (at $25 a piece) just to cover LaPierre's 2004 compensation package. 35,000 NRA memberships spent on one guy, all before a single freedom cruise sets sail.
It begs the question: has the NRA, under Wayne LaPierre, turned itself into a money making machine to fund LaPierre's lavish lifestyle? Is LaPierre creating issues harmful to American security to make his excessive salary and compensation package seem justified, given that is earned at the expense of the sweat and labor of the NRA membership?
Gun Guys has asked for NRA members to tell us whether they think LaPierre should be paid so much. We're guessing that most gun owners would be put off by such extravagance. Should the head of the NRA really make twice as much as the President of the United States?
LaPierre's salary and benefits will no doubt be on the minds of at least some gun owners as the NRA opens its annual convention next week from May 19th to 21st in Milwaukee.
The NRA is constantly looking for ways to scare the heck out of gun owners in order to drive its fundraising and membership campaigns. But since George W. Bush has taken office, the NRA has gotten whatever it wants, allowing the already weak assault weapons ban to expire and giving total civil immunity to the gun industry. But now the NRA needs a reason to convince supporters to join the NRA and give money. Otherwise, how could the organization afford LaPierre?
Enter the NRA's "License to Murder," their latest campaign against the safety of American citizens.
When in doubt, use fear. The NRA has launched a national campaign to pass "Shoot First" or "License to Murder" laws in every state. These laws would basically allow anyone to murder another person if that individual "feels threatened" and to use deadly force, with or without a firearm.
What's clear is that the NRA is extending itself beyond guns and taking America into deadly new territory where vigilante justice is legal. Is this what NRA members signed up for? Is the NRA endangering America by creating phony issues that endanger our personal and national security?
The NRA's new campaign has nothing to do with "the right to keep and bear arms" and is simply a public relations campaign to raise money. As LaPierre's compensation package indicates, the NRA has become an organization that is centered on perpetuating its own existence and the rich and famous lifestyles of its executives.
A lot of NRA members could use their $25.00 for needed personal or family expenses, instead of ensuring that LaPierre can enjoy an expensive bottle of wine or presidential suite. If they get a chance to meet LaPierre in Milwaukee next weekend, they might ask him exactly what he's doing with their money, besides profiteering from it.

 

[wkmac]

Wkmac

Why is it when you apply the average cost of the vechicles purchased to the lowest cost vehicle it is proof of a waste of money? When I apply that same average cost to the highest cost vehicle would it not be proof that the taxpayers are getting a bargin?

AV,

I tell you what. Watch the entire movie which I think at Utube is broken into 10 sections. Towards the last 30 minutes, they speak to a former KBR procurement officer and other employees of Haliburton and KBR and they cover the whole SUV deal. Now if you can show me the good in a cost/plus contract where paying $200k plus for a lease for a secretary to drive who basically never leaves the compound and how taking that $200k plus away from our armed service guys which could either put more troops in the field as some have cried for or give them better armorment, etc. I'll gladly stop talking fiscal control in any way shape or form with you.

Also I find it almost shocking where in an earlier thread here you posted concerns where our gov't may have exposed our guys to some bad http://www.browncafe.com/community/threads/what-is-your-opinion-on-this-article.122378/ and the fact that they may be hiding something (see post #5 at link above as it came across that way) or at least considering that potential all the while defending Halliburton, KBR, etc. in every step (or it appears that way to me) when also in the same video a Halliburton water specialist who also testified before Congress documented contaminated water with potential pathogens was given to our troops. I'm as free market as they come even to the point of removing the gov't from printing money for private business transactions between individuals (let the private sector among themselves develop their own medium of exchange, I told you I was radical)but don't let the defending of what you percieve as free market capitalism come to mean you'll defend any private abuse in order to stand against the public domain of gov't and it's many abuses.

Abuse and fraud is wrong whether private or public. It becomes an overwhelming task to open minds to a free market when manipulators in free market clothing cloud the issue. I can only then point out the abuse and hope eyes and minds can discern the difference. The current conservative stain uh I mean strain are not free marketeers in any sense but rather merchantilist in the European traditions that was the economic heart and soul of the old world empires. That's how we got where we are.
And trust me AV, that wasn't for you as you were my springboard again.


I can understand defending the likes of Blackwater and CACI on your part in regards to frontline actions and dealing with enemy combatants but I'm left almost speechless when you defend some of the same companies when it comes to what they may be doing with/for our troops on their behalf.

Also running empty rigs up and down the road just to backcharge us, the US taxpayer is also wrong (see the video) and to defend that kind of action while wrapped in the flag is IMHO as unpatriotic as it gets! Yep, you read it right and I said it! You're not spitting on the flag, you're spitting on the taxpayer and the children and grandchildren of those taxpayers because of the debt will be years and years paying it all off as you defend these contractors under any and all pretense.

And the sad irony is at some point, someone (republican or democrat) will have to raise taxes to pay for all of this stuff so tell me how are you any better than say D or EZ who wants to pick my pocket and the pocket of my kids and grandkids for their do-gooder programs. How is building up Iraq and the people there with a new country any less a welfare boondoggle than the domestic kind championed by Hillary, Obama or Edwards. Welfare is still welfare no matter who the person is recieving the check!

Limited gov't doesn't just apply on the domestic side and it's not limited to only one specific area. Limited gov't applies across the board and with that is a responsibity with the people's money to be good stewards. You should solve problems once and for all, not grow them into an industry and bureacracy so private corporations can lobby to be the chief leech.

It's simple to go through the ABC agencies of gov't and find where corp. America like a leech has positioned itself to bloodsuck the taxpayer dry and the military is in no way shape or form exempt from this. When it comes to our soldiers in the field or at home, they should get the best and I bet I'm not alone in that thinking here but as I said, you'll have a hard time convincing me how the need of a gov't contractor's secretary to have an SUV over rides the need of wounded heros who lay in Walter Reed hospital. Remember that deal?

I know we are there, whether at the end of the day it was right or not and I also understand why some say we should stay the course whether I agree or not or for the reasons. If we are gonna stay then do this thing right, make the dollars spent count all the way to the last cent just as you'd expect the last bullet to always count. Rule one on the battlefield, don't waste ammo. Rule one in warfare, don't waste money as that money later may come down to the difference of victory or defeat. The means of a nation to wage war in it's defense is first it's ability to pay for it!

 

[wkmac]

That's a scare tactic by right wingers to win elections. If you vote for a repub because you think dems are going to take your guns away then you need to read more.

Anyone who looks at the historical record the last 30 years will clearly see that is the case. It is factual to say that many democrat so-called anti-gunners are vocal but I at least respect the fact that they say upfront what they will do and they don't mince words. You know where Chuckie Schumer stands. But many republicans however wrap themselves in covers of Guns and Ammo in public and then in private do in many ways opposite.

You should be thinking about keeping your job instead of keeping your gun. Threre are republicans that are paid in campaign cash to do their best to eliminate unions. I'm not sure if you know this but UPS doesn't pay us out of the goodness of their heart. They pay us because we speak collectively. And that goes for management and hourly.

I should know I get a nice check every week from em'!



Seriously, I think that is about as much overblown as the gun stuff towards the democrats. The truth is, the unions themselves have done more harm to unionism than the gov't. Do you think the gov't could have done this to a healthy union? I don't think so. Even our own IBT has done more to turn people off to the union and the union ranks and UPS didn't have to lift a hand. Central States being a perfect example. Had they been better stewards with our money, I think it's fair to say UPS would have no chance and would not even try to make a takeover move. The handwritting was on the wall about CS in 97' but we were to conditioned to not notice it.

Even the IBT itself is about a trainwreck as it pertains to it's own financial house. They keep shifting more and more money to the wage side in hopes of driving up monthy dues to cover the spread but it's still not enough. Like UPS, as many folks walk in the front door of the hall as walk out the back, especially in the open shop states.

I'll agree with you on the gun part but politely disagree that the republicans have brought down the union's house. We did that to ourselves as vultures only feed off of sick and dying and steer clear of the healthy.

Also unions refused to face the changing paradigms of the american workforce IMO.

 

[av8torntn]

If I have no idea what I'm talking about please enlighten me with your intellect.

That may not be possible. You said something about a cousins husband leaving the military because of money. You then said that you cannot know how they feel unless you have been there. You then said you have not been there. My simple conclusion is that you know not what you are talking about then. Right. Maybe you meant something else.

 

[ezmoney5150]

That may not be possible. You said something about a cousins husband leaving the military because of money. You then said that you cannot know how they feel unless you have been there. You then said you have not been there. My simple conclusion is that you know not what you are talking about then. Right. Maybe you meant something else.

I just reiterated what my cousins husband told me. I don't speak for the whole military like some around here do. I stick to my assertion that private contractors are a problem not a soulution. They pay these guys more money to do things that the mililtary used to do for alot less. Who pays for it the taxpayers.

Eisenhower said beware of the military industrial complex.

Need I say more.

 

[ezmoney5150]

Anyone who looks at the historical record the last 30 years will clearly see that is the case. It is factual to say that many democrat so-called anti-gunners are vocal but I at least respect the fact that they say upfront what they will do and they don't mince words. You know where Chuckie Schumer stands. But many republicans however wrap themselves in covers of Guns and Ammo in public and then in private do in many ways opposite.



I should know I get a nice check every week from em'!



Seriously, I think that is about as much overblown as the gun stuff towards the democrats. The truth is, the unions themselves have done more harm to unionism than the gov't. Do you think the gov't could have done this to a healthy union? I don't think so. Even our own IBT has done more to turn people off to the union and the union ranks and UPS didn't have to lift a hand. Central States being a perfect example. Had they been better stewards with our money, I think it's fair to say UPS would have no chance and would not even try to make a takeover move. The handwritting was on the wall about CS in 97' but we were to conditioned to not notice it.

Even the IBT itself is about a trainwreck as it pertains to it's own financial house. They keep shifting more and more money to the wage side in hopes of driving up monthy dues to cover the spread but it's still not enough. Like UPS, as many folks walk in the front door of the hall as walk out the back, especially in the open shop states.

I'll agree with you on the gun part but politely disagree that the republicans have brought down the union's house. We did that to ourselves as vultures only feed off of sick and dying and steer clear of the healthy.

Also unions refused to face the changing paradigms of the american workforce IMO.

The changing pardigms are that corporate america doesn't care about the future of America. They want every good paying job to go overseas. To avoid unions they pay politicians, mostly republicans, to block any laws that will make it easier to join a union ie. Employee Free Choice Act.

Corporate Amerika are the new robber barons. All they care about is quaterly reports. They don't think about how much the trade deficit hurts this country. And it's all because they want cheap labor. Cheap labor means more profit, more profit means better stock price, better stock price means more bonus money in the executives pockets. It's a downward spiral that is going to send us into a 1930s style depression if we're not already there.

Lenin once said: "When the time is right we will make great concessions and overtures of peace to the capitalists and they will sell us the rope with which we will hang them"

China is the new Lenin.

 

[av8torntn]

I just reiterated what my cousins husband told me. I don't speak for the whole military like some around here do. I stick to my assertion that private contractors are a problem not a soulution. They pay these guys more money to do things that the mililtary used to do for alot less. Who pays for it the taxpayers.

Eisenhower said beware of the military industrial complex.

Need I say more.

Yes I think you do need to say more. I think that it is cheaper to subcontract these logpack contracts than to keep a standing military large enough to handle it. I would be curious to see how you think the military does it for alot less.

 

[Jones]

Interesting article from Business Week, about 18 months old but still relevant:

When Outsourcing Turns Outrageous.
Contractors may be saving the Army money. But fraud changes the equation.

 

[wkmac]

Thanks for the link Jones. IMO the real source of where this thing got off track was the cost plus contracts. From the way I understand, the plus was based on a % of what the cost was so the more the cost was the more the % plus that you made. One of the drivers interviewed in the video I linked talked about being told to run convoys of empty trucks up and down the road because of the cost/plus arrangement.

Another talked about the lavish resort setting they enjoyed in off time and they were told to eat, drink and be merry as much as they could because the more the cost, the more the plus or profit was to be made.

I say this jokingly but also a bit serious as who learned this from who. The gov't (Congress and President especially) seems to treat us at times like a cost/plus arrangement so did they learn this from the private contractors or was this a monkey see/monkey do deal where what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

 

[wkmac]

[Next Year’s War Costs Estimated at $170 Billion or More
By DAVID STOUT and THOM SHANKER
Published: February 6, 2008
WASHINGTON — The military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost $170 billion in the next fiscal year over and above the $515.4 billion regular Pentagon budget that President Bush has proposed, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Wednesday.
/QUOTE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/washington/06cnd-military.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[wkmac]

In fairness, Gates has warned that the $170 bil may be wrong.

Gates estimates war costs but calls it inaccurate

REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service
Feb 06, 2008 11:34 EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, pressed to estimate total war costs, said Wednesday that Iraq and Afghanistan operations could cost $170 billion in 2009 but warned the figure was likely wrong.


"I have no confidence in that figure," Gates told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
He said the Pentagon could not accurately estimate total war costs for next year before receiving full war funding for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
Gates said he based the $170 billion figure on current expenditures in the wars.
Gates also said the 2009 estimate will depend on what decisions are made about U.S. troop levels in Iraq after the top commander there, Gen. David Petraeus, makes his next recommendation to the president in March.
The Bush administration this week asked Congress for $515.4 billion for the Pentagon in fiscal 2009 plus an additional $70 billion to pay for war operations for part of the year.
Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, told Gates they were disappointed the administration did not seek war funding for the full year -- something they demanded last year. But Gates said Congress still had not provided full war funding for the current year.
Congress in December approved $70 billion to cover war funds for part of fiscal 2008. The Pentagon says it needs $102.5 billion more.
"This delay is degrading our ability to operate and sustain the force at home and in theater and is making it difficult to manage this department in a way that is fiscally sound," he said.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Congress has approved $691 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and related activities such as Iraq reconstruction, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (Reporting by Kristin Roberts; Editing by Bill Trott)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

Note: The Red/Bold highlight is my doing and not from the original story. I did so to beg the question, of what amount were to some of the areas of cost abuse that have been pointed out? Would be interesting to see an actual cost breakdown and for what these monies were spent on. And also these figures were from the CBO and not OMB just for full disclosure and that's $691 bil on top of normal annual defense budget as I understand it. You can use the budget amount asked for this week by George Bush as a rough gauge so taking $500 bil plus multiplied by 7 years and you have a ballpark (highside I would think) of $3.5 trillion making for a total of $4 trillion total defense spending in the last 7 years.

 

[av8torntn]

Source: Reuters North American News Service

Note: The Red/Bold highlight is my doing and not from the original story. I did so to beg the question, of what amount were to some of the areas of cost abuse that have been pointed out? Would be interesting to see an actual cost breakdown and for what these monies were spent on. And also these figures were from the CBO and not OMB just for full disclosure and that's $691 bil on top of normal annual defense budget as I understand it. You can use the budget amount asked for this week by George Bush as a rough gauge so taking $500 bil plus multiplied by 7 years and you have a ballpark (highside I would think) of $3.5 trillion making for a total of $4 trillion total defense spending in the last 7 years.

Is that not a little low by historical standards? Maybe from all the money we are saving by using the contractors.

 

[wkmac]

Is that not a little low by historical standards? Maybe from all the money we are saving by using the contractors.

AV,

From what I've read in dollars adjusted for inflation, Vietnam cost anywhere from $518 bil to $670 bil and the reason the difference first off it would depend on what they consider direct costs and what period of time. Did they go from 1964' to 1974' or from earlier period when we used advisors on back in the 1950's when we first got involved in the French-Indo-china war and helping the French save what was left of it's old empire. Ironically this is also the same thing we are doing in the Mideast and trying to salvage what is left of the old British/French post WW1 partition but that's another thread.

As just a comparison, the Gulf War cost $94 bil and Korea was $290 bil but I think here is where the current Iraq/Afghanistan is different from the past so actual comparison is in reality a disservice to the present situation. Past wars relied purely of manpower to achieve strategic goals but we live in an age of obviously more technically advanced weapons which in themselves have a higher $ cost but huge savings in human life cost. I mean just compare the number of lives lost in Vietnam in say 64' to 69' and then compare the number of lives lost in Iraq since the start of the current war or even include from the beginning back in 1991'. The stark contrast is obvious. Now this also counts on US lives lost and not Iraqi civilians so if you factor that, the picture may be a bit different although some would argue the collateral damage of our smart bombs.

When you compare that and it's total cost to say Operation Arc-Light of the B-52 strikes in Vietnam and the carpet bombing, again our smart bombs prove more cost effective although a higher upfront cost. The backend cost are lower because post war cleanup/rebuild tends to be less from actual direct warfare destruction. Hey AV, here's you a side note to consider. Smart bombs and strategic strike weapons just as bunker penetrating weapons I believe in time will make nuclear strike weapons of mass yield obsolete.

What has also hurt Iraq verses these other past conflicts is the actual war itself was of very short duration, just a few months. What has been the cost eater is the occupation and democratization process which is where the contractors play a much bigger role. When I look at Gulf War 1 costing $94 bil I can only conclude that the Gulf War Part 2 may have been at best double that that's just a guesstimate on my part which leaves around $400 bil in post war (occupation/democratization) costs and as I said how much of that is Private contractor costs? There are also IMO other factors in play that makes comparing warfare today to warfare in the past a hard question to answer and this goes back to the issue of private contractors and concerns.

Going back to my original point, when gov't abuses the public trust and the public's money through fraud and waste we cry foul and argue for private sector solutions. SS, welfare and education of 3 major areas where hard arguments are made for private solutions verses public ones. However, if we have private sector solutions in other areas and we see examples of waste and maybe even the potential of fraud, those of us who by principle are opposed to gov't solution should be the very first to stand up and demand the absolute most from the very private sector solutions we want. If we sit on our hands and allow those who calm to side with us, to instill their own system of fraud and abuse, then we in fact are no better than that which we oppose.

In 94' a large part of America joined with others to vote in a group of Congresspeople who's started purpose was to cut gov't and limit it's presence in our daily lives. And these are people not driven by party loyalities but rather what they feel is right. As time went by, they realized these people had in fact betrayed them so they again stepped up and in 2006' sent a message and my guess is, that message could become extended this Nov. If we don't hold ourselves to the same principles we hold on others, I think we are in fact worse and should never be allowed to hold power and thus we suffer what we deserve!

JMO.

 

[wkmac]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703

Well it sems this story grows more and more.

And now there are convictions and trials waitng in court on the matter at least with KBR.

If you go to C-Span and click on the Satruday Feb. 23rd program of Washington Journal, they have David Jackson, one of the writers of the Chicago Tribune piece on during the 8:30 to 9:00 am segment. They talk a good bit about the numerous federal trials in Rock Island going on about this.

 

[av8torntn]

Well it sems this story grows more and more.

And now there are convictions and trials waitng in court on the matter at least with KBR.

If you go to C-Span and click on the Satruday Feb. 23rd program of Washington Journal, they have David Jackson, one of the writers of the Chicago Tribune piece on during the 8:30 to 9:00 am segment. They talk a good bit about the numerous federal trials in Rock Island going on about this.

Wow I thought your video said or implied there was widespread unchecked fraud and abuse.

 

[wkmac]

Well I have to post something wrong every once in a while to keep you coming back for more beatings!

 

[wkmac]

No mention of Halliburton, etc. but a good expose on Earmarks.

Video is 30 minutes long so just wanted to give anyone a heads up before you started to watch.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02222008/watch.html

 

[moreluck]

Appreciate the 'heads up' on the length.

I won't spend the 30 mins. on a video unless it's one of DS, Over9Five and Tony Express doing the can-can naked on top of a UPS package car.

 

[wkmac]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080401_a_submarine_to_fight_al_qaidas_navy/

I had no idea Al Qaeda's navy was so advanced!

If Osama is Skipper, then who is Gilligan?