Salty

iTrader: (14)

I agree.

What's the difference if it gets the job done?

People thought Bush kicked of OIF for Halliburton and numerous other war-time contracts. Whatever. Do Bush and Cheney have a Hurricane machine up their sleeve as well? You guys will never be satisfied, will you?

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

evidently you guys arent for free markets? cause this is anything but the case.. i have never once in my life seen a bidding proccess such as the one that was undertaken here.

There is a reason why the goverment mandates such proccess for large contracts.

I mean after all they are responsible for controlling OUR TAX MONEY

and we all know how well that has gone in iraq and the stan...

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

this has **** to do with being satisified and every thing to do with rampant cronisim and corruption.

Hand out a ****ing contract, so long as the best man wins it i have no problem witht hat. But handing it out because so and so knows someone is ****ING CORRUPTION

The same sort of corruption that strikens the Ukraine as we speak.

Corruption has no ****ing place during a disaster.. NO ****ING PLACE

lojasmo

Well, KB&R has proven repeatedly that they are unable to handle large jobs. They CERTAINLY shouldn't be getting more government contracts.

But hey, incompetence certainly didn't sway Bush's decision when appointing the leadership at FEMA, so.....


<snip>A third or more of the government property Halliburton Co. was paid to manage for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq could not be located by auditors, investigative reports to Congress show.

Halliburton's KBR subsidiary ''did not effectively manage government property'' and auditors could not locate hundreds of CPA items worth millions of dollars in Iraq and Kuwait this summer and fall, Inspector General Stuart W. Bowen reported to Congress in two reports. <snip>

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11820

psoper

For once (maybe this makes twice?) Salty and I agree one one aspect- but that qualifier is what kills this gig, these guys DON'T get the job done.


Uh dre- our gubment USED to require bidding processes, but the new and more efficient bush-cheney inc. doesn't need to call anyone because they know KBR will always be glad to take whatever contract they get handed, regardless of whether or not its even something they used to do.

Whether it's feeding and housing the troops, putting out oil rig fires, building bridges, hospitals and power plants, or rebuiling flood ravaged ghettos into new luxury high-rises

well its just that no other companies can do that stuff, you know ?


well except Bechtel

Nope no cronyism here at all......this is the free market at its finest!

Mr Bush named Bechtel's chief executive to his Export Council and put the former chief executive of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation

psoper

and at least Yushenko has the integrity to up and fire his government, whereas W. thinks this is all just good business.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Yes, this is the second offical time.

joltdudeuc

iTrader: (6)

You know what, the job nees to get, done, so everyone needs to STFU, and roll up their sleeves.

BUT

Bush pulled an excutive order yesterday/today and abolished a law that garunteed living wages for people who are hired to do constuction contracts. A Law that was made during the depression to help people who where very needy, and were exploited by businessmen to work for low wages, because the demand from the unemployed was so high, that these crooked SOBs where taking advatage of people. That's not market value, that's BS. And Bush pull EO for this is BS. It's giving the contracts to his friends, and then letting them pay low wages to get the work done, because are hungry for jobs/income (these people probably don't have homes or much of anything right now) and the profit margin becomes THAT MUCH MORE for Bush's buddies.

Serisouly, it's ****ed up, and It sickens me.

-Gagan

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

This isn't corruption, this is the REAL world my friend. You obviously don't know much about business practice. Let me illusrate.

I'm company A and I'm looking for a plumber to fix the plumbing in my building. I have two plumbers that can do it for me. Plumber A and Plumber B. Plumber B has been a long time friend of mine. He and I were buddies in College. Plumber A is a cheaper plumber, he can get the job done for less. Am I going to Am I going to give the work to Plumb. A or B? You're damn right B. Because I know he will try hard to do his best. I know where he lives. I'm giving him business, and if I have a problem I can get him back quicker than I could with some other Plumber.

Does that make any kind of sence?

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

i know what you are saying, but the goverment has a much higher burden to uphold then a small buisness or a guy looking for a plumber. After, all they arent playing with their own money, they are playing with OUR MONEY.

But hey if you arent one for goverment accountability then by all means continue with your logic..

psoper

For an individual to make such a call, yes it makes sense, assuming the individual can afford what plumber B is charging and has proven that he will do the job.

On the other hand, just because you know him from college, what if he's ripped you off on several occasions, taken money to do jobs then left them unfinished, or rampantly overcharged you on a previous job, would you go back to plumber B- if so I would say you are an idiot.

That is exactly what KBR and Halliburton have done, and yet this administration continues to hand them billions upon billions of dollars of our tax monies.

This is a government that is supposed to be of the people by the people and all that, but I guess you are OK if that applies only if you previously went to college with W or Dick.

In this case it is most denfinetly cronyism, corruption and outright criminal larceney, you are entitled to your opinion, but there is no arguing with facts.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

Ummmm, no.

- fixed.

There's absolutely no law nor rule nor spoken promise that the executive branch must offer contracts to bids. It's kind of similar to the power the executive branch has where they can 'appoint' cabinet members and agency heads (ala Tom Ridge) without obtaining anyone's consent.

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

No, I agree with you in that they should higher someone that will get in and get the job done... effectively and with good quality. I just wanted to play some devil's advocate