Corporate welfare needs to stop

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2015, 03:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: This is a particular instance where we can disagree with what they are doing, but in the context of Eisenhower, who says we do need an armaments industry, who else is going to do the paying?    Dino said "an industry fed by the government".  

I believe that if our military needs weapons then the government should build and supply them instead of letting private companies make huge profits from taxpayer money.

I have no problem with our military having weapons.  I just hate the fact that private companies are taking our tax money as profit.  

[*michaelsean*]

(06-18-2015, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I believe that if our military needs weapons then the government should build and supply them instead of letting private companies make huge profits from taxpayer money.

I have no problem with our military having weapons.  I just hate the fact that private companies are taking our tax money as profit.  

That's fine by me if they can do it, but as per Eisenhower, he recognized the need for such an industry.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-18-2015, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I believe that if our military needs weapons then the government should build and supply them instead of letting private companies make huge profits from taxpayer money.

I have no problem with our military having weapons.  I just hate the fact that private companies are taking our tax money as profit.  

Isn't the issue that the government gave a no-bid contract to a single private company and then forced a situation where taxpayers were beholden to said private company (emphasis upon the singular form).  Giving the government the right to anoint a single private company the sole creator of a product is no more efficient than the government doing it on its own.  Competition is good for the consumer and if Haliburton wants to charge taxpayers $50 per MRE and $10 for each bullet (or whatever) we should give other private organizations the right to supply such things for less if they feel they can and we feel they can do so without compromising the well-being of those involved.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-18-2015, 01:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Isn't the issue that the government gave a no-bid contract to a single private company and then forced a situation where taxpayers were beholden to said private company (emphasis upon the singular form).  Giving the government the right to anoint a single private company the sole creator of a product is no more efficient than the government doing it on its own.  Competition is good for the consumer and if Haliburton wants to charge taxpayers $50 per MRE and $10 for each bullet (or whatever) we should give other private organizations the right to supply such things for less if they feel they can and we feel they can do so without compromising the well-being of those involved.

Good point.....whatever happened to the bidding process.....

[StLucieBengal]

(06-12-2015, 03:06 PM)Beaker Wrote: Other than just saying what it is....like you did in bold....rather than using a rhetorical term like I indicated. Again, like I said....try at least to SOUND more intelligent. Thats not an attack on you, its a request that in the long term will help this forum develop into a true discussion forum rather than a mudslinging pit.

Well said. No need to mudsling.