Military Budgets

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2016, 01:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why is it the most high profile?  Other companies are making tens billions of dollars every year, to this day.  That's all I'm asking.

If you don't know why then you are much dumber than I thought.

But, again, the example does not effect the argument.  All you are trying to do is deflect a serious issue by trying to make it look like it is politically motivated.

[*Nately120*]

(05-06-2016, 02:57 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No what you said is:

 

But you did seem to think it was the only military no bid contracts out there otherwise why would you say go start a thread about the others, we are talking about military spending. 

Like I said to Fred it's just suspicious when it's the only one ever used as an example despite there being other companies who make tens of billions on no bid military contracts.  Seems like it could be one of those Pavlov's dog words because if you read the comment section in any article about Haliburton, guess whose name along with rabid frothing anger comes up?  

Haliburton is like accusing someone of being a Fox News robot when you disagree with them.  it's lazy.

Oh lord forbid people associate chief offenders with the manners by which they offend.  That's like wondering why people picture Joe Montana and Tom Brady when you mention NFL quarterbacks and don't give equal time to Rex Grossman and Chris Chandler.

Haliburton earned the right to be the knee-jerk example of no-bid military nonsense.  Earned it all the way to the bank!

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2016, 03:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you don't know why then you are much dumber than I thought.

But, again, the example does not effect the argument.  All you are trying to do is deflect a serious issue by trying to make it look like it is politically motivated.

So like how dumb did you think I already was?

Of course I know why, but you keep denying it.  And again why would I deflect if I believe it should be open bid unless there are clearly defined reasons?

[*Nately120*]

(05-06-2016, 03:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course I know why, but you keep denying it.  And again why would I deflect if I believe it should be open bid unless there are clearly defined reasons?

Wait, so are we saying people take issue with Haliburton because of Dick Cheney, or that's the only reason that particular offense gets the exposure it does?

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2016, 03:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh lord forbid people associate chief offenders with the manners by which they offend.  That's like wondering why people picture Joe Montana and Tom Brady when you mention NFL quarterbacks and don't give equal time to Rex Grossman and Chris Chandler.

Haliburton earned the right to be the knee-jerk example of no-bid military nonsense.  Earned it all the way to the bank!

Haliburton makes $37 billion total over ten years with both open bid and no bid contracts.  Two jet companies made $17 billion in one year on no bid contracts, but Haliburton is the big offender, and it has nothing to do with politics.  Nope.

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2016, 03:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   And again why would I deflect if I believe it should be open bid unless there are clearly defined reasons?

Because your very first post was defending Haliburton and you refuse to admit that you were wrong.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2016, 03:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Wait, so are we saying people take issue with Haliburton because of Dick Cheney, or that's the only reason that particular offense gets the exposure it does?

Well read an article that involves Haliburton, and read an article that involves Raytheon or Lockheed etc.  If Dick Cheney hadn't worked at Haliburton, it would be just another name under the umbrella of no bid contracts.  I've heard people lose their minds over Haliburton no bid contracts, and never mention one other company.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-06-2016, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because your very first post was defending Haliburton and you refuse to admit that you were wrong.

No it wasn't and wrong about what?

[fredtoast]

(05-06-2016, 03:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Haliburton makes $37 billion total over ten years with both open bid and no bid contracts.  Two jet companies made $17 billion in one year on no bid contracts, but Haliburton is the big offender, and it has nothing to do with politics.  Nope.

This is ridiculous.  NOT ONE PERSON has said that Haliburton is the only company doing this.  

I know of multiple men who molested more boys than Jerry Sandusky.  If you can't name them off the top of your head does that means you don't really care about child molesters and that you really just hate Penn State?

[*Nately120*]

(05-06-2016, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is ridiculous.  NOT ONE PERSON has said that Haliburton is the only company doing this.  

I know of multiple men who molested more boys than Jerry Sandusky.  If you can't name them off the top of your head does that means you don't really care about child molesters and that you really just hate Penn State?

I suppose you COULD be bringing up the specific Jerry Sandusky case because you hate Penn State.  Are you in Ohio?  Yeah, that fits.

[*bfine32*]

I had zero idea that we had this many military contracting and acquisition experts in this forum.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-06-2016, 03:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well read an article that involves Haliburton, and read an article that involves Raytheon or Lockheed etc.  If Dick Cheney hadn't worked at Haliburton, it would be just another name under the umbrella of no bid contracts.  I've heard people lose their minds over Haliburton no bid contracts, and never mention one other company.

Exactly, General Dynamics, the company my Father retired from, dwarfs all of them in contract size.

[*Nately120*]

(05-06-2016, 07:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I had zero idea that we had this many military contracting and acquisition experts in this forum.

What, you think everyone in the P&R forum is merely a dime-store psychologist?

[JustWinBaby]

Yeah....I'd say we spend about 3X what we should be on military. But, it is also a jobs program (as Fred has pointed out), and we benefit from the tech advances.

Still, rationalizing military spend would go a long way toward balancing the budget. I don't see the reason or the need to spend what we do.

[McC]

(05-06-2016, 11:55 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Private companIES or private companY?  Haliburton got the only contract...no competition, no capitalism, no need to provide reasonable prices, no chance of another COMPANY coming in an providing supplies and services for a better price.

Zilch.  Nothing.  None of those things that apparently make this country so great.  None of the capitalistic war machine that made WWII into a depression-killing capitalistic venture.  Nope, Haliburton can charge taxpayers whatever they choose and if you don't like it you just hate the troops and you want a bunch of brown people to waltz right over here and kill us all.

It is an amazingly flawed business model propped up by misinformation and smear tactics.  It's brilliant.

How many other companies are in that business?  Seems to me, if there are others who are not being allowed to bid, it wouldn't exactly be a secret.

Sounds like your biggest beef is not with the practice of destroying countries and then rebuilding them but with not letting other companies bid on the work.  Interesting.