![]() |
Military Budgets - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Military Budgets (/Thread-Military-Budgets) |
RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (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. It's funny that Haliburton is the only no bid company you guys even know about. Can't figure out why that is. I've got a suspicion though. I am against no bid contracts unless there is some sort of national security reason or some other valid reasons I am not aware of, or there is only one company capable of performing the task. It's just when I only ever see one name attached to no bid contracts, the whole outrage thing feels kinda...phony...know what I mean? RE: Military Budgets - Nately120 - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's funny that Haliburton is the only no bid company you guys even know about. Can't figure out why that is. I've got a suspicion though. I'm not exactly sure what sort of argument you are trying to make with this one, but I find it less than compelling at the moment. (05-06-2016, 12:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I am against no bid contracts unless there is some sort of national security reason or some other valid reasons I am not aware of, or there is only one company capable of performing the task. It's just when I only ever see one name attached to no bid contracts, the whole outrage thing feels kinda...phony...know what I mean? So basically, capitalism can be circumnavigated as long as the government can convince the unwashed masses that massive monetary inefficiency is totally necessary to keep us safe? Hmm, that pretty much sounds like my criticism of the whole thing. Anyways, you seem to view me as some sort of liberal loon who heard some soundbytes about Haliburton and is just getting on his uninformed high-horse. Leave Haliburton alone!!!!! RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not exactly sure what sort of argument you are trying to make with this one, but I find it less than compelling at the moment. Damn. I sure was hoping to compel. Quote:So basically, capitalism can be circumnavigated as long as the government can convince the unwashed masses that massive monetary inefficiency is totally necessary to keep us safe? Hmm, that pretty much sounds like my criticism of the whole thing. Anyways, you seem to view me as some sort of liberal loon who heard some soundbytes about Haliburton and is just getting on his uninformed high-horse. Liberal loon no, but always curious when there is $100 billion plus in no bid contracts handed out every year, why I only hear people mention Haliburton and Iraq and not something say this year. Or last. Or the one before that. RE: Military Budgets - Nately120 - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Liberal loon no, but always curious when there is $100 billion plus in no bid contracts handed out every year, why I only hear people mention Haliburton and Iraq and not something say this year. Or last. Or the one before that. Ok, so start a thread about them. This thread is about military spending so...you know...Haliburton. RE: Military Budgets - GMDino - 05-06-2016 Admittedly this does not say "no bid". http://www.ibtimes.com/winner-most-iraq-war-contracts-kbr-395-billion-decade-1135905 Quote:And The Winner For The Most Iraq War Contracts Is . . . KBR, With $39.5 Billion In A Decade https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/no-bid-us-government-contracts-jump-9-percent-despite-push-for-competition/2013/03/17/9f6708fc-8da0-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html Quote:No-bid U.S. government contracts jump 9 percent, despite push for competition RE: Military Budgets - fredtoast - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Liberal loon no, but always curious when there is $100 billion plus in no bid contracts handed out every year, why I only hear people mention Haliburton and Iraq and not something say this year. Or last. Or the one before that. Not sure what your point is here. The example I use does not change the underlying argument in any way. Just seems like you are trying to deflect the argument by claiming it is all about political party affiliation. RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what your point is here. Im not trying to deflect asI have a middle ground on no bid. There are legit reasons for them, but outside a defined reason they should be open. As far as Haliburton, I couldn't care less aboutthem as a company. It just seems odd it's the only company that's the example. RE: Military Budgets - mallorian69 - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 11:50 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.So we should stop all foreign aid for any reason? After all we spend billions every year in tax payer money in aid, none of which directly and rarely indirectly affects the average American. RE: Military Budgets - StLucieBengal - 05-06-2016 We shouldn't be involved in other's affairs. I understand we need areas tied up in constant conflicts to keep them busy and keep them from doing even dumber things. I wish we had a pre World War mentality. Sell arms, boost our economy and let everyone else kill each other off. We screwed up the Middle East and Sykes picot. Just so Obama could elevate Iran to the regional power. Military spending is great as long as it's for defense and intelligence. RE: Military Budgets - StLucieBengal - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 01:10 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So we should stop all foreign aid for any reason? After all we spend billions every year in tax payer money in aid, none of which directly and rarely indirectly affects the average American. Foreign aid needs reigned in.... And cut back to a point.... Idk what that point should be but an audit of where we spend money should happen. RE: Military Budgets - fredtoast - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 01:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: As far as Haliburton, I couldn't care less aboutthem as a company. It just seems odd it's the only company that's the example. I don't see how you could think anything was odd about using the most high profile company that benefitted from these government contracts. If someone mentioned the Catholic Church or Jerry Sandusky when talking about child molestation would you think that was odd? Would you think those people don't really care about child molestation but instead just hated the church or Penn State? RE: Military Budgets - fredtoast - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 01:10 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So we should stop all foreign aid for any reason? After all we spend billions every year in tax payer money in aid, none of which directly and rarely indirectly affects the average American. I think we should cut back drastically on foreign aid, but US citizens do get an indirect benefit from it. Some amount of military spending overseas and foreign aid money is necessary to protect our economic interests. As the largest economic power on earth we have to insure there are stable markets for our products and stable access to resources and products we need from foreign countries. Unfortunately we have to "buy" some of our friends. If we cut off aid to some countries then Russia or China would step in and buy them off. Then we lose influence and control of markets and access to resources. Isolationism is not possible in today's world wide economy. People who think it is do not grasp how complicated international relations can be. RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 01:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't see how you could think anything was odd about using the most high profile company that benefitted from these government contracts. 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. RE: Military Budgets - Arturo Bandini - 05-06-2016 (05-05-2016, 11:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you think if Switzerland wasn't surrounded by friendly, NATO, nations with the United States guaranteeing their safety they'd be able to spend that little on their own defense? You know Switzerland is a neutral state since 1815 ? Even Hitler didn't attack Switzerland. Believe me that since 1815 they had times with special neighbourhood. RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 01:48 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: You know Switzerland is a neutral state since 1815 ? Even Hitler didn't attack Switzerland. Believe me that since 1815 they had times with special neighbourhood. Yeah because they helped him. People who want to take over the world don't really concern themselves with a country's declared status. Do you think if France had declared themselves neutral he would have left them alone? RE: Military Budgets - GMDino - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 02:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah because they helped him. People who want to take over the world don't really concern themselves with a country's declared status. Do you think if France had declared themselves neutral he would have left them alone? Russia helped him too. RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 12:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, so start a thread about them. This thread is about military spending so...you know...Haliburton. You mean like Locheed, Raytheon, or Boeing? Do you believe there are no legitimate no bid contracts? RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 02:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Russia helped him too. Yeah and when he didn't need them anymore he tried to take them. Switzerland was much more important to him intact. RE: Military Budgets - Nately120 - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 02:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You mean like Locheed, Raytheon, or Boeing? I don't recall saying that Haliburton was the only no-bid contract. RE: Military Budgets - michaelsean - 05-06-2016 (05-06-2016, 02:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I don't recall saying that Haliburton was the only no-bid contract. No what you said is: Quote:Ok, so start a thread about them. This thread is about military spending so...you know...Haliburton. 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. |