Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 84

Thread: Money well spent?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Haliburton?
    Corn subsidies?
    Earmarks?

    Crony capitalism has become a staple of modern American politics, and it started well before the current Administration.
    Haliburton what? Earmarks are another magnet for corruption in politics that needs to be stopped. Almost every conservative would agree with that. Ethanol subsidies are not directed to a company but rather an INDUSTRY. There is a big difference though I strongly oppose ethanol subsidies. Again these are positions that virtually every conservative and most people in general would agree with.

    None of it is the same as giving loans to companies based on who bundles the most donations. But what interested me in this thread is watching libs here defend the crony capitalism because its being done by the Obama administration. As if conservatives would be out defending earmarks and ethanol subsidies if a Republican administration was in power. Not a chance.

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,984
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Haliburton what?
    No bid contracts in Iraq for corporation where Dick Cheney was a former Vice President and CEO.

    Ethanol subsidies are not directed to a company but rather an INDUSTRY.
    And the funds for the INDUSTRY go where exactly? Private companies.

    None of it is the same as giving loans to companies based on who bundles the most donations.
    It's basically identical.

    But what interested me in this thread is watching libs here defend the crony capitalism because its being done by the Obama administration. As if conservatives would be out defending earmarks and ethanol subsidies if a Republican administration was in power. Not a chance.
    My point is that "blatant cronyism" is prevalent in today's politics and comes from both sides, which is in direct opposition to your statement that you've never seen it before.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    No bid contracts in Iraq for corporation where Dick Cheney was a former Vice President and CEO.



    And the funds for the INDUSTRY go where exactly? Private companies.



    It's basically identical.



    My point is that "blatant cronyism" is prevalent in today's politics and comes from both sides, which is in direct opposition to your statement that you've never seen it before.
    Clinton gave as many contracts to Haliburton as Bush. The thing is Haliburton is the only company capable of and good at some of the things they are contracted to do such as managing oil fires of the size seen in Iraq.

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Clinton gave as many contracts to Haliburton as Bush. The thing is Haliburton is the only company capable of and good at some of the things they are contracted to do such as managing oil fires of the size seen in Iraq.
    Didn't he say both sides do it?

  5. #45
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    Didn't he say both sides do it?
    My point is that I don't think it is cronyism when the government has been giving the company contracts for long before the Bush era and that they had no other company capable of doing the work.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    No bid contracts in Iraq for corporation where Dick Cheney was a former Vice President and CEO.



    And the funds for the INDUSTRY go where exactly? Private companies.



    It's basically identical.



    My point is that "blatant cronyism" is prevalent in today's politics and comes from both sides, which is in direct opposition to your statement that you've never seen it before.
    You are classically taking a grain of truth and expanding on it. The Haliburton point is silly. They are a contractor doing a job for the Government. They did so under Bush and Clinton and Obama.

    Let me clarify standard cronyism (which I am against) versus the more egregious type which we have seen under this administration. Getting back to the ethanol and green subsidies as an example: Ethanol Subsidies - go to the entire industry and no doubt lobbied heavily for by industry lobbiests. This favors that industry as a whole and is supposedly acceptable because the Federal govt believes that Ethanol helps us with our energy independence (false belief likely influenced by lobbyests donations). We also have green subsidies in the form of governmental assistance for the purchase of any green technology. This falls under the same criterion as the ethanol subsidies. Anyone that buys a solar anything gets to bill the government for 30% of the cost. This is an industry subsidy that does not necessarily favor any particular company. Same sickening crap as the ethanol subsidy.

    Now lets look at the green jobs agenda program. In this case individual companies in the green industry that bundled money for the president got special loan guarantees that the other companies did not get. Whats worse is that the government in many cases had previously rejected loans for those companies due to analysis that showed them not to be economically viable. There is a difference between industry wide subsidies (which i personally hate) and paying back your donors with cash money in the pocket. It is simply taking something bad that has been done for a while and raising it to a new level of stink.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    My point is that I don't think it is cronyism when the government has been giving the company contracts for long before the Bush era and that they had no other company capable of doing the work.
    You are serious with this answer? No other company was capable of sub-contracting to other companies?

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    You are serious with this answer? No other company was capable of sub-contracting to other companies?
    For certain highly technical specific services, yes. I read an article about it a while ago and it made sense.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,984
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Let me clarify standard cronyism (which I am against) versus the more egregious type which we have seen under this administration.
    Agree to disagree. The situations have many more similarities than differences, and I'm not prepared to cherry pick justifications and levels of egregiousness based on which entity received the funds and the manner in which it was done.

    At the end of the day, we have a federal government that is picking and choosing winners, and putting funds into the hands of companies and organizations of their choice through various means. This isn't anything new.

  10. #50
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Agree to disagree. The situations have many more similarities than differences, and I'm not prepared to cherry pick justifications and levels of egregiousness based on which entity received the funds and the manner in which it was done.

    At the end of the day, we have a federal government that is picking and choosing winners, and putting funds into the hands of companies and organizations of their choice through various means. This isn't anything new.
    Paying a contractor to do a job (Halliburton) vs giving guaranteed loans to non-viable companies who are strongly linked to politicians are 2 totally different things.

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    For certain highly technical specific services, yes. I read an article about it a while ago and it made sense.
    May I see the link?

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Paying a contractor to do a job (Halliburton) vs giving guaranteed loans to non-viable companies who are strongly linked to politicians are 2 totally different things.
    Almost identical situations viewed through two different sets of glasses.

  13. #53
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Almost identical situations viewed through two different sets of glasses.
    they created the job that only Halliburton could do. There was no need for their expertise if Cheney doesn't cook the evidence and fraudulently leads the charge for war.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Agree to disagree. The situations have many more similarities than differences, and I'm not prepared to cherry pick justifications and levels of egregiousness based on which entity received the funds and the manner in which it was done.

    At the end of the day, we have a federal government that is picking and choosing winners, and putting funds into the hands of companies and organizations of their choice through various means. This isn't anything new.
    Both things suck and i would agree to disagree as well as far as if the current status is worse. We've gone off the topic though of the humor in this thread to see the resident libs defending this stuff because Obama is doing it. I am against this cronyism regardless of the party in charge as everyone else should be. This is far from a partisan issue.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    May I see the link?
    I don't remember where I read it. Feel free to try google.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Clinton gave as many contracts to Haliburton as Bush. The thing is Haliburton is the only company capable of and good at some of the things they are contracted to do such as managing oil fires of the size seen in Iraq.

    Finally, someone who knows something. Correct, HAL is a very specific company - they do many things no other company can and do them well. So, they get the business. They are not all that profitable by the way (have some in a managed account). But they make money.

    Solar - $1.8 Bill debt on sales of $10 mill with an admiited bad outlook? Whoa. I've run businesses way bigger than that (Bill+) and would have been out of there if I incurred that kind of debt with that volume.

    Cost versus return. If it's not being analyzed I suspect a little criminality. No?

  17. #57
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,924
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    they created the job that only Halliburton could do. There was no need for their expertise if Cheney doesn't cook the evidence and fraudulently leads the charge for war.
    Same for Obama and the Solar Industry. Less money but the same BS!

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    they created the job that only Halliburton could do. There was no need for their expertise if Cheney doesn't cook the evidence and fraudulently leads the charge for war.

    Halliburton was involved in Gulf War I also. 1990-91. Since that was long before Cheney was involved with the company, you logic FAILS - and badly.
    HAL - a proven winner in a specific function. Overlook them? Contract who exactly?

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Halliburton was involved in Gulf War I also. 1990-91. Since that was long before Cheney was involved with the company, you logic FAILS - and badly.
    HAL - a proven winner in a specific function. Overlook them? Contract who exactly?
    When people bring up Haliburton it's like a trigger that says "I am a mindless bufoon". Where is the evidence of wrongdoing? Not a shred. It's the mindless Bush lied people died crown that spout this nonsense. Again the irony in this thread is that those same mindless drones are here defending Obama's green jobs crony capitalism. It is indefensible yet here they are.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    It's the mindless Bush lied people died crown that spout this nonsense. Again the irony in this thread is that those same mindless drones are here defending Obama's green jobs crony capitalism. It is indefensible yet here they are.
    They don't know any different. When it is literally etched in your ideology, you must take heel to toe and walk the line.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us