33 replies [Last post]
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Working Together to Cut Spending

I wouldn't go to the white house for the time of day. Bunch of liars They're the folks who turned a hundreds of billions surplus into a hundreds of billions deficite. Better to go to the non partisan Congresional budget office.

http://www.cbo.gov/

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Working Together to Cut Spending
civetcat wrote:
I wouldn't go to the white house for the time of day. Bunch of liars They're the folks who turned a hundreds of billions surplus into a hundreds of billions deficite. Better to go to the non partisan Congresional budget office.

http://www.cbo.gov/

You forgot to mention moveon.org, a very nonpartisian site and they know everything. Oh and lets not forget the bastion of truth and fairness, nytimes.com
yeah You dont want to go to that mean ole White House site. but wait...cbo.gov is...no!..say it aint so....arggg...located on capitol hill !!!!! Brick Wall,)

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Working Together to Cut Spending

You bring up 3 completely different organisations and seem unfamiliar with the differing roles of the 3, they are important to understand so to get a grasp on any info you get from them.

Move On is a partisan Democratic organisation.

The New York Times is one of the English Languages most respected newspapers. Journalists in the old fashoined sense are non partisan, the Times does a pretty good job in it's attempts to do so. That's why it has been John McCain's and Dick Cheney's paper of choice for a long time. They try to keep opinion on the correct pages and even there they attempt to employ the most respected conservative voices at thier paper, currently Bill Kristol and David Brooks, used to be Buckley. Not to be confused with partisan information disemination companies such as Fox, different animal altogether.

The CBO is a non partisan information gathering organisation operated by Congress. For 6 of the past 8 years they've been run by a Republican. Despite this they are widely regarded as being completely non partisan, and thier figures are the gold standard for looking at budget and social security etc.

Not to be confused with the Office of Management and Budget which does similar things but at the behest of the Executive branch, or the Department of Treasury.

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Working Together to Cut Spending

But back on topic of cutting spending.

There are quite a few places where the pigs have been feeding at the public coffers, and these should end in the name of good governance, such as buying drugs from Pharma in Medicare part B. Much cheaper just to give the money to seniors or heaven forbid negotiate on their behalf. Also part C a gift to insurance companies, better to have it managed by the much more efficient Medicare.

All thost no bid contracts by war profiteers.

Waste and fraud yes, other spending should be ramped up, we're in a recesion, time to fix the public works projects we've put off for so long. You don't cut spending in a recession unless your name is Hoover.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Working Together to Cut Spending

As far as those "no bid" contracts for "war profiteers", you can thank the Clinton Administration for cutting our forces to much that they have to rely on contracted services to do their job.

Furthermore, do you know how much time and bureaucracy is involved in sourcing competing bids for a contract? In war, expediency trumps efficiency. Also, when it comes to delivered services, reputation counts. Delivery also matters. As someone who's been there, I trust Brown & Root a lot more than Lighthouse for the Blind.

Which brings up another point -- mandated preferential treatment for minority and woman owned businesses. Do you know how much money the government wastes on minority or woman based businesses who simply subcontract the work out to the company who could've done it cheaper in the first place? Companany "A" loses the bid because they're not minority owned, so Company "B" gets the contract, subs it out to Company "A" and pockets the profit.

There are worse forms of waste than paying a company that's good at what it does.

SoCoKHntr's picture
Offline
Location: Pueblo Colorado
Joined: 12/18/2006
Posts: 1787
Working Together to Cut Spending
expatriate wrote:
As far as those "no bid" contracts for "war profiteers", you can thank the Clinton Administration for cutting our forces to much that they have to rely on contracted services to do their job.

Furthermore, do you know how much time and bureaucracy is involved in sourcing competing bids for a contract? In war, expediency trumps efficiency. Also, when it comes to delivered services, reputation counts. Delivery also matters. As someone who's been there, I trust Brown & Root a lot more than Lighthouse for the Blind.

Which brings up another point -- mandated preferential treatment for minority and woman owned businesses. Do you know how much money the government wastes on minority or woman based businesses who simply subcontract the work out to the company who could've done it cheaper in the first place? Companany "A" loses the bid because they're not minority owned, so Company "B" gets the contract, subs it out to Company "A" and pockets the profit.

There are worse forms of waste than paying a company that's good at what it does.

In bizzaro upside down world the above makes sense to you!

Wow, blaming Clinton for the obscene profits war profiteers like Halliburton (Cheney's the former CEO) Blackwater (CEO, Eric Prince extreme right wing evangelical huge Bush campaign donater 00 and 04) KBR, subsidy of Halliburton, and others.

For anyone interested in the truth about war profiteers read this book, here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(book)

Regular troopers hated these guys , these contractors, because many times they made 3 to 4 times what a regular military guy made for doing the same job. Iraqi's hated blackwater because they operated like cowboys indiscriminately shooting and often times killing civilians.

Family members of blackwater personal killed in Iraq are suing them for neglect when it came to protecting their personal. Check out this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

You said this:

"Do you know how much money the government wastes on minority or woman based businesses who simply subcontract the work out to the company who could've done it cheaper in the first place? Companany "A" loses the bid because they're not minority owned, so Company "B" gets the contract, subs it out to Company "A" and pockets the profit. "

Once again showing your true colors, wastes on minorities and women! So, if a white guy runs the business it's legit and profitable. But, if a minority or women runs it their just conning everyone and winging it with shoddy performance to scam people.

Like I said you live in an alternate universe.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Working Together to Cut Spending
civetcat wrote:
You bring up 3 completely different organisations and seem unfamiliar with the differing roles of the 3, they are important to understand so to get a grasp on any info you get from them.

Move On is a partisan Democratic organisation.

The New York Times is one of the English Languages most respected newspapers. Journalists in the old fashoined sense are non partisan, the Times does a pretty good job in it's attempts to do so. That's why it has been John McCain's and Dick Cheney's paper of choice for a long time. They try to keep opinion on the correct pages and even there they attempt to employ the most respected conservative voices at thier paper, currently Bill Kristol and David Brooks, used to be Buckley. Not to be confused with partisan information disemination companies such as Fox, different animal altogether.

The CBO is a non partisan information gathering organisation operated by Congress. For 6 of the past 8 years they've been run by a Republican. Despite this they are widely regarded as being completely non partisan, and thier figures are the gold standard for looking at budget and social security etc.

Not to be confused with the Office of Management and Budget which does similar things but at the behest of the Executive branch, or the Department of Treasury.

Where do you get your facts from?
I am very familiar with all 3 organizations mentioned and from your post I figured you had a problem with Republican occupied White house so I mischievously added the other 2.
I need not to be "educated" by you about anything.
The NY Times has become the Laughing stock of the journalistic world and subscribers are leaving by the thousands. Yes it was once a well respected Newspaper but has since slipped down the slippery slope of non objective reporting. So in posting the above praise of this so called Newspaper you show either ignorance of the present facts or simply choose to ignore them.
All I did was answer a post that asked for a break down on the budget and you come on here and slam my link like I was trying to somehow mislead someone.
The link you posted seems fine for the information that was requested and why you could not have posted it without the slurring of the one I posted is a mystery to me. Same as why there cant be healthy debate with Liberals with out all the name calling and slurs I suppose.
As usual your lack of even fundamental Government processes and The Constitution simply astounds me. The Budget of the Federal Government originates at the White House. The link I provided only shows Agencies and figures, nothing partisan about this,

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1566
Working Together to Cut Spending
SoCoKHntr wrote:
In bizzaro upside down world the above makes sense to you!

Wow, blaming Clinton for the obscene profits war profiteers like Halliburton (Cheney's the former CEO) Blackwater (CEO, Eric Prince extreme right wing evangelical huge Bush campaign donater 00 and 04) KBR, subsidy of Halliburton, and others.

For anyone interested in the truth about war profiteers read this book, here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(book)

Regular troopers hated these guys , these contractors, because many times they made 3 to 4 times what a regular military guy made for doing the same job. Iraqi's hated blackwater because they operated like cowboys indiscriminately shooting and often times killing civilians.

Family members of blackwater personal killed in Iraq are suing them for neglect when it came to protecting their personal. Check out this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

You said this:

"Do you know how much money the government wastes on minority or woman based businesses who simply subcontract the work out to the company who could've done it cheaper in the first place? Companany "A" loses the bid because they're not minority owned, so Company "B" gets the contract, subs it out to Company "A" and pockets the profit. "

Once again showing your true colors, wastes on minorities and women! So, if a white guy runs the business it's legit and profitable. But, if a minority or women runs it their just conning everyone and winging it with shoddy performance to scam people.

Like I said you live in an alternate universe.

Well SoCoKHntr you finally did it.......I am speechless!!

Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Posts: 723
Working Together to Cut Spending

I thought I just read my post twice, and SoCo's too.

Glad you agree with me JTapia. Good reading that Constitution. For a general overview Wikipedia isn't bad, good place to get the gist of things, congress holds these things called the purse strings, president can ask for all he wants, congress gives the money or not, or gives it to entirely other things like bridges to nowhere.

Treasury has a rep depending on who is running it, OMB lost a lot of face when they fibbed so heartily about SS shortfalls four years ago, CBO is about the best left.

To bad you don't like the Times. Never could understand why Repubs like to keep themselves informed at the top but then tell the little folks to go watch Fox. Doesn't do much good in the long run, just gets folks all het up when they wake up. Who told you all this stuff about the Times closing shop? I wouldn't hold my breath, might turn colors.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Working Together to Cut Spending

SoCo, given your inablity to express anything other than the lemming party line, I expected you'd read my post and respond with some type of inflammatory BS like accusing me of racism or chauvenism. You're really quite predictable.

How much experience do you have managing government contracts and defense contractors? I've been doing it or years and have committed millions of dollars to various projects.

Let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Woman and minority owned businesses are given preferential treatment when bidding for government contracts. It's the law. You see, it's one of those affirmative action/social justice things that the Democrats are so big on. Of course, in your world you don't think it's racist to give priority based on race or sex, so long as the correct demographic is advanced. You and Bull Connor would have a lot in common on that point.

So here's how it works. There are woman and minority-owned businesses out there that bid on contracts and get them. But they themselves don't do the work -- they subcontract it out to another company. Of course, the company they sub it out to delivers the service cheaper than what the shadow company won the bid for -- and the shadow company pockets the profit. So in the end, the government pays a higher price than needed in order to satisfy a social agenda. In the world of public administation and governance, the word we use to refer to money spent on an artificially inflated price is "waste."

In terms of contractors in the field, here's the simple version you might understand. The military has been cut by almost half what it was in 1990. That forced the military to make the decision to outsource support services in order to preserve core competencies like combat specialties. When war in Afghanistan and Iraq kicked up, the military didn't have enough military numbers to send forward for those functions. Many of those functions had been outsourced, and the only answer was to pay to have a private company perform the function in theater.

Here's a clue -- you gotta pay through the nose to get civilians to go into a combat zone. I don't know what you do for a living, but what would we have to pay you to leave your family behind and do the same job in a place that gets mortared on a regular basis? The high cost of contracts isn't the military's fault -- it's due to a political decision that drove force structure changes that led to outsourcing. Furthermore, there aren't a lot of companies that can do what the military needs over there.

Civilian contractors have been on the battlefield for our nation's entire history. If you don't like it, support candidates that would build military capability and take those functions back.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Customizing a Remmington 700 spsBBQ Boy103/08/2007 13:22 pm
Pay-as-you-go!cowgal1906/14/2009 16:45 pm
Great Day, no killsrramv10711/06/2006 13:03 pm
Fix the Spam Filter...PLEASE!COMeatHunter1208/04/2014 07:53 am
What do you want from your government?CVC3806/02/2009 14:44 pm