Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'm still confused about what you are asking. If you are saying that taxes are socialistic in nature...I'd have to agree with you? Then it obviously only becomes a matter of degree.

Halliburton provided a service and got paid for it, nothing socialistic about it.

I'll repeat what I added to the last post: $26.6 million of OUR TAX DOLLARS went into Halliburton's CEO David Lesar's pocket on a NO-BID contract...

The rich got richer at the expense of the common American - a redistribution of wealth...


(And spending $75 million to build a bridge over a river miles away from any strategic point Iraq is hardly "providing a service" when it comes to distributing American tax dollars...)

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'll repeat what I added to the last post: $26.6 million of OUR TAX DOLLARS went into Halliburton's CEO David Lesar's pocket on a NO-BID contract...

The rich got richer at the expense of the common American - a redistribution of wealth...


(And spending $75 million to build a bridge over a river miles away from any strategic point Iraq is hardly "providing a service" when it comes to distributing American tax dollars...)

Well you can keep repeating it and it still doesn't make much sense imo. If you are saying that the guvment does a crappy job of spending our money I agree with you. I'd like to see them take a lot less of it and guit spending so much of it.

I would expect that the no-bid was because there aren't that many halliburtons out there willing to have their employees shot and possibly beheaded. You pissed about Iraq..that's a different debate.

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Well you can keep repeating it and it still doesn't make much sense imo. If you are saying that the guvment does a crappy job of spending our money I agree with you. I'd like to see them take a lot less of it and guit spending so much of it.

well, it does "make sense" in the concept that no-bid contract awards have no assurance that the cost of that contract is fair, or assurance that a no-bid contract is awarded with no extraordinary monies going to friends of the people awarding the contract.

there should not be any no-bid government contracts, there is really no valid reason to do so. there are always at least two service providors who should be competing for the contract to make certain that the cost of the service is as low as possible and no element of above reasonable payments are made.

I would expect that the no-bid was because there aren't that many halliburtons out there willing to have their employees shot and possibly beheaded. You pissed about Iraq..that's a different debate.

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

there are other service providors who cn do just what hallibuton does and there is no valid reason to award any firm a no-bid contract.

this is not "the essence of capitalism", as capitalism involves competition. no-bid contracts are void of any competition, and they are opposite of what capitaism involves.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Again..they were offered a contract and provided a service.. the essence of capitalism. Nothing socialist about it.

Capitalism relies on consumers (people who've earned money by providing services) to spend money on things they want. In this case the government takes money from people who've earned it and spends it on things the robbed ones might not have wanted to buy. There's no free market transaction involved. Free market transactions rely on two parties exchanging their properties.