Iraq for sale.

[Craig234]

Craig, if what Cheney did was such a bad idea in 1991, then why didn't Clinton change the policy during his 8 years?

I stipulate that Clinton did not solve the issue of the vast corruption of the military-industrial complex; indeed, Clinton was weak when it came to dealing with the military issues, for reasons ranging from his personal background to the powerhouse of Colin Powell, who could and did easily outmaneuver him, with higher public support.

Why do you think his gays in the military policy ended up going nowhere, into the mess of don't ask, don't tell?

However, under Clinton, Halliburton was found to have had excessive costs, and the GAO did object to their getting additional contracts - which did not stop the (republican) Congress from awarding them to their old friend Dick Cheney.

BTW: I would bet that there is FAR more waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid and many other government programs for the poor and elderly

You just pulled that out of you know where. YOu should do a little research before spouting off - those programs are very efficiently run, as any fair study will tell you, and cannot begin to be compared to the vast corruption in military spending.

John, you really need to avoid discrediting comments like the above, IMO, when you feel like just making something up.

 

[Craig234]

Of course, all democratic legislation never has waste or corruption tacked into it.
Nothing like speaking to the blind, so easily lead.

You black and white right-wingers need to learn that one side being FAR FAR worse than the other does not make them equal. As I said, you oversimplify, and you do it here again.

That's why you're cult members.

When I tell someone in Dianetics about the vast corruption and evildoing of their 'church', they can say back sarcastically that right, all other religions are perfect.

That's the same as your lame answer. No, they aren't perfect, but yours is far, far worse.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"But, but, They ALL do it!" -Rallying cry of desperation from Nixon era republicans/Bush era republicans

It is ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, the mad doctor finally got the tesla coils fired up for another round after a bit of a hiatus.

:roll: Contain your excitement please.

 

[Genx87]

Congress studied the cost overruns in the Balkans and determined a lot of it was due to the military not understanding the true costs of what they were doing within the system.

For starters they wanted I believe 75 bases built at an increased rate which costed more due to Haliburton having to contract for supplies from higher priced local distributors.
Then the Army was also found to not understand the computer logistics system. People were ordering parts and supplies without understanding the true costs of what they were ordering.

It was more a training issue + a compressed time to build issue than Haliburton overtly raping the military for cash.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Of course, all democratic legislation never has waste or corruption tacked into it.
Nothing like speaking to the blind, so easily lead.

You black and white right-wingers need to learn that one side being FAR FAR worse than the other does not make them equal. As I said, you oversimplify, and you do it here again.

That's why you're cult members.

When I tell someone in Dianetics about the vast corruption and evildoing of their 'church', they can say back sarcastically that right, all other religions are perfect.

That's the same as your lame answer. No, they aren't perfect, but yours is far, far worse.

I find it funny that you call me black and white while your previous reply stated the democrats spending was good while republicans is bad.

No surprise really, when you are blind, you often can not see your own hypocrisy.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It may be transparent and pathetic---but its also undenialably 100% true-----unlike any contention that Halliburton is 100% honest.

There is much evidence that much of what Halliburtion is now doing involves fraud on a massive scale---what is lacking--under republican
rule are the investigations to ferret out the truth.

I will settle for true anytime Pabster---and supported by facts---not feelings and emotions.

Maybe we can all then apply desperate to mean there are actual criminal charges filed against Haliburton that a prosecutor is prepared to fight for in a court of law---rather than trying too hard to make a desperate emotional appeal not based on fact.

They(republican) investigated Haliburton under Clinton for the Balkans budget overruns and they have investigated the billing practices during the current situation.

Haliburton wouldnt even be a big deal if Cheney wasnt a former executive. That shows the raw emotion of the left and how it distorts their entire view on the world.

Haliburton is run through the mud so much by the left as being a profiteer while I dont think they even crack the top 80 defense contractors in terms of size and revenues.

According to this they are in the Top 10.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It may be transparent and pathetic---but its also undenialably 100% true-----unlike any contention that Halliburton is 100% honest.

There is much evidence that much of what Halliburtion is now doing involves fraud on a massive scale---what is lacking--under republican
rule are the investigations to ferret out the truth.

I will settle for true anytime Pabster---and supported by facts---not feelings and emotions.

Maybe we can all then apply desperate to mean there are actual criminal charges filed against Haliburton that a prosecutor is prepared to fight for in a court of law---rather than trying too hard to make a desperate emotional appeal not based on fact.

They(republican) investigated Haliburton under Clinton for the Balkans budget overruns and they have investigated the billing practices during the current situation.

Haliburton wouldnt even be a big deal if Cheney wasnt a former executive. That shows the raw emotion of the left and how it distorts their entire view on the world.

Haliburton is run through the mud so much by the left as being a profiteer while I dont think they even crack the top 80 defense contractors in terms of size and revenues.

According to this they are in the Top 10.

That has certainly changed then. The list I saw which I admit was a in 2004 had them in the high 70s low 80s.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Congress studied the cost overruns in the Balkans and determined a lot of it was due to the military not understanding the true costs of what they were doing within the system.

For starters they wanted I believe 75 bases built at an increased rate which costed more due to Haliburton having to contract for supplies from higher priced local distributors.
Then the Army was also found to not understand the computer logistics system. People were ordering parts and supplies without understanding the true costs of what they were ordering.

It was more a training issue + a compressed time to build issue than Haliburton overtly raping the military for cash.

I'll actually give you credit for a half-truth here. You're right that that was part of the issue; and part of the issue WAS Halliburton overcharging.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87


I find it funny that you call me black and white while your previous reply stated the democrats spending was good while republicans is bad.

You oversimplify *again*.

Not all statements about 'democrats this, republicans that' are true and not all are false. It depends on the statement involved.

My statement was clearly not meant entirely, literally, or black and white - you removed my qualifier, of course to suit your own distortion - but I stand by it having a lot of truth.

Dems invest in anti-poverty, education, healthcare, opportunity programs that enrich all Americans and grow the economy, while republicans invest in paying off donors.

Just look at the last century's economic performance under republican and democrat administrations for the facts.

If you look at even the last 5 of each party, and rank them by the main economic indicators - growth, stock market inrease, etc. - it's almost entirely one sided.

You can practically put all of the democrats in the top spots and all the republicans in the bottom spots.

If you want to see the republicans on top, you need to look at 'increase in income for the top 0.1%' - there, they win.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: cobalt

According to this they are in the Top 10.

That has certainly changed then. The list I saw which I admit was a in 2004 had them in the high 70s low 80s.

Don't forget the Carlyle Group, with Bush, Sr., James Baker et al, not listed as it's not a direct contractor, who is reportedly the world's largest conglomerate of its type.

The military-industrial complex is huge, and little visible to the public.

 

[Genx87]

Dems invest in anti-poverty, education, healthcare, opportunity programs that enrich all Americans and grow the economy, while republicans invest in paying off donors.

Yes we know, the anti- poverty legislation has moved the poverty rate in this country nowhere for the past 40 years while the gap between rich and poor continues to grow and we spend trillions.

I enjoy reading leftist propaganda that thinks big govt grows economies and saves the poor from themselves. They try to put the screws to the rich by enacting legislation that ends up destroying the middle class and collecting more power and wealth at the top.

It is not surprising however, they have bought into the ideals of socialism and the authortarian state that comes with it.

btw outside of the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, the economy and unemployment rates are running about the same.

Reagan had good growth rates. I'd have to look back at the the years to get back to Eisenhower and Nixon and then compare to the likes of Carter, LBJ and Kennedy. Btw I dont think Kennedy is your atypical dem of today. He cut taxes on the richest americans, I know a sin according to your bible.

 

[Craig234]

Yes we know, the anti- poverty legislation has moved the poverty rate in this country nowhere for the past 40 years while the gap between rich and poor continues to grow and we spend trillions.

Actually, Johnson's 'war on poverty' caused a very significant, permanent reduction in the percent of Americans in poverty. We've screwed the policies since then.

I enjoy reading leftist propaganda that thinks big govt grows economies and saves the poor from themselves.

Wow, talk about propaganda. Straight from the propaganda writers at the bought and paid for 'screw the poor' think tanks to your post.

They try to put the screws to the rich by enacting legislation that ends up destroying the middle class and collecting more power and wealth at the top.

Typical right-wing misdireciton. The middle class was built bu the democrats from FDR on, and destroyed by the republicans beginning with Reagan, with their huge redistributionist policies sending all growth to the very few at the top.

It is not surprising however, they have bought into the ideals of socialism and the authortarian state that comes with it.

Liberals don't like authoritarian states, and Bush is the most authoritarian state in a very long time.

btw outside of the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, the economy and unemployment rates are running about the same.

Again, look at the slices of the pie (and you forgot to mention the balanced budget he got from Clinton) - 95% of Americans have had flat wages for 25 years and seen their share of wealth decline fromhald to under a quarter. The top 5% skyrockets 500% in income and went from half to over three fourths of the wealth.

Reagan had good growth rates. I'd have to look back at the the years to get back to Eisenhower and Nixon and then compare to the likes of Carter, LBJ and Kennedy. Btw I dont think Kennedy is your atypical dem of today. He cut taxes on the richest americans, I know a sin according to your bible.

No, I approve of Kennedy's tax cut - it's you who doesn't. Let's go back the rate Kennedy set: 70%. Now, you run away from your claim. Do the research for a full century and you will see the numbers hold up - democrats are better nearly all the time.

And it violates your cult dogma but all during the decades of 90% to 70% top tax rates, the ultra wealthy prospered - and the rest of America did, too, far more than now.

 

[ProfJohn]

Ok, I lied... I am back

Originally posted by: Craig234
You just pulled that out of you know where. YOu should do a little research before spouting off - those programs are very efficiently run, as any fair study will tell you, and cannot begin to be compared to the vast corruption in military spending.

John, you really need to avoid discrediting comments like the above, IMO, when you feel like just making something up.

Facts:
"One estimate states that fraud and abuse cost Medicare and Medicaid about $33 billion each year."link

"New York Medicaid Fraud May Reach Into Billions "and "The Government Accountability Office in Washington and others have estimated that 10 percent of all health care spending nationally is lost to "fraud and abuse." Link

"A case of Medicaid fraud allegations is moving toward a resolution. Michigan officials say Omnicare and a Livonia-based subsidiary will pay more than 52 million dollars to resolve issues related to a state investigation. " link

" A drug rehab clinic has been fined $16.5 million for cheating the state's Medicaid system." link

I can find and post links like this ALL day long. The amount of fraud and waste in Medicaid spending is HUGE!
And this is just one program.
I we added up all the fraud in government programs I am sure we'd find much more than we would find in defense spending.

 

[Craig234]

I need to clarify my point that the programs lack the sort of corruption *by their management* that exists in the core of the military industrial complex where you have the revolving door of people spending billions and a month later getting a big income with the same company out of government.

I'm open to the issue of others defrauding the programs, and would support good reforms there.

As for the claim about the comparison between the two, it's just absurd, the defense waste is far higher, but it'll take you reading on the issuse with waste in the military area to make the comparison For the third time, for the example of profiteering in Iraq, see the whole movie and then comment - but the issue is far bigger than Iraq.

 

[Genx87]

Actually, Johnson's 'war on poverty' caused a very significant, permanent reduction in the percent of Americans in poverty. We've screwed the policies since then.

The poverty rates were already on their way down before LBJ enacted that piece of govt bloat.

Wow, talk about propaganda. Straight from the propaganda writers at the bought and paid for 'screw the poor' think tanks to your post.

Screwing the poor is telling them the govt will always be there to take care of them, giving them just enough to latch them onto the tit, then failing them by making them dependent.

Typical right-wing misdireciton. The middle class was built bu the democrats from FDR on, and destroyed by the republicans beginning with Reagan, with their huge redistributionist policies sending all growth to the very few at the top.

This is pretty comical, really it is. No govt programs have ever "created" a middle class.
Middle class is a product of liberalization of markets and capitalism.

The idea you think you can create and sustain a middle class with a govt program is amusing.

Liberals don't like authoritarian states, and Bush is the most authoritarian state in a very long time.

You are right about liberals, but the left does, there are plenty of examples of this.

Soviet Union
China
N. Korea
Eastern Europe post WWII
Vietnam
Cuba, a regular old paradise down there.

Again, look at the slices of the pie (and you forgot to mention the balanced budget he got from Clinton) - 95% of Americans have had flat wages for 25 years and seen their share of wealth decline fromhald to under a quarter. The top 5% skyrockets 500% in income and went from half to over three fourths of the wealth.

Hmm govt expanding at record levels and the middle class and poor havent seen a serious increase in real earnings and upward mobility? Gee, you dont say? :Q

No, I approve of Kennedy's tax cut - it's you who doesn't. Let's go back the rate Kennedy set: 70%. Now, you run away from your claim. Do the research for a full century and you will see the numbers hold up - democrats are better nearly all the time.

And it violates your cult dogma but all during the decades of 90% to 70% top tax rates, the ultra wealthy prospered - and the rest of America did, too, far more than now.

I dont? I dont approve of Kennedy's tax cut? Whatever you are smoking I want some.

btw something did change between Kennedy's tax cut and today. A massive expansion of social redistribution programs by our central govt starting with the administration right after Kennedy. Coincidence? I dont think so.............

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Actually, Johnson's 'war on poverty' caused a very significant, permanent reduction in the percent of Americans in poverty. We've screwed the policies since then.

The poverty rates were already on their way down before LBJ enacted that piece of govt bloat.

Not my much. LBJ's programs did nearly all of it.

Wow, talk about propaganda. Straight from the propaganda writers at the bought and paid for 'screw the poor' think tanks to your post.

Screwing the poor is telling them the govt will always be there to take care of them, giving them just enough to latch them onto the tit, then failing them by making them dependent.[/quote]

Stop with the kool aid already. You are just parroting tortured garbage from the think tanks. The programs do a huge amount of good, I'm not going to waste time though.

Typical right-wing misdireciton. The middle class was built bu the democrats from FDR on, and destroyed by the republicans beginning with Reagan, with their huge redistributionist policies sending all growth to the very few at the top.

This is pretty comical, really it is. No govt programs have ever "created" a middle class.
Middle class is a product of liberalization of markets and capitalism.

The idea you think you can create and sustain a middle class with a govt program is amusing.[/quote]

No, it's the truth, and simply outside your cult ideology, and you are unwilling to break out of that.

You should read a book by Thom Hartmann, "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It" and get informed on the topic.

The numbers do speak for themselves, though, on when the middle class was created, until you get informed.

Liberals don't like authoritarian states, and Bush is the most authoritarian state in a very long time.

You are right about liberals, but the left does, there are plenty of examples of this.

Soviet Union
China
N. Korea
Eastern Europe post WWII
Vietnam
Cuba, a regular old paradise down there.[/quote]

Which has about zero relevance to American politics outside of the right wing propagandists who mix the two up to suit their own demonizing and lying.

Again, look at the slices of the pie (and you forgot to mention the balanced budget he got from Clinton) - 95% of Americans have had flat wages for 25 years and seen their share of wealth decline fromhald to under a quarter. The top 5% skyrockets 500% in income and went from half to over three fourths of the wealth.

Hmm govt expanding at record levels and the middle class and poor havent seen a serious increase in real earnings and upward mobility? Gee, you dont say? :Q

The right again oversimplifies. I am against the *type* of government expansion that the republicans have done, which does screw the middle class and poor and most wealthy.

Some of those the republicans soak badly are pretty well off. It's the ultra wealthy they pander to.

No, I approve of Kennedy's tax cut - it's you who doesn't. Let's go back the rate Kennedy set: 70%. Now, you run away from your claim. Do the research for a full century and you will see the numbers hold up - democrats are better nearly all the time.

And it violates your cult dogma but all during the decades of 90% to 70% top tax rates, the ultra wealthy prospered - and the rest of America did, too, far more than now.

I dont? I dont approve of Kennedy's tax cut? Whatever you are smoking I want some.[/quote]

OK, then, we both agree to go back to Kennedy's cut of the top rate from 90% to 70%.

Welcome aboard, liberal.