124 Reasons

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@15 January 2004 - 10:37
How insensitive must one be to not realize that awarding Halliburton huge contracts without competitive bidding was, at the very least, going to look/smell fishy?

Halliburton?

They were in the mideast at Clinton's behest (and under Cheney's watch) for years; I don't recall it causing a problem then, do you?

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

The reason Halliburton's services were retained was their prior presence in the mideast and the perception of "expertise" in the region; they were "in place".

As the administration needed an organization that could "hit the ground running", so to speak, it was decided to forego a drawn-out bid process in the name of expedience.

Perhaps it would be fruitful for you to explore the Clinton/Cheney connection; I'm sure a conspiracy exists.

[clocker]

Lots of companies were in the Mideast at Clinton's behest...oddly, their prior experience and expertise didn't seem to matter, did it.
Inadvertantly ( or maybe not), you hit the nail on the head for me...

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

no one was politically savvy enough to see that a secret contract issued without bids to Cheney's old company was going to become an issue?
Or they did see it coming and simply didn't care?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@15 January 2004 - 13:26
Lots of companies were in the Mideast at Clinton's behest...oddly, their prior experience and expertise didn't seem to matter, did it.
Inadvertantly ( or maybe not), you hit the nail on the head for me...

There was an explanation offered by the Bush administration, though it wasn't touted at the time, because it was not seen as the issue it seems to be at the moment.

no one was politically savvy enough to see that a secret contract issued without bids to Cheney's old company was going to become an issue?
Or they did see it coming and simply didn't care?

I think your last is probably pretty accurate.

This begs the next question:

Should it be an issue?

The world is, after all, a small place.

The administration is apparently willing to foment and abide a debate on the propriety of Halliburton's presence in the mideast, as well as Halliburton's prior connection with Cheney.

It would also seem they do not fear the results of such a debate.

Of course, as usual, that's only my opinion.

[1234]

I hereby invoke the license 1234 uses to label your sourcing uniformly liberal and agenda-driven

No, I pointed out that all your data relied on a definition of "poor" from a right wing think tank with an agenda. What is that definition? Who created it? If I posted a definition of rich from the Communist Party of Patagonia, wouldn't you question it?

As we were talking about govt entitlements, use govt definitions.

Of course, that once again ignores the fact the entitlement rights are written into the appropriate law and not based on a definition of poor - from think tanks or govts for that matter.

Your lack of argument is apparent to everyone, as is your use of baseless claims which you refuse to even attempt to prove. When pressed, you resort to personal insults and worse.

Btw, Cheney was still paid by Halliburton despite his claims that he was no longer on the payroll.

Still waiting for proof of 85% bureaucracy, nearly one week and counting.

Hmm, that might make a good sig

[Biggles]

As this debate seems to have swung onto the relative merits of bureaucracy I thought I would add the following... simply because it amused me. Some in the UK may have seen this and to those outside the UK it may simply confirm that Monty Python was a more accurate window into our culture than they first realised.

This is reputedly a genuine letter from the Inland Revenue to an unwilling tax payer.

I am writing to you to express thanks for your more than prompt reply to our communication, and also to answer some of the points you raise. I will address them, as ever, in order.

Firstly, I must take issue with your description of our last as a 'begging letter'. It might perhaps more properly be referred to as a 'tax demand'.
This is how we, at the Inland revenue have always, for reasons of accuracy, referred to such documents.
Secondly, your frustration at our adding to the 'endless stream of crapulent whining and panhandling vomited through the letterbox onto the doormat' has been noted. However, whilst I have naturally not seen the letters to which you refer I would suggest that their being from 'pauper councils, lombardy pirate banking houses and piss-ant gas mongers' might indicate that your decision to 'file them next to the toilet in case of emergencies' is as best a little ill-advised.
In common with my own organisation, it is unlikely that the senders of these letters see you as a 'lack-wit bumpkin' or, come to that, a 'sodding charity'. More likely they see you as a citizen, with a resposibility to contribute to the upkeep of the nation.
Which brings me to my next point. Whilst there may be some spirit of truth in your assertion that the taxes you pay 'go to shore the canker-blighted, toppling folly that is the Public Services', a moment's rudimentary calculation ought to disabuse you of the notion the government in any way expects you to 'stump up for the whole damned party' yourself. The estimates you provide for the Chancellor's disembursement of the funds levied by taxation, whilst colourful, are, in fairness, off the mark. Less than you seem to imagine is spent on 'junkets for Bunterish lickspittles' and 'dancing whores' whilst more is allocated to, for example, 'that box-ticking facade of a university system'.
A couple of points arising from direct queries:

1. The reason we don't write 'Muggins' on the envelope has to do with the vagaries of the postal system.

2. You can rest assured that 'sucking the very marrows of those with nothing else to give' has never been considered as a practice because even if the personal Allowance didn't render it irrelevant, the sheer medical logistics would make it financially unviable.

I trust this has helped. In the meantime, whilst I would not in any way wish to influence your decision one way or another, I ought to point out that even if you did choose to 'give the whole foul jamboree up and go and live in India' you would still owe us the money. Please forward it by Friday ...


Yours



As a (very minor) UK bureaucrat I found the above tremendously reassuring that all is well with the world I am sure there is something for all sides of the argument in this piece. However, I am not grinding any axes it just made me laugh.

I took this from the back of an accountancy magazine called 'PASS', for those who like sources. There it says it first appeared in the Guardian's letters page from the recipient

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@15 January 2004 - 14:23
Still waiting for proof of 85% bureaucracy, nearly one week and counting.

Hmm, that might make a good sig

Knock yourself out.

I think I told you this once already, but just to re-affirm-

You are not due the information, simply because it is you.

Do with that fact what you will.

Please give up on the 'bated breath, too, or you will surely pass out.

Don't forget to report this post, now!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 1234@15 January 2004 - 14:23

Btw, Cheney was still paid by Halliburton despite his claims that he was no longer on the payroll.

Ah, yes.

Baseless!

[Rat Faced]

This is reputedly a genuine letter from the Inland Revenue to an unwilling tax payer

We usually get copies of good letters in the PCS Inland Revenue Group magazine "Assessment"...must have missed this one

[clocker]

Biggles & Rat,

JPaul posted that letter a few weeks ago.
I found it not to be a indictment of bureaucrats, but instead a sign that even in a spirit-crushing environment ( i.e. government servoce) a spark (indeed a bonfire) of creativity and humor can thrive.
That letter is priceless and I would happily pay taxes to the writer.

[J'Pol]

I suspect one of those chaps may have written it

No names, no pack drill.