...if he thinks the feds should fund a rebuild of New Orleans.
The private sector is perfectly capable, and too smart to do it the wrong way, like the government would.
Let Mother Nature reclaim what is rightfully hers.
Printable View
...if he thinks the feds should fund a rebuild of New Orleans.
The private sector is perfectly capable, and too smart to do it the wrong way, like the government would.
Let Mother Nature reclaim what is rightfully hers.
But...but...Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
How will Halliburton survive?
The Cheney great-grandchildren might have to work, fer crissakes.
Gone? :blink:
Looky who's here! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I don't follow the Halliburton reference...is he going to turn Nawlans into an oil rig or something?
Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration's first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.
One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.
Bechtel National Inc., a unit of San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., has also been selected by FEMA to provide short-term housing for people displaced by the hurricane. Bush named Bechtel's CEO to his Export Council and put the former CEO of Bechtel Energy in charge of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.
Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.
Halliburton alone has earned more than $9 billion. Pentagon audits released by Democrats in June showed $1.03 billion in "questioned" costs and $422 million in "unsupported" costs for Halliburton's work in Iraq.
Watchdog groups take notice
But the web of Bush administration connections is attracting renewed attention from watchdog groups in the post-Katrina reconstruction rush. Congress has already appropriated more than $60 billion in emergency funding as a down payment on recovery efforts projected to cost well over $100 billion.
"The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
Bush appointees at Halliburton
Allbaugh formally registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root in February.
In lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate, Allbaugh said his goal was to "educate the congressional and executive branch on defense, disaster relief and homeland security issues affecting Kellogg Brown and Root."
Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, said Allbaugh has not, since he was hired, "consulted on any specific contracts that the company is considering pursuing, nor has he been tasked by the company with any lobbying responsibilities."
Allbaugh is also a friend of Michael Brown, director of FEMA who was removed as head of Katrina disaster relief and sent back to Washington amid allegations he had padded his resume -- which he denies.
A few months after Allbaugh was hired by Halliburton, the company retained another high-level Bush appointee, Kirk Van Tine.
Van Tine registered as a lobbyist for Halliburton six months after resigning as deputy transportation secretary, a position he held from December 2003 to December 2004.
On Friday, Kellogg Brown & Root received $29.8 million in Pentagon contracts to begin rebuilding Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi. Norcross said the work was covered under a contract that the company negotiated before Allbaugh was hired.
Cheney's relationship with Halliburton
Halliburton continues to be a source of income for Cheney, who served as its chief executive officer from 1995 until 2000 when he joined the Republican ticket for the White House. According to tax filings released in April, Cheney's income included $194,852 in deferred pay from the company, which has also won billion-dollar government contracts in Iraq.
Cheney's office said the amount of deferred compensation is fixed and is not affected by Halliburton's current economic performance or earnings.
Allbaugh's other major client, Baton Rouge-based Shaw Group, has updated its Web site to say: "Hurricane Recovery Projects -- Apply Here!"
Shaw said on Thursday it has received a $100 million emergency FEMA contract for housing management and construction. Shaw also clinched a $100 million order on Friday from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Shaw Group spokesman Chris Sammons said Allbaugh was providing the company with "general consulting on business matters," and would not say whether he played a direct role in any of the Katrina deals. "We don't comment on specific consulting activities," he said.
You are absolutely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
We should conduct a prolonged bidding process to ensure fairness; to hell with anyone who awaits genuine and timely action.
who do go to when you have problems?
Rat wants you to go to a bidding bizarre and stand in line, apparently. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 100%
ah, that timeless dilemma which has plagued politicians ever since ye olden greco-roman dayes and such:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
"either halliburton or death."
it is a difficult question, indeed, yet a choice must be made between the two. one can't help but wonder what they did before the discovery of halliburton. died, probably!
Exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
With Halliburton already on speed dial, the extra 20 seconds a phone call to another company might take would be foolhardy and callous.
Two tangental musings...
It seems odd that as military actions and disaster relief efforts have strained our military/civilian infrastructure's ability to respond, Halliburton seems to be able to magically expand and compete (well, not actually compete per se, more like show up and collect the trophies...) for the cleanup/support duties.
Does the term "appearance of impropriety" mean anything anymore?
This kind of stuff happens at lower levels too. I work for the military and the highest 2 ranking civilians in my area consitantly give contracts to their own family and friends companies.
It really is sad to see how much money is wasted even at these lower levels of government, but who can blame them when the executive levels do this as a rule?
What's even sadder is that with the current drawdowns we have people losing jobs because we cannot afford to pay them due to smaller customer bases yet we can afford to buy new equipment that is not needed simply because if we do not spend the money allocated we will not get it next year.
I do find it odd that there is a group of people in the USA that support wholeheartedly the idea that we should be paying to build Iraq and indeed it is anti American to question this, yet the same people believe it wrong to spend one dime on our own people.
I don't know about anyone else, Vidcc....but I cannot equate the two like that.
As far as spending federal tax money on rebuilding areas that were damaged/wiped out from Hurricanes? I have no problem with it if they follow their local floodplain management ordinances. This is a big 'if'. ;)
I've always preferred that guilt be assigned over "actual" impropriety, myself...leave the job of determining same to a genuine investigatory effort, rather than a bunch of silly, know-nothing citizens panting over incomplete and sensationalistic media reportage. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
I don't know any people like that... :huh:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Of course there has to be accountability. Not just that the money is going where it is supposed to but also that we get value for that money. I don't believe in tax and spend, I believe in spending tax wisely. I certainly oppose the current republican mantra of borrow and spend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
I expect a proper job to be done and not just rebuild to have it destroyed by the next storm. I also believe that just because a certain amount has been set aside for the task it doesn't mean that amount has to be spent. I don't believe we should be relieving insurance companies of their liability either.
Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift.
"Any houses built with our tax dollars should remain the property of the government and either rented out or sold at full market value so we can recoup the money spent. I do not believe that we should build homes and hand them over as a gift."
So you think your Government should rebuild the city, but charge the victims for their new homes.
Looks like an adequate summary to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I don't see the special difficulties presented by the poor displaced blacks addressed here, though... :huh:
It's not really the Government rebuilding the city, if they actually charge the people for it. They would just be the main contractor.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If that's the case then why would the federal Government be involved at all, other than to supply the initial building costs (which would effectively be loans).
Perhaps I miss the point.
Is your "foreign aid" policy similar to this. We'll send you a few million pounds worth of help .... and an invoice.
It is the Federal Government as General Contractor.
The American taxpayer is merely the reluctant client, and the citizens of the afflicted area the soon-to-be long-suffering beneficiaries.
Give me a private contractor any fucking day...
So you think that they should live there for free?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
A city isn't just homes. The feds should be rebuilding the infrastructure so that it is safe to habit. Some of the houses destroyed may have been public housing, do you think the previous tenants should be rent free from now on?
All other houses were privately owned, this includes the privately rented houses. Insurance companies carry the responsibility to rebuild these even though they are trying to worm out. Anyone without insurance that has their property rebuilt by the government should either pay rent (at a reasonable rate) or pay for the rebuild (over a period of time like a loan) That said it would be fair to just charge the rebuild cost and not market value as I said before as it was government failing that left the flood defences so weak.
If you knowingly settle in a place that has a certainty of damage then you have to take responsibility for that choice.
my social ethic (generally) is that we help the needy to help themselves, not let them be parasites. There are those that can't help themselves and I believe we have a duty to look after them.
No, i gave you a reference to stop your confusion over the Haliburton reference supplied by Clocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
However, when a company is being investigated for stealing $billions from the Taxpayer, then it is inappropriate to keep hiring them with tax dollars.
I would have thought your own Conservative views would have supported my more Liberal ones on something like that :P
Finally-Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Evidence my presence here is having an effect, muted though it may be... :D
I would change that slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The citizens would be clients, rather than beneficiaries, if they are having to pay for whatever they get. (Or is that just vid's preference).
The American taxpayer would be the "backer" supplying the funds for the project.
I have to say tho', I find the idea of re-building the city bizarre. FFS people it's a dangerous place, build somewhere else .... on higher ground.
you have not had any effect on my social ethics..... perhaps my post has changed your mistaken view of what my social ethics are.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If people were paying rent before then they would continue to pay rent, why would it become free when the house is re-built. That makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Do you think that, if you help people in a foreign country to rebuild their homes after a natural disaster, then that "aid" should be repaid, by the individuals who got their home rebuilt.
I am genuinely interested, as I find it a strange position to take.
Tsk...
The Foreign Government is supposed to buy the equivalent value of Arms from the US, for which a federal loan will be arranged... surely you jest in your question here. :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
your original question wasn't limited to rental homes. I covered rental and private in the answer.
Any. Recompense be it monetary, trade, services or good will is between the government of that land and the government of the land providing the help.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sorry I don't understand you answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Should "aid" payments be treated as loans between your country and the recipient country.
That is up to the two governments concerned as is the method of repayment (if any). I don't see why it should automatically be treated as a gift nor do I see why it it should automatically be treated as a loan.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Humanitarian emergency aid should never have strings attached and it would be pretty low to demand anything in return.
So what of a natural disaster, in a wealthy country. They would need the "aid" quickly, but would be able to repay it in due course.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Humanitarian Aid should not, even if to a rich country, have strings attached.
see red aboveQuote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I agree, any "aid" should be just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Yes but I asked you re a specific scenario, as opposed to your nebulous position.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Let me make it specific, should the "aid" given to the USA after the catastrophe in New Orleans be re-paid by your Government. Or should it be treated as a gift, as it was intended.
My personal viewpoint being a proud person is that as we have the ability to pay back we should. this doesn't mean that the country that gave the gift has to accept. As I posted it doesn't have to be monetary. It may be that next week the UK is hit by a catastrophe and we can provide aid and if this happened I would not expect it to be repaid even though you possibly could. It's a two way street.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
And yet many cultures would take the returning of a gift as an insult.. :rolleyes:
and?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Just that countries and people should be careful in returning gifts..
Especially those that are already unpopular atm..
The Diplomatic thing to do would be to give Aid to those countries, that just so happens to be the same amount :P
It's always monetary, everything has to be paid for one way or another. So all "aid" has a cost to the people supplying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I think everyone here realises that "aid" does not go by way of cash. It may be food, medicines, expertise. However it is always reported as a monetary value. e.g. Country X sent £100,000 in aid to the USA does not mean they actually sent the cash.
I just find your position with regard to your fellow citizens strange. If a couple owned their house in New Orleans and had no mortgage on it, then you are willing to rebuild it for them, then rent it to them or have them pay for it. Whereas I suspect that others may see it as a national disaster, which you should all sort out together. By putting people back in the position they were before it happened. Not better off, just back where they were before it happened.
Your position is surprisingly lacking in compassion for your fellow citizens.