| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
A group of five friends go to dinner every thursday. They each have a steak, potatoe, salad and drink. Each meal costs $18. To make it easy, with tip the total for the table is $100. Each of the friends makes different amounts. One makes 15 grand, one makes 25 grand, one makes 50 grand, one makes 100 grand and one makes 200 grand a year. Now, they all eat the same things. Divided among the friends, it would come out to $20 each. The two who make the most realize that not everyone can afford to pay $20 a week to eat out, so they come up with a way to make what they pay proportionate. After much bickering amoung all 5 friends, they decide the following: Give one point to each 20 grand each one makes a year. This means that #1 gets 0 points. #2 gets 1.25 points. #3 gets 2.5 points #4 gets 5.0 points #5 gets 10.0 points. This comes out to a total of 18.75 points. They then take the $100 and divide it by 18.75 points. It comes out to $5.33 per point. #1 pays $0.00 #2 pays $6.67 #3 pays $13.33 #4 pays $26.67 #5 pays $53.33 They are all satisfied with this arrangement, until..... The owner of the resteraunt comes out one night after the friends are finished with dinner. He tells them that he is pleased that they have been such loyal customers that he is going to take one meal off the bill from now on. The friends begin bickering again. Right away, it is suggested that the $18.00 (they agreed to leave the tip at the small amount of $10) be split evenly. That would mean: #1 would be PAID $3.60 to eat dinner #2 would pay $3.07 #3 would pay $9.73 #4 would pay $23.07 #5 would pay $49.73 That did not seem fair. They decided to break the $18 rebate down applying the same point system used against the bill. That would mean $.96 per point removed from the total each paid. or #1 still pays nothing. #2 pays $5.47 #3 pays $10.93 #4 pays $21.87 #5 pays $43.73 That is how taxes work as well. What would happen if the one who paid the most stopped coming to the table? |
|
ha ha. |
|
|
The guy who pays over 50% of the bill is a fuckholio? The top 5% of wage earners in the united states pays 56.47% of all federal income tax. (#5). The top 10% pay 67.3%, the top 50% pay 96.09 The bottom 50% pay 3.91% of all federal income tax. When there is a tax cut, (or there is a reduction in the bill), then it follows that the one who pays the most will save the most. Our GDP for 2001 was $9,485.6 billion. We have seen an average of 3.4512% increase in the GDP from 1959 through 2001. If we were to extrapilate this over 10 years, we should see that the GDP for 2013 should be $14,323.0 billion. Add the next ten years together and they should total 153,129.2 billion. (153 Trillion to the layman). Bush's proposed tax cut is a total of $726 billion spread out over the next 10 years. That equals 0.47% of the GDP. The GDP is our economy. This includes wages, corporate profits, investment returns, and income tax the fed gov receives. What Bush is suggesting is re-investing .47% of the GDP into the general population through tax cuts to help stimulate the economy. And it might. But anyway you slice it, we are talking peanuts. As you can see from these simple figures, the President really has very little to do with the Nation's economy. |
the fact of the matter is that if you make more money, you pay more money. cutting money from schools, libraries, rape crisis centres, health care, social security, etc, seems like a pretty fucking lame thing to do when you ask me. |
|
The only thing that should (i guess) fall on the federal government's plate should be Social Security. The rest should go to the states. States should be in charge of the school libraries, local crisis centers, etc. plate. I am not even bothering with health care. The only way any government can do anything about health care is throw more money at it (pay the rip off insurance companies or buy the scips). Guess what happens when the gov does that? Insurance rates and the price of scrips go through the roof. I just did, beotch |
granted they're even capable of critical thought. i'm not talking "corporate earnings", i'm talking individual income. i wish i could rowlf it here because i have a whole mess of shit to say but can't make it hang brain like he does. i wanna talk about the hypocrisy of the right wing elite tsk-tsking the ba'ath party for their excesses. jealous. nice politics but they're simply jealous of the lack of all those pesky laws in their way. gah! puny communication skills. |
fuckit, bush saves his ass at the political expense of the guv'ners. the ultimate difference being. . .? |
im really out on a limb here, but the likes of healthcare and education are of national interest. considering states are having to fork over all kinds of money to maintain some level of security is a federal interest. the individual states might not be in such a position had federal foreign policy went and pissed off a bunch of fundamentalists with a deathwish. its an over simplified example i know, but simply saying the state should pay this and the feds this is ios a bit naive of how far we've come along and how intricately the states and the feds are interwoven. |
And I'm sorry Dave, but you can't do that. Why ok it to lump all taxes on somebody because they actually achieved the ultimate goal of financial independence? Or a family, like Ford or Chrysler, who has built it over generations? Penalizing them for success IS very Ba'athish. It's not OK to do that. |
Let's say that instead of a group of folks going out to dinner, there is an orchard owned by a group of folks, that was passed down to them by their forebears. To keep it simple, the orchard is the base of their personal well-beings. Each person is invested in keeping the orchard healthy and productive, and basically each of them recieves some fruit for their efforts. Four of the people generally manage to harvest a couple bushels of fruit a year, or so. The next person harvests more bushels, about six or seven, while the next person produces about a dozen bushels, the next one about twenty bushels, the next one 30-35, the next one about sixty or seventy, and the last one harvests three or four truckloads from the orchard. Then, after a while, they notice the harvest is not as good as in previous years, some of the trees are showing signs of disease, and they didn't buy enough netting to keep the birds from spoiling some of the fruit. So they ask an orchard consultant what will make the orchard healthy and bearing fruit again back to the same levels as before. The consultant assesses the situation, and replies "I think I can treat the orchard and bring it into shape again, and maybe even better, but the fee is ten bushels of fruit." So, how do you think they decided the fairest way to split the cost was? Now, if it were a flat across the board distribution of payment to the consultant, each person would contribute 10 percent of the fee. However - That would be half the product of four of the people, but only a tiny drop in the bucket for the top four, especially the top one percent. but if it was proportional, then perhaps the lowest producers could pay 1/8 of a bushel for the fee, while at the other end, the guy who produces 3-4 truckloads could pay about 51/2 bushels. In fact, this guy could even take on another half bushel and his friends who only produce a couple bushels a year are spared the hit to their production, at little cost to himself. How about them apples? |
|
My question, directly taken from your analogy is this: Why is one person able to harvest more then another? |
instead every april 15th i put a big, hairy dildo up the IRS's ass. you can do this too and not go to jail. email me and ask me how. also, i don't pay my portion of the bill when i go out for steak dinners. you'd be surprised how much the company of a woman during a meal is worth to some people. |
|
|
well, not with real human body hair. |
it really doesn't matter why. maybe they're 4 armed mutants picking apples doubletime. the flaw in sem's story is he forgot to mention that everyone's trapped in the orchard. and that he was also describing how many apples they got to take home -- the folks who took very little home actually picked all the apples, working all day long harvesting those truckloads for the other guy and his management team. |
Of course it does. |
|
Are you one of those that sent a letter to the IRS saying you are withholding your taxes pending a redress of grievances you have stated? |
yes spunk. congrats, you've regurgitated a very base social studies idea. now lets step into the real world eh? if they feds are so busy footing the bills that the states should pick up...why is every state facing a budget deficit? if the feds were to suddenly shift fiscal responsibility, as you seem to propose, the states would collapse financially. Sarah, most likely you most likely get money back. I don't know how much you claim on your w-2s but most single people, with little to no exemptions get a little change back. |
|
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. thanks for playing though. |
|
it's really crazy how little americans educate themselves about how taxes really work. knowledge is power, and knowing how to get all your money back from the dick-sucking donkey-show bottom-dwelling IRS fucknuts is really quite simple. you just have to know all the rules and keep your finances well organized. |
What can be drawn from this scenerio?" That you're a complete and utter tool. |
|
for example: did you know that while it is illegal if you do not claim earned income, it's not illegal to claim false income? in other words, it's not illegal to tell the IRS that you made an extra $3500 a year in freelance work, when in fact you did not. |
Oooo. Invoking the Enemy of the Week. Oooooooo. |
sarah? sarah. most likely. |
why would you want to discourage capitalism? do you not like people to have jobs, to have shelter, to have food? why are you being tools to lawyers who just want to make ever more money by sticking it to the capitalist 'fat cats' ? here, we are both students at a great college. you bust your ass studying, have no social life, have no fun. all you do is study. you get a 4.0. me, on the other hand, do exactly what i did. i often skip class to drink 40's and smoke dope, or i skip class because i'd been drinking 40's and smoking dope and can't remember to go to class. except, my extrodinairy intellect isn't present so i don't manage to swing good grades. i get a 2.0. however, you're a good little socialist. so you write the dean and tell her that you need to donate one of your grade points to me, so that we can both get a B average. sound fair? because your bullshit redistribution of wealth isn't fair either. and it isn't good for the economy, which means it isn't good for the people you're trying to help. taxes should cover the cost of government. they should be flat, or they aren't fair. if they aren't fair (ie, our progressive tax code) then they when they favor they should favor at the same ratio as they burn. it's a simple, simple concept. why is it that intellectual liberal douche bags can't understand it? |
|
being one of those intellectual (?) liberal douche bags, i understand your point. but why should it be fair? i hardly think fair is the issue. |
|
Consider: Supposedly, tax cuts (especially for the wealthy) will make the world a better place. Then "social programs" of course are a waste of taxpayer money, because the free market solves all ills. Ever think that opposite may be true? Isn't it a possibility that long-term revenues were increased by social programs and not by tax cuts to the rich? COnsider for a moment that the main force behind this economy may include everything from projects such as the TVA, to the huge amount of government money spent on technology research that would eventually provide great pickings for private enterprise. Maybe it's publicly financed education is what actually what put American on top, not tax-cut financed boarding schools. Perhaps you should consider that the business world is so plagued by short-term quarterly goals and fraud that our economy which exists now would not exist without government oversight. Take some time to think about government action such as civil rights legislation, public education and even environmental legislation that have had more to do with general prosperity, health and opportunity in this country than any tax cut would. After all, wasn't the upper tax bracket in the 50's under a Republican, around 88%? I mean, wow, that's a lot of dough and we're talking the fifties. The economy then wasn't burdened by this tax rate and the money went to build the interstates and finance science education at the universities (although don't get me wrong, Eisenhower was a bastard when it came to other issues, and the science education was of course part of the Cold War, but it still had a benificial effect). Ultimately, the interstates have their own problems but i don't think you can dispute that they helped spur economic growth, and you can't really dispute that increasing scientific education funding didn't have a positive effect on the economy in providing the economy with folks that possessed the skills and knowledge that ultimately led us to being the most technologically advanced and prosperous society on the planet. Seems that was a good use of that 88%. Recall that in the 80s deficits erupted despite all of Reagan's spending cuts precisely because his policies disadvantaged the middle class in the 80's. Look at Trickle-down ecomomics: 50% of the nation's assets in the hands of 1% of the population. Where was the trickle down? Someone outside the American system might come to the idea that certain sectors of private enterprise want less government spending on law enforcement for anti-fraud laws and the environment, because a government that cannot protect its citizens against fraud and pollution is in their best economic interests. The lesson they seemed to have learned is the best way to be profitable is to get away with fraud and low-cost dumping. Consider that the Bush Admin immediately after coming into power, cut staff budgets for the SEC (Fraud Enforcement) and the FBI (including anti-terrorist staff). And then Halliburton started getting government deals again despite being CONVICTED as a DEFRAUDER of the US Army (the caps are to get Spunky's attention - Halliburton defrauded the military and that should be reason enough to bar them from recieving government contracts, but I digress). I don't believe that conservative thinking is 100% wrong. Some of it is probably correct, while some other parts are probably horsecrap. The problem with a lot of conservative thought and argument today is that it is dogmatic ideology. They keep repeating that it's not good for the economy and that liberals don't understand and like Rumsfeld said, repeat it often enough and you can believe it's true. |
No one is listening. |
|
|
What kind? "Isn't it a possibility that long-term revenues were increased by social programs and not by tax cuts to the rich? " Where is the money going to come from to pay these long term social programs? The corporations. Who funds 96.09% of the federal taxes now? Corporations and those who helm them. That includes 96.09% of your social programs. And: As little as you trust the Fed Gov, why on earth would you trust them with YOUR HEALTH CARE? Explain that to me? And as far as the state budgets go, and the deficits they face. Bush's fault, right? I will admit that there are definately some millionares that fell into their money. But there are also Fords and Chryslers who earned it, generation after generation. Placing the yoke of social programs on their backs is wrong. Taxes should be fair. They are not meant to equalize incomes. They are meant to pay for the benefits we all enjoy, and the services we all demand. It is extremely selfish of you to demand that someone who works harder to pay more then those who do not. There was nothing to stop me from getting where I am but me. No one paid my college for me. No one even bought my first car. I did it. I had the clothes my parents gave me and that was about it. I may not have come from some depressed ghetto in New York, but so the fuck what? I did not have any leg ups. You don't need one. See how far this country get's without AT&T, Ford, Texaco, Halliburton. See how many of your social programs get paid for without them. They did not answer the question because they were too busy calling me a tool and saying that it does not have to be fair. |
no, i agree sem. in fact, i agree with a lot you have said. though i think our position in the world as lowly in both social programs and education is evidence against those things being huge indicators of economic prosperity. (i also belive education is grossly underfunded, and worthy of our tax dollars, and essential to democracy.) i'm mostly just fed up with the way spunky brings things to this place and then just gets slammed in a stereotypical liberal fashion, where his intellect and sanity is questioned, but the issues are rarely addressed. i'm fed up because once my eyes were opened to this stereotype i see it everywhere. i know who contributes heavily to the dems, and i know i don't like them. they're self serving and evil. it feels like the left hides so much that is evil, whereas the right is very open about its evil. i'm really sick of it all. i don't take any of it seriously. i don't care if our economy goes to shit. i'm not making any money anymore. and the worse it gets for working folk, the further the money i have will take me. |
|
When I met Spunky he had nothing but clothes handed down to him by his father that were so thin you could see through them. He had one pair of tattered and worn shoes and that was it. My parents combined make a six figure income, and ungodly amount of money to us and yet they are always broke calling us and begging for money. Every single fucking month they are begging for money and bitching about how broke they are. Spunky and I have been in bad places before and after Micki was born, were involved in social programs. Micki wouldn't be normal and healthy today if it weren't for the help we received. The food, the formula, the high calorie drinks, the therapists, the additional health care covering the costs that our insurance wouldn't pay (specialists). All of it went directly to Micki. We have worked our way up to where these things aren't necessary anymore. We have worked hard. We still do and often struggle still. I don't really know how this effects the conversation or the thread, but it came to mind and I hope it helps. I know what it is like to be on the bottom rung of the financial ladder, having been there several times in my life. I know what it means to sit in middle class suburbia being there now. I don't have the answers for our bettering our tax system, but I do know that sometimes help is necessary for survival. On some levels it seems unfair to give your money away, but sometimes what that money goes to makes it so that your child can have a normal healthy life when you didn't think it would be possible and gives her a fair chance. So which side is fair? The one that takes your money or the one that gives Micki a chance at a normal life? How do you make what is fair for Micki fair for everyone? Is that even possible? |
He himself says he has a hard time understanding various positions. Spunk, im generally going to avoid this dicussion of economy and taxes because numbers are generally a weak spot of mine...but i'll give you some food for thought. have you ever thought how the interstate system has been a boon to the travel industry? hotels? restaurants? diners? truckstops? interstate commerce? fuck, entire towns have been built around an interstate exit. So when corporate and rich tax dollars are levied a bit higher than most to aid in fuding of such intrastate endeavors....you tell me how the McDonalds, Holiday Inns, Motel 6s, 7-11s, Exxons and every other corporate entity you see at any given freeway exit DIDNT benefit in the long run. |
So in order to get it, does that mean I have to agree? In that case, NO I DON'T GET IT. |
I don't see things the way you do. I am very proud I do not see things the way you do. |
that is my point, patty. aside from (arguably) better prose, i've never seen your side of these arguments put forward in a manner than approaches spunk's rationality. i know for a fact that spunk thinks about the views brought against his arguments. we changed his mind about roe v. wade. i think you're smug in your belief that you're superior and correct, and you've closed your mind. |
|
of course not spunk, dont be silly. because im lazy nate. everyone knows that. |
i havent come right out and said it but your arguments combined with the changing political climate in this country have altered my opinion on gun rights considerably. I havent really come right out and announced it because the topic hasnt really come up but its true. |
|
In the two years I have been here I have seen a lot of change in thinking with almost all of the people here, it's part of how we grow. I have seen it in everyone I can think of here with only two exceptions (and those people just makes me laugh anyways so who cares). But I also think that many people here do close their minds some, enough not to understand what the other person is trying to say or trying to accomplish. That there are walls built up throwing away ideas without exploring where they come from. I see that a lot. I see a lot of times when you think you are being misunderstood when you aren't but you aren't agreed with and that getting rid of these walls of superiority will go a long way to helping each other understand what really is a common goal, though you don't realize it. |
I've been doing it for a long time, but I guess you haven't "opened your eyes" to it. That's why I've given up "engaging the issue." Besides, it's rarely spunk's rationality that's put forward, it's cut 'n' paste from some website. Unless you're referring to his "Final Solution." |
and i know what you do, tiggles. i know what you do. |
I'm with you there. I think that's why i get more pissed off about republicans because they aren't as good as hiding their evil as democrats are. And there are a lot of liberal pricks out there (a la the Democratic Underground). IT's good to see that some of us are working our way back to civil discussions. I think that tax cuts for the rich would go over better if everything else wasn't in such a shambles. Figure out how to fix the mess we are in, then cut taxes when we can do so, and cut them in a way that will see real benefits for everyone (that's fair isn't it?). I think the rich can get by without a tax cut though. THey did alright in the 50s. AS for govt healthcare, i think that access to healthcare is a right, and the quality of healthcare you recieve should not be based on how much you can afford to pay. Obviously, the free market system is not going to solve this. So, yeah, the govt. should be involved. SHould there be govt run hospitals? Should all hospitals be govt. run? THat's something for another thread. |
I still wonder about that. Someday, the world will know just how much it really costs for Airlines to run. Once the true cost of it is known, if the price is ever really reflected on the ticket price, then only over-seas flights would be used. I think a high-speed mag-lift train or something like that would be a perfect replacement for airlines. And maybe they should be government run and then let private industry bid on them after they have been constructed and in operation. |
|
As much as Id advocate advance rail systems in this country, the auto industry and the airline industry would probably lobby to death to keep it from becoming a reality. Im not sure anyone questions how damn expensive it is to run an airline, but by the same token, the airlines made their own market. now they should lie in it. i heard a tid bit in a discussion of the airlines on the radio. some dude pointed out, regarding the mega incentives the top level CEOs have been rewarded...he pointed out...how do you keep such highly skilled, qualified executives in an company that is hemmoraging millions daily? there's a point in there somewhere. |
I heard something about it this morning, right after they reported the "dope" scandal about the US Olympics. |
Let the economy fail. It's a free market, right? |
but yeah. im with tiggy. let them go. unfortunately the government has loaned such ridiculous amounts of money to the airlines they wont let them default and the federal gov't isn't exactly thrilled to find they own a fleet of used jets |
But if that happens, then the economy will fail with it. The more I look at High Speed Rail the more I like it. |
Right, old boy? Right? |
|
|
|
|
Why? |
|
Why is a contract for services considered a waste of money. I don't get it. |
|
|
OK. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may be playing the role of a budget hawk these days, advocating the Army abandon its highly-touted $11 billion Crusader artillery program. But that doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon is being pushed to tighten its belt. Embracing a policy trend initiated during the Clinton administration, the Bush White House has advocated the use of civilian contractors to fill scores of government needs. "Only those functions that must be performed by the [Department of Defense] should be kept in the DoD," Rumsfeld wrote in a state-of-the-military review just seven months ago. "Any function that can be provided by the private sector is not a core government function." For one defense contractor in particular, that approach is proving staggeringly fruitful. Kellog Brown and Root Services, a division of Vice President Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton Companies, has provided the bulk of logistics services for the Army since 1992. Whenever US troops venture abroad, Brown and Root builds the barracks, cooks the food, mops the floors, transports the goods and maintains the water systems before and after the soldiers arrive. The support services Brown and Root delivers represent the kind of work the Pentagon has said does not require the attention of today's highly-trained GI's. Using a civilian contractor instead, Army officials insist, is simply less expensive. Brown and Root's most recent deal with Washington, however, is unlikely to be cheap. Awarded on Dec. 14, the deal with the Army's Logistics Augmentation Program -- the Pentagon division responsible for providing support services to Army bases around the world -- has a base period of one year. But the contract can -- and if history is any guide will -- be extended for an additional nine years. The total cost of the deal is almost impossible to estimate, as Brown and Root's fees will be limited only by the amount it spends to meet the Army's requests and the degree to which it pleases military brass. If the company's past performance is any guide, Brown and Root's bill could quickly climb into the billions. The contract places no limits on the quantity of services delivered -- an approach Army officials argue is designed to maximize flexibility. It enables the Army to send Brown and Root employees to Uzbekistan on 72 hours notice to build a base camp. It also allows the Army to comply with mandatory downsizing guidelines established as part of former Vice President Al Gore's campaign to streamline government. In essence, Brown and Root provides the Pentagon with a private battalion of engineers, janitors and other support staff. The unusual manner in which the contract was awarded is another cause for concern, budget watchdogs claim. The companies bidding for the contract were asked to submit support proposals for a theoretical scenario. When the proposals were reviewed, Army officials concede, cost was not the deciding factor. "Brown and Root offered the best value to government, considering price and non-price factors," says Army lawyer Dave Defrieze. "Cost was considered but because of the nebulous nature of cost in the contract, it wasn't the most significant." Under the new contract, Brown and Root will be reimbursed for every dollar it spends to support the troops, and will also receive a base fee of one percent, which will guarantee the company a profit. In addition, the contract provides that Brown and Root can earn another fee provided the military approves of the company's performance. That award will be calculated as a percentage of Brown and Root's costs, a fact which critics suggest will serve only to encourage the company to spend as much as possible. "The more money [Brown and Root] spend, the more profitable the contract is," says Professor Steve Schooner, a contract expert from George Washington University. "Nobody in their right mind would enter into a contract that basically says: 'Come up with creative ways to spend my money and the more you spend the happier I'll be.'" Operating under similar rules, Brown and Root consistently earned high points -- and high award fees -- from military officials for its support of US troops in the Balkans. "The government was very happy with all the things that Brown and Root did because they were building to maximum standards rather than minimum standards," says Mike Noll, the deputy program manager of the Army's logistics program. According to Joan Kibler, spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers, over a five-year period Brown and Root received 96 percent of all available awards fees. "The military folks love them. They're ecstatic with them," says Schooner. "What military officer wouldn't want the best for soldiers on the front?" Some budget hawks on Capitol Hill, however, have given the company far less glowing reviews. A September 2000 report by the General Accounting Office, Congress's budget oversight arm, found that Brown and Root was providing nearly twice the electricity necessary to the army's facilities in Kosovo, at a cost of some $17 million a year. The same report found that Brown and Root ordered $5.2 million worth of furniture for camps in Kosovo, an amount so excessive the Army struggled to find space for all the furniture and spent $377,000 just processing the order. The GAO also charged that Brown and Root routinely either overstaffed operations, resulting in employees standing around on long breaks, or was over-eager in its hiring, paying employees to work around the clock for no apparent reason. Offices at the Army's Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo were cleaned four times a day, the report states, latrines a mere three times. From 1995 to 2000, Brown and Root billed the government for $2.2 billion for its logistics support in Kosovo, making the services contract the costliest in US history. Overall, Brown and Root's costs amounted to nearly one-sixth of the total spent by the military on Balkans operations. Still, Army officials appear to have given the GAO report little credence when considering bids for the new contract. Defrieze admits that past experience and documented performance was most important to the officers reviewing the bids, and no company has had more experience in the still-young business than Brown and Root. With the GAO report set aside and only the Pentagon's evaluations considered, no company has exhibited better performance, either. "We were only looking at relevant past performance - which is limited to three years," says Defrieze. "We did not find relevant past-performance that indicated significant cost-control problems with Brown and Root." Some of these excesses, the GAO report states, are the result of the Pentagon's failure to properly manage Brown and Root's activities. The report found that many of those administering the Balkans contract wrongly believed that, "they had little control over the contractor's actions once it was authorized to perform tasks." One Army contracting officer at Camp Bondsteel appeared to believe that the military was working for Brown and Root, describing the company as the "customer" in an internal email. Noll admits that the Army officers administering the Brown and Root contract in Kosovo "may have been naive, and not familiar with the contracting procedures." But he says that has changed. With the new contract, he says the Army is committed to making sure there will be "no more Camp Bondsteel," and has instructed officers administering the contract to weigh cost-control effort more heavily. At this point, however, those internal policies appear to be all the Army has done to ensure that the excesses seen in Kosovo are not repeated. The manner in which the contract is administered has not changed, and the payment structure remains the same. Like in the Balkans, the Army, the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Defense Contract Audit Agency are all responsible for oversight and monitoring. Brown and Root will compile monthly project reports and the company's work will be evaluated -- and its award fee determined -- twice a year. As of early May, however, it was still unclear how the three offices would work together to administer the contract -- even though Noll says Brown and Root is already operating a base camp for the Army in Uzbekistan. In fact, a spokesman for the Defense Contract Management Agency said at the time that his office was "not involved" in the new contract in any way. Contracts like the one awarded to Brown and Root are not without their defenders, of course. Steven Kelman, a professor of public management at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a lobbyist for the information technology firm Accenture, compared the GAO criticism to preliminary notes on a first draft. "There's a learning curve," he says. "But the important thing is that the government is trying to hold companies accountable for their performance." Even when it comes to performance evaluation, however, the contract gives little emphasis to controlling costs. For Brown and Root to earn the highest possible points, it is required only to "implement at least minimal cost avoidance measures." "What you have is a concern with the appearance of cost-control," says Schooner. The result, says Danielle Brian, executive director of the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, is a "pay-now, review-later" approach to contracting. "Really what it is, is making the flow of tax payer money to these favorite contractors easier and easier with less oversight and less guarantee that we're getting what we're paying for," Brian charges. "We no longer know what we're going to get for our money. And it really opens up the government for being taken for a ride." Source |
I mean really, you guys have hit a new standard in boring political threads. i am impressed |
spunk, should I sift through old threads and hound you about what I estimate to be around 100 questions you never answered for me? |
It was the first result returned. I guess your fantastic fact finding skills didn't get you that far. |
I also looked on Google for Halliburton Fraud Army This is what I found when I looked unber Brown and Root. Contract Number: No. 550-96 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (703)697-5131(media) (703)697-3189(copies) (703)697-5737(public/industry) September 24, 1996 FOR RELEASE AT 5:00 p.m. EDT Brown and Root Services Corporation, Houston, Texas, is being awarded a definitization of an unpriced change order for an estimated target amount of $470,689,343 against an estimated $672,097,709 cost plus award fee logistics civil augmentation program contract to provide a full range of logistics and construction support to the U.S. Army combat forces in Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia for “Operation Joint Endeavor”. Logistical support such as temporary troop housing, laundry service, transportation, road repair, water services, equipment maintenance, hazerdous materials and environmental services, food service, and mail route operations, etc. Work will be performed at various theater locations including but not limited to an Intermediate Support Base (ISB) located in and around the vicinity of Kaposvar, Hungary (30%), Staging and Material Support Area(s) in Croatia (5%), the Area of Operations (AO) at various locations throughout Bosnia (50%), and at Brown and Root Services Corporation home office, Houston, Texas (15%), and is expected to be completed by November 26, 1996. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contracting activity is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Winchester, Virginia (DACA78-92-C-0066). |
Think you could translate that to layman speak? |
The contract was reduced from $672,097,709 to $470,689,343. For the record, that is one of the biggest god damned contract I have ever seen. |
|
Ain't that just wrong? |
|
The deal was: Root & Brown bought furniture. They bought too mcuh furniture, contract did not specify how much too spend on it, etc. Where is the fraud? |
A GAO finding in 1997 that the company billed the US Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost $14.06. A 2000 follow-up report on the Balkans work that found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day. Fines of $2 million paid in February 2002 to resolve fraud claims involving work at Fort Ord, Calif. The Defense Department inspector general and a federal grand jury had investigated allegations by a former employee that KBR defrauded the government of millions of dollars by inflating prices for repairs and maintenance." Source There you go. |
Please OH Please, don't tell me you are doing this. |
|
no, don't worry, i'm not. (sorry i'm late) and here is yet another reason i don't pay taxes. $300 million? fuck that. |
WASHINGTON, March 21 — An inquiry has found that an American public relations firm did not violate military policy by paying Iraqi news outlets to print positive articles, military officials said Tuesday... ... The inquiry, which has not yet been made public, was ordered by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, after it was disclosed in November that the military had used the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company, to plant articles written by American troops in Iraqi newspapers while hiding the source of the articles... ...Officials at the Pentagon and in Iraq said the Lincoln Group's contract remained fully in effect. The group's work, under a contract estimated at several million dollars, has included paying friendly Iraqi journalists stipends for favorable treatment. |
