Dan, did you see the story the last day or two about the military contracts that are going just about completely unaudited and unchecked? Of course, THAT particular set of problems pre-dates this administration, so it’s not an issue, is it?

hs…lets add Halliburton(darth vader use to be CEO) to the list. There susidiary KBR is the one who was responsible for the execution of American soldiers in Irag due to shoddy electrical work.

Hey at least in England the politicians don’t steal elections then implode their own office buildings to initiate a war in a deceitful yet transparent effort to dominate world energy resouces and consumption, all the while blatantly ignoring the looming threat that consumption of said resources poses to life on our planet. No, only in America…Mr. Gilbert doesn’t seem too eager to acknowledge that his preferred political party has already ushered in the end of the world as we knew it.

KRB, a sub of Haliburton did the shoddy and scabby electrical work. This is rapidly becoming one of the greatest military scams in our nation’s history.
Haliburton received $32 billion from Bush/Cheney. It’s a financial, and often fatal, disaster which the corporate Republican party finds humorous.

Makes garden hoses purchased by members of the British Parliment look silly.

Garrison,
How much will KBR be receiving from Obama this year?

hs wrote,

“Dan, did you see the story the last day or two about the military contracts that are going just about completely unaudited and unchecked? Of course, THAT particular set of problems pre-dates this administration, so it’s not an issue, is it?”

If it is an issue why isn’t this administration doing something about it? Maybe it’s not as big an issue as you think!

Bud1969…You talking about investigations or indictments?

Haliburton and all of it’s subs.need to be investigated and audited thoroughly.

Right on Garrison!

Cheney’s personal stock portfolio is looking mighty good right now!

NO-BID CONTRACTS ONLY AWARDED UNDER BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION. HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME COMPANY CHENEY WAS CEO OF UP UNTIL 2000. COINCEDENCE, I THINK NOT!

If a democratic President would of done this, impeachment proceedings would of followed.

If a democratic President would of done this, impeachment proceedings would of followed.
— debrasgd3
12:32 pm June 9th, 2009

Damn, every once in awhile this crazy broad is right. A democrat President did award KBR a contract and was eventually impeached. Granted his impeachment had to do with perjury and not contracts, but you have to admit, if you spew crazy often enough, you may end up right once.

http://www.plex86.org/computer_2/Clinton-Awards-Haliburton-contract.html

Garrison and debrasgd13,

How much will Haliburton and its subsidiaries be receiving this year from the zero’s administration? Check that out and let the rest of us know. A democratic president is doing it now. Haliburton is still receiving contracts from the Government.

It’s called “oversight and accountability” James R.
Words completely unfamilar to Republicans.
The invisable hand of the “free-market” is paralyzed.
But you keep telling us it’s working fine.
True, if you’re a corporate Republican.

KRB, a sub of Haliburton did the shoddy and scabby electrical work. This is rapidly becoming one of the greatest military scams in our nation’s history. Haliburton received $32 billion from Bush/Cheney. It’s a financial, and often fatal, disaster which the corporate Republican party finds humorous. Makes garden hoses purchased by members of the British Parliment look silly.
— Garrison
10:00 am June 9th, 2009

Garrison,
Back to my original question; How many billions is Obama giving up this year to KBR?

Secretary Gates has said KBR will get no more contracts once their current one expires. BTW..If it was up to Obama we wouldn”t have been in this disastrous war of choice and thrown a TRILLION dollars down the tubes.

It’s called “oversight and accountability” James R.
Words completely unfamilar to Republicans.
The invisable hand of the “free-market” is paralyzed.
But you keep telling us it’s working fine.
True, if you’re a corporate Republican.

-Garrison

Yup, and the zero’s most transparent administration is just doing great. What with all the Washington insiders, lobbyists, and tax cheats this is really the change Garrison believes in.

Neither Garrison, Debrasgd13, nor drugged out oxycotin have answered the question of how much will Haliburton and its 136 subsidiaries be receiving this year from the zero’s administration?

THE PERILS OF BIPARTISANSHIP IN A LOPSIDED CHAMBER…. Matt Yglesias raises a good point about a legislative dynamic that often goes overlooked: trying to govern in a bipartisan fashion is tricky when the minority keeps shrinking.

Say, for example, the Senate passes an important piece of legislation with 62 votes. Ordinarily, that would point to a healthy, bipartisan majority. Except, of course, given the current makeup of the Senate, it suggests the bill passed with literally only a couple of votes from the minority. That’s what happens when the Republican caucus goes from 55 to 49 to 41 to 40 over the course of a few years.

[A] big part of the story is that Republicans who held vulnerable seats nonetheless voted in lockstep with their party leadership’s conservative agenda. Democrats, by the same token, got to where they are because the caucus tolerates many members who frequently deviate from the party line. But this means that the GOP has managed to make itself small precisely by minimizing the number of people who are likely to cross party lines.

On Inauguration Day, there were only three Republicans left who regularly joined bipartisan compromises. Obama got all three for [the stimulus package]. And for his trouble, Senator Specter got essentially booted from the party. So now there are really only two “gettable” Republicans left. So does an Obama bill that Collins and Snowe sign on to [count as] a “bipartisan” bill?

When it comes to major legislation, there are very few bills that are going to garner 90 or more votes. The practical definition of a bipartisan bill is one that enjoys the near-unanimous support of one party, while peeling off the moderates of the other. In 2009, however, there are only two Republican moderates left. Somehow, though, a 62-vote majority for a bill is perceived as a “failure of bipartisanship.”

Let’s not lose sight of how we got to this point. One party, which was in the majority not too terribly long ago, effectively discredited itself with bad ideas, failed policies, and incompetent governing. Voters decided they wanted fewer members of this party making policy decisions at the federal level.

For the David Broders of the world, who prioritize bipartisanship above all else, it creates an untenable dynamic. A failed, shrinking party, with precious few moderates, doesn’t like the majority party’s agenda. That’s fine; that’s what opposition parties are for. At the same time, however, the majority party is supposed to pass legislation that enjoys the support of the failed, shrinking party — because it “looks” better.

I continue to think this places the burden in all the wrong places. It’s not Democrats’ fault that voters have rejected Republicans in large numbers, leaving the GOP with only a couple of moderates. “Bipartisanship” will be more common when the Republican Party moves closer to the American mainstream, not when Dems water down important legislation.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018576.php