What is the purpose for income tax?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

And the purpose of the government is to hand no-bid contracts to people like Halliburton,

There actually was no problem with this at the beginning of the war. Later it was a problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Personal Income tax is only half the picture.

2008 projections
1,146 billion - individual income taxes
275 billion - corporate income taxes
906 billion - social security taxes
81 billion - excise taxes
25 billion - estate and gift taxes
25 billion - customs duties
47 billion - miscellaneous receipts
TOTAL - 2,506 billion

But personal income tax rates are subject to checks and balances.

The poor ain't got no money - moot

The middle class have lots of votes - check

The rich kick in more campaign funds - balance

Ain't easy being a politician.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

There actually was no problem with this at the beginning of the war. Later it was a problem.

No bid contracts are ALWAYS a problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Usually, but sometimes no-bid follow on contracts are practical and expedient.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Usually, but sometimes no-bid follow on contracts are practical and expedient.

Which is exactly what they were in the case of Haliburton at the time. Same for another independent contracting organizations and companies that had been in the business of supplying services to the military for years. There is a lot of ignorance and parroting of complaints about how this system works and how these companies, smartly, positioned themselves to do the good work that they did. The abuses cannot be ignored and neither can the good.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Which is exactly what they were in the case of Haliburton at the time. Same for another independent contracting organizations and companies that had been in the business of supplying services to the military for years. There is a lot of ignorance and parroting of complaints about how this system works and how these companies, smartly, positioned themselves to do the good work that they did. The abuses cannot be ignored and neither can the good.

Which is why it was unfortunate that several Republican Senators blocked the passage of the Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act last year....it passed in the House on a bi-partisan voice vote.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Usually, but sometimes no-bid follow on contracts are practical and expedient.

Expedience is the enemy of integrity.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Expedience is the enemy of integrity.

Not in the case of the early no-bid contracts which supported the early operations of the wars.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not in the case of the early no-bid contracts which supported the early operations of the wars.

If I recall, one of the first Halliburton no-bid contracts, to import gas from Kuwait to support the early operation of the war, was found by the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency to have overcharged by $millions.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

If I recall, one of the early Halliburton no-bid contracts, to import gas from Kuwait, was found by the Defense Contracting Auditing Agency to have overcharged by $millions.

Then there's all that glorious construction done by KB&R, etc...one soldier electrocuted in the shower, feces from bad piping dripping down through light fixtures to lower floors, etc.

KB&R employees leaving sandwiches with mayo on them out overnight, then serving them to soldiers, etc.

Yeah. That really helped the war effort.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not in the case of the early no-bid contracts which supported the early operations of the wars.

The contracts didn't support the wars. In fact, they undermined them.

And the means don't justify the ends.

Originally Posted by TGRR

The contracts didn't support the wars. In fact, they undermined them.

And the means don't justify the ends.

But they resulted in the value of Cheney's stock options in Halliburton increasing by more than 3000 percent.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

The contracts didn't support the wars. In fact, they undermined them.

And the means don't justify the ends.

Not in my experience. Haliburton and KBR have positioned themselves to service many aspects of military deployments in peace and war. They were standing at the door when the wars began and they did a damm good job of doing what they do best, supplying the needs and infrastructure for the deploying troops. There were no other companies to compete with them because they did not exist.