Democracy4Sale wrote: CONSUMERS are the "job-creators"... Not giving it to the 1% and "hoping it will trickle-down."
Then why doesn't Obama give all Americans a check instead of his buddies who own green energy companies.
And you have proof that President Obama is buddy with all the green energy companies? As opposed to the Bush/Cheney relationship with sole source billion dollar contracts with Haliburton?
Dirty little secret. Halliburton still has sole source contracts awarded by Obama. That is what Halliburton does. Hire ex government employees and have their executives get jobs in government. I know Barack told you that would stop if you elected him but he lied.
Yet again, you do not tell the truth:
President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations.
Remind me, Dog, isn't it ILLEGAL for the Government to cancel/reneg on contracts that are already signed and in place. I don't suppose that Fred and his little band of followers would be suggesting that Obama should do something ILLEGAL and unilaterally cancel binding contracts, (sleazy "crony capitalism" slime from the Bush era though they may be) ??? I am surprised (NOT) that Fred would suggest such a thing.
At least he can make sure they don't happen again going forward.
Democracy4Sale wrote: CONSUMERS are the "job-creators"... Not giving it to the 1% and "hoping it will trickle-down."
Then why doesn't Obama give all Americans a check instead of his buddies who own green energy companies.
And you have proof that President Obama is buddy with all the green energy companies? As opposed to the Bush/Cheney relationship with sole source billion dollar contracts with Haliburton?
Dirty little secret. Halliburton still has sole source contracts awarded by Obama. That is what Halliburton does. Hire ex government employees and have their executives get jobs in government. I know Barack told you that would stop if you elected him but he lied.
Yet again, you do not tell the truth:
President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations.
Democracy4Sale wrote:
Remind me, Dog, isn't it ILLEGAL for the Government to cancel/reneg on contracts that are already signed and in place. I don't suppose that Fred and his little band of followers would be suggesting that Obama should do something ILLEGAL and unilaterally cancel binding contracts, (sleazy "crony capitalism" slime from the Bush era though they may be) ??? I am surprised (NOT) that Fred would suggest such a thing.
At least he can make sure they don't happen again going forward.
Not any of the govt contracts I've signed. Virtually all of them have a "termination for convenience" clause.
Regardless, I don't believe the administration has stopped doing "no bid" contracts. I know of people who are still doing contract work in foreign countries under "no bid" contracts...and making a killing (figuratively speaking). On the flip side, all politicians tend to like this...easy to give $$ to people they want. Not just an Obama thing. Been going on forever. Obama is just another one in a long line of politicians to say one thing, and do another.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Nope, just the way of goverment no matter who is in office. The Republicrat party that rules the beltway and their powerful friends who receive your tax monies.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Democracy4Sale wrote: Doesn't all that twisting and turning to justify Bush and come with apologetics for Halliburton hurt your neck and give you whiplash?
Not nearly to the extent that it must hurt yours pretending that the practice is limited to the Republican Party.
Democrat4Sale wrote: Doesn't all that twisting and turning to justify Bush and come with apologetics for Halliburton hurt your neck and give you whiplash?
LJ's just happy that she got to use "Halliburton" in a sentence.
No bump in the polls for Romney after he picks Ryan:
Mitt Romney garnered virtually no increase in support in the initial days after announcing Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate, according to the latest numbers from Gallup.
In the four days leading up to the announcement, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had the support of about 46 percent of the registered voters. Over the following four days, that figure crept up only one tick to 47 percent. Obama, meanwhile, held steady at 45 percent in the Gallup polling.
Ping me when this actually happens. And Barack only got to this 4 years after being elected? I thought I procrastinated.
