terrorist traitors

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
As a party they do want freer trade (after all corporate donations are where the big money is these days) but they tend to want to qualify it. Qualify it by tying it to improvements in labor laws, improvements in environmental practices, etc... Yes, there are still the paleo-dems who are still trying to recreate the 1960's but they're a minority.

You have to remember in 1994 there were a lot more manufacturing jobs and union members then now so unions had more pull plus two years before Ross Perot had spent millions whipping people into a lathered frenzy of fear about Mexico stealing our jobs unless we created more protectionist barriers to trade. I believe you'll find the climate very different in 2007 compared to 1994 and even in 1994 Clinton still lobbied for NAFTA and got it passed. At the time it was even sold as an example of bipartisanship since Clinton crossed the aisle to get the thing passed.

Hopefully things will be different, but the things I've heard that alarm me on topics like lumber, cattle, and wheat, or trade in general, have come from Democrats far more than Republicans.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Hopefully things will be different, but the things I've heard that alarm me on topics like lumber, cattle, and wheat, or trade in general, have come from Democrats far more than Republicans.

Which ones? I not the lumber tarrifs were put in place by Bush, a Republican, while the agricultural subsidies were restored by the Republican controlled Congress. The Republicans talk a good game about free trade, and to their credit they passed CAFTA last year, but when push comes to shove they junk the retoric and go protectionist. Tarrifs on steal, tarrifs on lumber, subsidies for uncompetitive farmers, and keeping out Canadian beef even after they were cleared of BSE.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Doddler
Geez what's with all the US protectionism at the moment?

Score one for a Doddler threadjack

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
The company is divesting KBR, and focusing on its oil services business -- i.e., no more sensitive contracts.

This thread has no point, since the OP omitted crucial info.

KBR is only part of its military contracting business. KBR gets things like construction and running chow halls but I note KBR corporate got lots of nice, juicy no bid contracts which were unnecessarily bundled. The common defense practice by the big guys is to have EVERYTHING under the sun bundled into one contract so that they can claim they're the only ones large enough to successfully do the contract. The basic fact is there is no compelling need to bundle road construction with meal preparation with sewer repair with running a hair cut store with running a private security firm.

All of those items could be broken down into different contracts where each one is competitively bid. Let companies which are good at cooking bid on meals, let companies which are good at construction bid on construction, and let the guys who know how to cut hair bid on that. Bundling is just a way to shove out smaller companies so the big guys can claim they're the only contender.

[One_more_turn]

Halliburton is a slimy outfit.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seriously though DRoseDARs is right up to a point. If they aren't going to be a US company anymore they should have some of the more sensetive contracts they might have looked over to see if they should be continued.

And the gold star goes to DD for getting it right.

[DanS]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Halliburton is a slimy outfit.

Halliburton is well respected in the oil industry. They have been a professional outfit when I have dealt with them.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Democrats are less inclined to protectionism then ever because the power of the big unions is lower then ever.

Unfortunately, the power of the anti-free trade netroots is growing.

They aren't anti it, they just want meaningless and unenforceable environmental and labor provisions. As long as everyone is willing to play along with them there will be no problems.

[Kuciwalker]

It should be obvious to everyone that "free trade, as long as you pay your workers as much as we pay ours" isn't free trade.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
KBR is only ....

Do you even read the posts you respond to?

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by DanS


Halliburton is well respected in the oil industry. They have been a professional outfit when I have dealt with them.

How much did they pay you to say that, and how much of it came from the "lost" Iraqi reconstruction money?

[Arrian]

They can be both professional and slimy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Presumably they paid him for legal work (or whatever DanS does), not for PR... but I love the implication that Halliburton pays people to say nice things ("professional") about them on online fora.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Jaakko
How much did they pay you to say that, and how much of it came from the "lost" Iraqi reconstruction money?

The other way around. We paid them. Hydro frac'ing on stripper oil wells in Ohio.

They weren't the cheapest. But they paid good attention even to their smallest accounts. And their work was professional and as-advertised.

[MRT144]

Really though, some of the favortism should be reconsidered because of this.