The W
Views: 100065777
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.10.14 0012
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush White House cheating in small business aid
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.43
Pages: 1
(553 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 75 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
According to The Associated Press, an investigation by Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives found that about $12 billion worth of contracts classified by the White House as "small business" went to companies with no business in that classification:


    Some of the nations largest news media companies, including The Associated Press, were counted last year by the government as small businesses for contracting purposes

    That inflated the Bush administrations record of help to small companies.

    Other media companies to be treated that way included The New York Times Co., USA Today International Corp., Bloomberg L.P., and even the Public Broadcasting Service, according to data the administration gave congressional investigators.

    The government is required to spend 23 percent of roughly $314 billion in contracts with small businesses. Last month, the Small Business Administration claimed the government more than met that goal in 2005.

    But an investigation by House Democrats, found the number was closer to 22 percent because about $12 billion in contracts to big companies were cited as going to small businesses.


Other companies designated by investigators as too big include Wal-Mart (!) and Home Depot.

This information comes into light as Congress nears passing a bill that would put online a searchable database of $460 billion in federal grants and $340 billion in federal contracts.

Bush and his cronies lying to the American public is nothing new; at this point, it's really what defines his presidency (only 896 days left!). But how can they honestly keep thinking they'll get away with this stuff ("maybe it's because we've let them get away with it all thus far?")?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.8.06 1521)

I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.
Promote this thread!
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 min.
Last activity: 8 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.11
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Bush and his cronies lying to the American public is nothing new; at this point, it's really what defines his presidency (only 896 days left!)
For future reference, this is the EXACT point where I ceased being interested in this story.



CRZ
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.70
Frankly given the circumstances surrounding Iraq (which I consider much more harmful) and the fact that we reelected him anyway, I am not sure why you should be that surprised he would "get away" with anything, especially something that will have little personal impact on your average person.

Besides, at this point, there is little that can be done anyway. The election was the opportunity to do something as voters. He would have to do something severely wrong to be impeached. The media is too unwilling and probably too incompetent to be tough on him. Certainly things like this should continue to be brought to light, but I wouldn't expect too much to happen as a result.



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 75 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by CRZ
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Bush and his cronies lying to the American public is nothing new; at this point, it's really what defines his presidency (only 896 days left!)
    For future reference, this is the EXACT point where I ceased being interested in this story.


You know, you're right. My jab there was unnecessary and I wish I hadn't made it, because the problems here and elsewhere, I'd say now, speak for themselves.

That said, I bring this up because first, I think people should/hope people would want to know this sort of thing goes on, and second because I'm genuinely interested in hearing someone who doesn't see a problem with it defend it (though I won't hold my breath for that).

Nonetheless, my comment was stupid and I wish I had used better judgment.



I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 min.
Last activity: 8 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.11
The problem with this story is there's absolutely no context provided. Is this the first time it's happened? Has it happened for years? For administrations? Are the department heads complicit, acting under orders from THE White House, or is it just more career federal bureaucrats blowing routine code entry? Does it really matter whether 23% or 21.6% (or ANY percentage) are devoted to small businesses? Why do we e even have such a law in the first place, when ideally one would think the contracts should be awarded to the "best" companies regardless of size, rather that slotted hither and yon in the hopes of filling a quota? Lastly: how does this affect ME?

The linked story didn't really answer ANY of these questions, and I don't expect I'll find those answers any time soon, best efforts of the "journalists of the blogosphere" notwithstanding. So the bottom line was: given the composition of your post, this just looked like another excuse to bring along a Bush bash and since I'm pretty sure you're aware of how far I tend to let that fly over here I hope you weren't really SURPRISED at my reaction.



CRZ
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 75 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by CRZ
    The problem with this story is there's absolutely no context provided. Is this the first time it's happened? Has it happened for years? For administrations? Are the department heads complicit, acting under orders from THE White House, or is it just more career federal bureaucrats blowing routine code entry? Does it really matter whether 23% or 21.6% (or ANY percentage) are devoted to small businesses? Why do we e even have such a law in the first place, when ideally one would think the contracts should be awarded to the "best" companies regardless of size, rather that slotted hither and yon in the hopes of filling a quota? Lastly: how does this affect ME?

    The linked story didn't really answer ANY of these questions, and I don't expect I'll find those answers any time soon, best efforts of the "journalists of the blogosphere" notwithstanding. So the bottom line was: given the composition of your post, this just looked like another excuse to bring along a Bush bash and since I'm pretty sure you're aware of how far I tend to let that fly over here I hope you weren't really SURPRISED at my reaction.


I'll try to answer some of these questions. This affects you in an indirect way, I suppose. Is it in your best interest for there to be as many businesses out there providing as many products as possible? Generally I'd say yes to that. Competition is not only the driving force in capitalism, it's what causes improvements in technology, communication, etc. Does it have a direct impact on your day-to-day life? Probably nothing too noticeable. But over the long haul, if the government doesn't do what it can to protect and support small, independent businesses, it will absolute have an impact on you and every other person living in this country or people in other countries depending on the U.S. market.

Personally, I think it's in the government's best interests to stimulate and support smaller businesses because it creates innovation and that same competition that drives any market. Some links if you really want more info:

http://www.sba.gov/???advo/???stats/???sbfaq.pdf - this is a FAQ via the Small Business Administration. According to the SBA Web site, about 99 percent of American businesses qualify as small businesses for research purposes (500 employees or less), though the standards for the contracting are larger and vary from industry to industry.

The Republicans have been trying to eliminate the SBA (which, incidentally, is the largest financial backer in the country of domestic businesses) since they took control of Congress in 1996. Bush has repeatedly ignored and neglected the agency, which is consistent with his constant neglect of small American business. I guess he has no problems with monopolies and huge corporations running every industry in every major city in the country, but then he thinks a lot of things are are wrong or misguided.

Also, for businesses to qualify for the SBA loan program, they need to not only show promise as a business, but be turned down by at least two banks, which is supposed to prevent competition between the SBA and banks. The Wikipedia entry on the SBA says this is no longer the policy, but I didn't know that to be true. Also quoting Wikipedia:


    Its function was to "aid, counsel, assist and protect, insofar as is possible, the interests of small business concerns." Also stipulated was that the SBA should ensure a "fair proportion" of government contracts and sales of surplus property to small business.


That is why we have this law. If protecting small businesses is not a worthwhile cause to you, then that's your prerogative. But I think that is an unfortunate and short-sighted view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/???wiki/???Small_???Business_???Innovative_???Research - this is the Wikipedia entry on the SBIR, which is basically how the SBA conducts its research to track small business progress and grant contracts and such. Pretty self-explanatory.

As for 23 percent...I don't know why they chose that number, and cant find any info on it. I don't know if past presidents have met this 23 percent rule, because in the past nobody has looked into, apparently. This came out recently only because 1)some members of Congress were researching the contract database I mentioned in my first post and 2)Bush has cut the SBA budget and frozen accounts in the past two years.

Also, on a side note, why it's a law notwithstanding, Bush has sidestepped a law here, period. Congress has made it part of his job to protect small business, and he's giving them the finger. Did Clinton do it? Did Reagan do it? Clinton and Reagan aren't in the White House right now.

EDIT: I just want to add, after reading over this post, that most of this is things I know you don't need me to tell you. I wish I had that one damning statistic that convinced you that this is something worth you caring about, but I don't. If you don't want your tax money supporting this, there's probably nothing I can do or say to change your mind, unfortunately.

Also, I learned in tonight's reading that Clinton in 2000, on his way out, gave the SBA it's largest operating budget to date. Bush, on the other hand, has cut it each year he's been in office.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.8.06 2359)

I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 12 min.
Last activity: 8 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.11
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    The Republicans have been trying to eliminate the SBA (which, incidentally, is the largest financial backer in the country of domestic businesses) since they took control of Congress in 1996.
It'd be nice if the party of smaller government actually took a step towards reducing the size of government, but pardon my skepticism. ;-)

    Bush has repeatedly ignored and neglected the agency, which is consistent with his constant neglect of small American business. I guess he has no problems with monopolies and huge corporations running every industry in every major city in the country, but then he thinks a lot of things are are wrong or misguided.
That darn Bush!

    If protecting small businesses is not a worthwhile cause to you, then that's your prerogative. But I think that is an unfortunate and short-sighted view.
I'm not sure how you infer that I'm against "protecting small businesses" - but then, you also seem to have the advantage of me when it comes to defining what we're protecting them from. (Evil Wal-Mart? The Republicans?)

    As for 23 percent...I don't know why they chose that number, and cant find any info on it.
Probably Illuminati

    Also, on a side note, why it's a law notwithstanding, Bush has sidestepped a law here, period. Congress has made it part of his job to protect small business, and he's giving them the finger. Did Clinton do it? Did Reagan do it? Clinton and Reagan aren't in the White House right now.
IS Bush giving them the finger? You still haven't convinced me that Bush was somehow a devious mastermind behind this wickedly devilish plot to miskey $12B of $314B in contracts. I think my question of "is this the first time this has happened?" is a valid one. If NOBODY has managed to follow this law, maybe there's a problem with the law.

    Also, I learned in tonight's reading that Clinton in 2000, on his way out, gave the SBA it's largest operating budget to date. Bush, on the other hand, has cut it each year he's been in office.
So what? What does this mean? Was "small business" better in 2000? Well, 9/11 hadn't happened so everybody hadn't gone bankrupt yet, so they had that going for them.

I have no statistics at all to back up the next hunch, so feel free to play the Rush Limbaugh card on me, but I have a funny feeling that there are oodles of small businesses that are doing all right without ever getting any government contracts.

By now, I'm just about in devil's advocate cum troll mode, so I'll lay out. It's not like I really care one way or the other about this story, but the fact that it came with a "ooh BUSH makes me so ANGRY" spin caught my attention in the "post" way rather than a "read the linked story and move on (dot org)" way. I hope I haven't kept anyone out of this discussion - I know there are at least three, maybe four people who follow the SBA on a constant, regular basis and I'd love to hear their opinions. ;-)



CRZ
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.02
Just a few random thoughts have come to me. With the exception of an individual or two in the parties, neither party is for small government. The bigger the government, the more power they wield. It's just where they choose to be big.

Remember, Dem's want government in the boardroom and out of the bedroom and the Rep's in the bedroom and out of the boardroom.

Every administration does this, regardless of party. The players and organizations may change but that's all.

And finally big business is in the pockets of both parties.



Perception is reality
Thread rated: 6.43
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Fidel Castro ill, relinquishes power "temporarily"
Next thread: The most costly piece of punctuation in Canada
Previous thread: The Whole Freaking Middle East is Ready to Blow!
(553 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
So if Bush fails to capture bin Laden by the end of his term, can we say that he punted the problem onto future presidencies, just like Clinton? -Jag
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bush White House cheating in small business aidRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.112 seconds.