Originally Posted by Mr Booty
I agree with you on the foolishness of it.
Now maybe someone can help this poor uneducated scientist out with some economics. It is my understanding that the money for all of this will either be borrowed or printed, both of which do not sound good to me right now. Additionally, taxes are being cut so less revenue will be coming in. Please, please help me here, if most or all of this is to be borrowed money, how do any of these projects do anything to pay that money back? If I run a business and ask for a loan the bank is going to want to know exactly how the money I am asking for is going to eventually translate into money to pay them back. They may loan me money for raw materials or a new building, but only if those materials are going to be processed into goods that I can sell or the building is going to increase production or decrease cost, something has to be making money for me to get money. Now it seems to me the government is borrowing money for things that will never generate money, other than in tax revenue from you and I working, but even that at the current rate will never be enough to pay the money back. If none, or at best very, very few, of these projects will ever produce any revenue other than taxes where is the money going to come from to pay it back to China? All I can think is that somewhere down the line there will be an astronomic tax increase for us or our children to just pay the interest on this money. Am I wrong?
VP Cheney to Tres Sec O'Neill in 2002.
"You know Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
So relax, :) JD
:p :p Please explain YOUR logic (or lack thereof) in quoting someone YOU so vehemently disagree with. Skeptical regards. ;)
Originally Posted by JDogger
You need to get your recollections straightened out. A quick search of all my posts show only one other reference to Cheney and that was in respect to secret meetings concerning energy policy.
Originally Posted by Marvin S
My quote was Tongue-in-Cheek. Maybe if I had included several wink,wink ;);) smilies instead of a smile:) smilie that would have been clearer to you.:rolleyes:
Your take on how the spending will occur is right on--probably from the state level. From the Fed level it is a little different:
If it is a Fed Agency where the contracting officials are actual government employees, the following rules must be observed:
1. Absent sufficient justification for CICA (Competition in Contracting Act) and its various amendments, the awards must be advertised for competition. This means 30 days open announcement period.
2. Once the 30-day announcement period passes, there is a minimum of 30 days to allow prospective offerors to prepare their proposals and submit them. In the event a small business indicates that is insufficient time to properly prepare a bid/proposal, this period can be extended. Lets assume that happens, because it normally does--taking the time period to 60 days for submissions.
3. We are now at 30 days advertised, 30 days to submit, a 30 day extension to submit--90 days.
4. Once bids/proposals are received, it is usually a minimum of 30days to evaluate the offers/bids, address any deficiencies, negotiate, and propose an award.
This assumes not sealed bidding; and not best-value procedures are utilized. Fast turn-around time for a Federal contracting office is 120 days minimum.
If best-value criteria is used, it is months longer due to discussions, ranking of technical proposals, marriage of cost with technical rankings, price negotiations, and actual approvals of a proposed award. Now we are up to about 6 months for an award to take place! Then the bid/performance bonds must be obtained and submitted to the contracting office, contractor's safety plan must be submitted and approved by the agency, and a Notice to Proceed issued once all this occurs. Mindboggling, yes?
That's why its ludicrous to believe the Federal Government will make any process better! If they had been in charge of Detroit, the capital infusion they need would be more astronomical than it already is. Plus, the vehicle would cost $100,000, last about 6 months, and need to stop every 10 miles to refuel due to all the BS regulation attached for social programs that the average taxpayer has no idea about! It's no accident that the Federal Acquisition Regulation is 2 hugh volumes with 53 Parts and each and ever item of print is evidence of a prior scar from someone's perception!