Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's great - they should reduce all the waste they can.
In the article, it mentions a few million here and a few million there, which is wonderful.
When are they going to tackle the stuff that actually matters, though? Like the $60 BILLION in Medicare fraud every year?
Again, I think it's good that they're trying to save money, eliminate waste and cut fraud, but what they're going after here is peanuts compared to where the real waste is.
(...and I won't even bring up the spendulous bill...)
I like this idea. The agencies all act too independent of each other, so we get stuck doing business with companies that have cheated us in the past.
I'd like the idea if it wasnt so easy to get around.. I could have a company that cheated you in the past, and then create 25 other companies, and because they are all seperate corporations, each one could again cheat..
How about we just go after and sue the hell out of those who cheated...
I'd like the idea if it wasnt so easy to get around.. I could have a company that cheated you in the past, and then create 25 other companies, and because they are all seperate corporations, each one could again cheat..
How about we just go after and sue the hell out of those who cheated...
We're doing that; for example, Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is after corrupt contracts and contractors who do and did business w/the govt in Iraq. "McCaskill chairs the Senate's contracting oversight subcommittee. She has been a harsh critic of the federal government's reliance on companies such as Blackwater Worldwide and KBR Inc. for support work in war zones."
Senator presses State for details on Iraq security - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_state_iraq_security - broken link)
Meanwhile about the do-not-pay database,
"New software.... allows the government to cross-check multiple databases for background on prospective contractors.... Under the president's do-not-pay order, feds will be prohibited from doing business with: companies and individuals barred by other government agencies; suspected criminals; people who owe the government money."
You'd think such software would have been in place LONG before now!
We're doing that; for example, Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is after corrupt contracts and contractors who do and did business w/the govt in Iraq. "McCaskill chairs the Senate's contracting oversight subcommittee. She has been a harsh critic of the federal government's reliance on companies such as Blackwater Worldwide and KBR Inc. for support work in war zones."
Senator presses State for details on Iraq security - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_bi_ge/us_state_iraq_security - broken link)
But I could have 25 different corporations, with 25 different tax ID's, and licenses.. You could track corporate A, but you cant legally link ALL of them together to hold one liable for actions taking by a completely different legal corporation..
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne
Meanwhile about the do-not-pay database,
"New software.... allows the government to cross-check multiple databases for background on prospective contractors.... Under the president's do-not-pay order, feds will be prohibited from doing business with: companies and individuals barred by other government agencies; suspected criminals; people who owe the government money."
You'd think such software would have been in place LONG before now!
I know for a FACT the federal government has databases of people to do business WITH.. I dont know though if the database tracks who not to do business with, but
A) If its the same database, then adding the do not pay to it, would be rather simple
B) If its not the same database, its wasted money because its redoing the wheel already creaed..
C) Again as above, if I have 25 corporations, all with different licenses, each one to setup to steal from the government, you cant legally link them together. Its no different than limiting ACORN of PA from doing business because ACORN of OH broke the law.. They are individual corporations, setup for specific purposes, and each one is held liable based upon their own actions..
Possibly, but again, you cant LEGALLY hold one corporation liable for the actions of another.. And if the intent is to stop companies from doing business with the govt thats stealing from the govt, then why dont they just sue the companies and have it done and over with? You can guarantee that one day, a company is going to sue the govt because they find themself on that list and they feel its an error.. Without a LEGAL reason, i.e. judgement, for example, you limiting me from conducting business could hold you liable for my lack of ability to substain a living..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
