Haliburton gets another 5 billion dollar deal

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 7 2005, 07:43 PM'][b]EXCEPT[/b] the Iraq contract was NOT AN OPEN BID... I repeat, THERE WAS NO BIDDING ON THE IRAQI CONTRACT.. It was simply awarded to Haliburton.

That is a big part of the debate.  It shouldn't be done that way.

Also, I didn't say that collusion was EASY. I said it was naive to think it doesn't occur.

Hell, it's built into the system. People are people, and with people you can be sure of 2 things. 

Everyone has an agenda.  Everyone looks out for #1.
[right][post="111790"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I agree that it should have been bid on, however even still, as pointed out, the Vice President doesnt work for or own stock in (knowingly), in Haliburton, nor does his wife. Also they did the same type of work during the Clinton years.... so to say it's a "buy off"...is reaching imo.

[|Bunghole|]

Like my last post sarcastically inferred:
It is likely that Halliburton is either the ONLY or the BEST American company at doing what they are currently doing in Iraq...
And leaving it to an open bid would have (and did) attracted the interest of French and German companies who do the same kind of work Halliburton does.
And when these French and German companies found out that there would be no bid and it was handed over to American-owned Halliburton, they cried foul!
BUT, WHY OH WHY would we reward two countries economies that not only had no interest in helping our war effort, they openly opposed it to the point of causing resentment between Europe and the USA? Why should they get any financial gain out of this? It's our blood being spilled over there, not theirs...I see no problem with us being sure we're first in line for ANY financial recoupment of our money spent for the war effort...cause it sure isn't cheap oil!

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='Jul 7 2005, 08:24 PM']Like my last post sarcastically inferred:
It is likely that Halliburton is either the ONLY or the BEST American company at doing what they are currently doing in Iraq...
And leaving it to an open bid would have (and did) attracted the interest of French and German companies who do the same kind of work Halliburton does.
And when these French and German companies found out that there would be no bid and it was handed over to American-owned Halliburton, they cried foul!
BUT, WHY OH WHY would we reward two countries economies that not only had no interest in helping our war effort, they openly opposed it to the point of causing resentment between Europe and the USA?  Why should they get any financial gain out of this?  It's our blood being spilled over there, not theirs...I see no problem with us being sure we're first in line for ANY financial recoupment of our money spent for the war effort...cause it sure isn't cheap oil!
[right][post="111810"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

DUH

You don't have to award bids to foriegn countries if you have a bid man...

You make it sound like having a bidding process would be open season.... We can still choose the best company for thew job. There is NO excuse for just handing it to someone.

Now Haliburton just charges what they want to. And there are already investigations concerning price gauging and fraud.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote][u]Cheney's Halliburton's $80M from Iran*[/u]

Halliburton Co. will pull out of Iran after its current contracts there are wound down, its chief executive said Friday.  "The business environment currently in Iran is not conducive to our overall strategy and objectives," Chief Executive Dave Lesar said in a conference call. . .Halliburton said in July that it had received a subpoena seeking information about operations in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd.  The company has argued that using a Cayman Islands subsidiary exempts it from a U.S.-imposed trade embargo against Iran, which is accused of seeking nuclear arms and funding terrorist networks. Halliburton provided no details on when its current contracts in Iran would be completed or on the value of the work. The company generated about $80 million in revenue in Iran in 2003.[/quote]


[i]That's why we aren't in Iran [/i]..... yet

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i][color="blue"]There is more [/color][/i]


[quote][u]Halliburton and the "Merchant of Death* *[/u]

In an effort to crack down on one of the world's most notorious international criminals, President George W. Bush last summer signed an order barring U.S. citizens from doing business with Russian arms trafficker Victor Bout. But not long afterward, U.S. officials discovered Bout's tentacles were wider than anticipated: for much of this year, NEWSWEEK has learned, a Texas charter firm allegedly controlled by Bout was making repeated flights to Iraq—courtesy of a Pentagon contract allowing it to refuel at U.S. military bases. One reason for the flights, sources say, was that the firm was flying on behalf of Kellogg Brown & Root, the division of Halliburton hired to rebuild Iraq's oilfields.  U.S. officials say Bout—once dubbed a "merchant of death" by a British foreign minister—built an empire in the 1990s flying weapons to the Taliban and African dictators  Michael Isikoff, Newsweek 12/20/04 Issue[/quote]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="red"]They sound like a great Bunch [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] [/color]


[quote][u]Current Halliburton Investigations[/u]

The investigations of Halliburton's work in Iraq include:
-- A criminal investigation into whether kickbacks were involved in Halliburton's use of a Kuwaiti subcontractor to provide gasoline for Iraq's civilian market. Halliburton says it notified federal authorities after an internal probe found two of its former employees may have been involved in corruption worth $6.3 million.
-- A review of that fuel contract by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which concluded Halliburton overcharged the Army by $61 million.
-- An investigation by the former Coalition Provisional Authority's internal watchdog which found Halliburton could not account for scores of items in Iraq worth millions of dollars.
-- A report by Congress' Government Accountability Office, which found a "pattern of contractor management problems" by the Army on Halliburton's largest Iraq contract. The nonpartisan GAO said the problems including taking more than a year to finalize the documentation on work orders worth billions of dollars.
-- A Pentagon audit, which found that Halliburton charged the Army for meals it never served to troops. Halliburton said the problem was caused by the widely fluctuating levels of troops in and around Iraq. Halliburton has repaid $36 million and set aside more than $140 million for a possible settlement as it negotiates with the Army on that issue.
Separately, a federal grand jury in Houston is hearing evidence to decide whether to indict Halliburton or current or former executives for violating the U.S. trade embargo on Iran. Foreign subsidiaries of Halliburton dramatically expanded their trade with Iran while Cheney headed the company.  AP 10/4/04 [/quote]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote][u]Cheney's Halliburton, Corrupt & Inept[/u]

No corporation has gained more from the invasion of Iraq than Halliburton. Since the war began, it has moved from No. 19 on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors to No. 1. Last year, the company pocketed $4.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars. And that's merely the take so far; the company's Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) subsidiary has collected what the Washington Post describes as "one of the contracting plums of the war: a classified no-bid deal worth up to $7 billion to do the restoration work."  Yet, by any measure, Halliburton and KBR have done a horrible job of managing the occupation and the reconstruction. The company has been investigated and fined for wrongdoing on the ground, and few days go by without new evidence surfacing to suggest that Halliburton is either massively corrupt or massively inept - or, and this is the most likely explanation, a messy combination of the two.  John Nichols, Capital Times, 9/28/04 MORE[/quote]


[color="green"]Moving on up Now [/color]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 7 2005, 06:27 PM']DUH

You don't have to award bids to foriegn countries if you have a bid man...

You make it sound like having a bidding process would be open season.... We can still choose the best company for thew job. There is NO excuse for just handing it to someone.

Now Haliburton just charges what they want to. [b]And there are already investigations concerning price gauging and fraud.[/b][right][post="111813"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Par for the course when huge corporate interests and billions of dollars are flying about...unfortunately...

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='Jul 7 2005, 08:45 PM']Par for the course when huge corporate interests and billions of dollars are flying about...unfortunately...
[right][post="111827"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Not of this scale...

Sorry, but there is [b]WAY[/b] too much smoke for there not to be at least a little fire.

[Guest bengalrick]

say what you will about halliburton... it sounds like they have been in a lot of scandals, and what have you... but this should also be put into consideration:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton"]click here[/url]

[quote]Despite cronyism allegations, the company's contracts in Iraq are much less profitable than its core energy business. They are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006 but most offer low margins - less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work.[/quote]

it also explains their work, and i can understand why not many companies would want to do it... should they have had a no-bid contract, probably not... but time and common sense told us that we couldn't go to another company, b/c there isn't one...

[quote]Today KBR employ over 30,000 men and women in Iraq. Halliburton's work in Iraq is diverse and complicated. In addition to troop support, Halliburton also provides air traffic control support; produces 74 million gallons of water a month for consumption, hygiene and laundry; deploys as many as 700 trucks a day to deliver essentials to American forces; and provides firefighter and crash-rescue services, as well as working to restore Iraqi oil infrastructure.[/quote]

thats a lot of dangerous as work...

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 7 2005, 09:28 PM']say what you will about halliburton... it sounds like they have been in a lot of scandals, and what have you... but this should also be put into consideration:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton"]click here[/url]
it also explains their work, and i can understand why not many companies would want to do it... should they have had a no-bid contract, probably not... but time and common sense told us that we couldn't go to another company, b/c there isn't one...
thats a lot of dangerous as work...
[right][post="111835"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I love your assumption that no other company could have handled this..

I suppose you have reviewed all the numerous HUGE corps in the US that could have done it... don't believe it... Sounds like you are regurgitating to me.

Also, just because they make more money in one venture than another doesn't mean they don't make [b]THE MOST[/b] money by doing [b]BOTH[/b]


Surely you aren't trying to suggest that Haliburton is taking a loss???

Sorry, but you just can't make a valid point for not having an open bidding process. [b]IF[/b] Haliburton was the best, then they STILL get the job. But it would have at least made them bid COMPETITIVELY instead of just setting thier price.

See, unlike the Bush regime, i am a fiscal and constittional [b]CONSERVATIVE[/b]. I believe competition breeds success. When companies are forced to compete the value of a product is increased (value=cost/quality/quantity).

I am still waiting on a valid argument from you as to why a no bid process was better?

[Beaker]

Lets just go with your assumptions for a bit...How is Halliburton getting a no bid contract and working in Iraq to help our soldiers hurting you?

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Jul 8 2005, 01:58 AM']Lets just go with your assumptions for a bit...How is Halliburton getting a no bid contract and working in Iraq to help our soldiers hurting you?
[right][post="111963"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I dunno you tell me...

Does it hurt America for the military to buy toilet seats at $300 a pop... Or other fiscal abuses?

I think that the answer to that question and yours are very similar.

What bothers me here is that i think you are arguing with me because you believe I am "on the other side" politically... I very well may not be... I am not a Democrat, nor am I "Liberal".. I could easily have voted for a Republican (and have). I did not like John Kerry (but feel he is no worse than your average politician).

I just don't see how ANYONE can defend the government just handing out no bid contracts of this magnitude.. For one thing, it just isn't done that way. It was highly irregular for the government to have done this. N0w add on that there are currently about 5 seperate issues of fraud/price guaging that are currently being investigated/litigated and I thnk you would have to be pretty dense to not think this is a problem.

[Guest bengaljet]

Lucid, I got a ? for you-whose money are they spending? Anybody on here? Pennies from heaven? US money that we had saved for a rainy day? Where they getting it ?and the debt goes higher.
Don't worry tho-last month(June) the US lost 111,000 jobs.The money we save on the wages will help pay for it.
Within the last 2 months Haliburton got like a $9 million bonus from the US gov't for a job well done. Somebody's money well spent.
Please don't ask hard questions-I understand what your trying to get,but you won't get a straight answer.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 8 2005, 12:31 AM']I dunno you tell me...

Does it hurt America for the military to buy toilet seats at $300 a pop... Or other fiscal abuses?

I think that the answer to that question and yours are very similar.

What bothers me here is that i think you are arguing with me because you believe I am "on the other side" politically... I very well may not be... I am not a Democrat, nor am I "Liberal"..  I could easily have voted for a Republican (and have). I did not like John Kerry (but feel he is no worse than your average politician).

[b]I just don't see how ANYONE can defend the government just handing out no bid contracts of this magnitude..  For one thing, it just isn't done that way. It was highly irregular for the government to have done this.[/b] N0w add on that there are currently about 5 seperate issues of fraud/price guaging that are currently being investigated/litigated and I thnk you would have to be pretty dense to not think this is a problem.
[right][post="111977"][/post][/right][/quote]
Is the fact that the other primary candidates for the first bid were a company from France and a German corporation eluding you?
Would you rather one of them was running the show on the ground, dictating to our military personnel, collecting huge euros right now?
I am sure there are corporate infidelities at every level...so how does that make THIS administration unique from any other?

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Jul 8 2005, 02:41 AM']Lucid, I got a ? for you-whose money are they spending? Anybody on here? Pennies from heaven? US money that we had saved for a rainy day? Where they getting it ?and the debt goes higher.[/quote]

It's tax payer money that could be spent on a number of things.. Homeland Security, Education, Military/Medical/Technological research, health care, social security... Hell you name it... Anything is better than just handing it to Haliburton

[quote]Don't worry tho-last month(June) the US lost 111,000 jobs.The money we save on the wages will help pay for it.[/quote]

Lost jobs = Lost wages = Lost tax revenue. Lost revinue doesn't help shit except the increasing the debt

[quote]Within the last 2 months Haliburton got like a $9 million bonus from the US gov't for a job well done. Somebody's money well spent.
Please don't ask hard questions-I understand what your trying to get,but you won't get a straight answer.
[right][post="111985"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Ok, I wasn't aware of this.. But I find this equally strange.... Since when do you contract somebody to do a job, decide on a fair price... And then when they complete the job competently (as they would be expected to do anyway) you [b]WHAT[/b]...

JUST GIVE THEM [b]MORE[/b] MONEY???


For what!? Doing what they were contracted to do?? And on top of it... They have already paid the gvernment back 30+ million dollars they overcharged on food... [b]30 million + FOR FOOD!!![/b]

Sounds like they deserve a gift from the taxpayers pockets to me.

[|Bunghole|]

The problem really is that we know not what is the truth. Speculation exists and is cultivated on both sides of the aisle, and the media certainly encourages that behavior.
We can agree on that.

[Jamie_B]

I must say I wish people would get this upset over the other government waste that goes on, and not just the waste that has to do with the Vice Presidents former company that he is making no finical gain with. I’m not sure how many know this, but Ill throw it out there so you can know it now. Did you know that they way congress appropriates funds each year that if you don’t spend what you’ve been given this year, you don’t get it next year? So if I don’t need or saved the government that money this year but I may need it next year I don’t get it. Why do you think you see government waste with this kind of system in place? Ask any of our former or current servicemen on this board if they had to go out and do "training" they didn’t necessarily need so they could get rid of ammunition in order to keep a budget. If you’re going to get upset about anything get upset about a system that not only allows that kind of waste but encourages it.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jul 8 2005, 07:27 AM']I must say I wish people would get this upset over the other government waste that goes on, and not just the waste that has to do with the Vice Presidents former company that he is making no finical gain with. I’m not sure how many know this, but Ill throw it out there so you can know it now. Did you know that they way congress appropriates funds each year that if you don’t spend what you’ve been given this year, you don’t get it next year? So if I don’t need or saved the government that money this year but I may need it next year I don’t get it. Why do you think you see government waste with this kind of system in place? Ask any of our former or current servicemen on this board if they had to go out and do "training" they didn’t necessarily need so they could get rid of ammunition in order to keep a budget. If you’re going to get upset about anything get upset about a system that not only allows that kind of waste but encourages it.
[right][post="112029"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

A very good post. I wonder how you can solve this sort of problem in government?

In business, it's fairly easy. I encountered this when I entered upper management at a previous job. Quarterly and annual budgets were often overspent, with justifications by the department heads--sometimes reasonable, sometimes lame. We instituted a policy of not authorizing charges once the budget was hit, telling folks that they'd have to get through the rest of the quarter without (unless it was mission critical.) At the same time, I started paying bonuses to managers based on how much they came in under budget (without running ops into the ground.) Lo and behold, inside of a year, things were much, much better!

Here's something to ponder: [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2121381"]The number of registered DC lobbyists has doubled since 2000[/url]. That ought to give anyone pause.

[kdubdub]

We need to get over that idea that Haliburton is the only company that can do the work in Iraq...(I beilive there was another american contractor that wanted it, I will investigate)

All politicans set there family and friends up to make all kinds of money. I am from Vegas and Harry Reid (a MORMON from Northern Nevada...crushes that "dirty Liberal" idea) has set up hiskids, who are environmental lawyers, with many consulting contracts dealing with various issues in Yucca Mountains.

I just say that to say that with Cheney being a former CEO of the company he will have no public or traceable contact to the former company but you don't think he lobbies for them behind closed doors?

It is just the way it is. Most politicians are using their influence to make money for friends, family, and themselves

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='Jul 8 2005, 01:41 AM']Don't worry tho-last month(June) the US lost 111,000 jobs.The money we save on the wages will help pay for it.
[right][post="111985"][/post][/right][/quote]

[url="http://www.sabcnews.com/economy/business/0,2172,107968,00.html"]jobs report[/url] - 146,000 GAINED in june

[url="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B777S80.htm?campaign_id=ap_news_up"]unemployment rate[/url] - 5.0% (dropped 0.1%)

[Beaker]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Jul 8 2005, 06:31 AM']What bothers me here is that i think you are arguing with me because you believe I am "on the other side" politically... I very well may not be... I am not a Democrat, nor am I "Liberal"..  I could easily have voted for a Republican (and have). I did not like John Kerry (but feel he is no worse than your average politician).

I just don't see how ANYONE can defend the government just handing out no bid contracts of this magnitude..  For one thing, it just isn't done that way. It was highly irregular for the government to have done this. N0w add on that there are currently about 5 seperate issues of fraud/price guaging that are currently being investigated/litigated and I thnk you would have to be pretty dense to not think this is a problem.
[right][post="111977"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

That question was about as non-partisan as you can get. I read your posts, contemplated your rant, and was trying to identify why these "facts" you were railing against were so important to you.

You claim it was a no bid situation, but had no link or info backing that claim up.

You claim Cheney is getting richer because of it. My opinion is so what, I dont buy into the "have/have not" and "big bad corporation" rhetoric. So tell me how is Cheney getting richer hurting you?

How is any of it (explained your way), hurting you directly? Thats what I was interested in hearing, not big bad gov't paranoia stories.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:28 AM'][url="http://www.sabcnews.com/economy/business/0,2172,107968,00.html"]jobs report[/url] - 146,000 GAINED in june

[url="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B777S80.htm?campaign_id=ap_news_up"]unemployment rate[/url] - 5.0% (dropped 0.1%)


[right][post="112055"][/post][/right][/quote]

Don't get too excited, [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm"]read the actual report[/url]. I'd suggest reviewing the explanatory note, too. That explains how the numbers are derived.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 8 2005, 08:55 AM']A very good post. I wonder how you can solve this sort of problem in government?

In business, it's fairly easy. I encountered this when I entered upper management at a previous job. Quarterly and annual budgets were often overspent, with justifications by the department heads--sometimes reasonable, sometimes lame. We instituted a policy of not authorizing charges once the budget was hit, telling folks that they'd have to get through the rest of the quarter without (unless it was mission critical.) At the same time, I started paying bonuses to managers based on how much they came in under budget (without running ops into the ground.) Lo and behold, inside of a year, things were much, much better!

Here's something to ponder: [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2121381"]The number of registered DC lobbyists has doubled since 2000[/url]. That ought to give anyone pause.
[right][post="112032"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


I've thought about this some, and I'd propose something like this....

A average contract is about 5 years, I would propose that at the beginning of the contract you do a rough shot analysis of your 5 year budget (something that happens already) and if you save money each year, rather than give it back or lose it next year you put that money into a interest baring savings account until the end of the contract, once the contract is ended I would say the company gets to keep half plus the interest and then the rest goes back to the goverment to do with as they please. I would imagine that there could be a lot of money saved and used elsewhere, where needed, if we did something like that.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 8 2005, 11:59 AM']Don't get too excited, [url="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm"]read the actual report[/url]. I'd suggest reviewing the explanatory note, too. That explains how the numbers are derived.
[right][post="112104"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

homer, i'm reading the actual report, but i'm not seeing your point... first of all, i was simply pointing out that he said we lost over 100k jobs last month and he was dead wrong... but if you want to get into the "economy sucks" discussion, i'd love to b/c i don't know where you get these ideas from... our U.E. rate (slowly but surely) continues to get lower, we are creating jobs hand over fist... inflation seems to be in check, rates are continueing to go up showing that our economy can take it, the terror attacks in england did nothing to the stock market yesturday showing that the markets are getting smarter and figuring in terror attacks... besides the trade deficit (which is most in part b/c of the chinese currency situtation) where is our economy in trouble at??

heres some tidbits from the report you posted:

[i]The number of long-term unemployed persons--those unemployed 27 weeks or longer--fell to 1.3 million in June. This group accounted for 17.8 percent
of total unemployment, down from 20.1 percent in May. (See table A-9.)[/i]

most of the jump came from long term U.E. .. thats a good thing

[i]In June, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
compared with 1.5 million a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were
available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months.
They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively
search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 476,000
discouraged workers in June, essentially the same as a year earlier. Dis-
couraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently
looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available
for them. The other 1.1 million marginally attached had not searched for
work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-13.)[/i]

these are the lazy fuckers in the US... the U.E. figures used to figure in 5% (somewhere around that) b/c people assumed that a certain amount of people wouldn't work for any reason... we had to adjust those numbers since, but it is still true to a point...

about reading the exporatory note... i'm still not following you:

[i]People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following
criteria: They had no employment during the reference week; they were
available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find
employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference
week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be
looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The unemployment data
derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the eligibility
for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.[/i]

sound defintion, if you ask me... its not like bush changed the defintion of "jobs created" and "unemployment" to make himself look better...

ahh ha... i think i found your point:

[i]Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern
each year, their influence on statistical trends can be eliminated by ad-
justing the statistics from month to month. These adjustments make non-
seasonal developments, such as declines in economic activity or increases
in the participation of women in the labor force, easier to spot. [b]For
example, the large number of youth entering the labor force each June is
likely to obscure any other changes that have taken place relative to May,
making it difficult to determine if the level of economic activity has risen
or declined. However, because the effect of students finishing school in
previous years is known, the statistics for the current year can be adjusted
to allow for a comparable change.[/b] Insofar as the seasonal adjustment is made
correctly, the adjusted figure provides a more useful tool with which to ana-
lyze changes in economic activity.[/i]


they are adjusted from the year before though, so i still don't totally understand...

if i'm still missing your point, please point it out to me, but it doesn't seem bad at all... i do realize that we must create around 150,000 jobs a month, to keep up w/ population growth, so it wasn't a barn burning month, but far from a bad month too... we are averaging around that for the last 3 months...