Why did a bridge contract for San Fransisco to to China?

Tell me that did not happen, OR is there a legitimate reason?

Because they are our friends and they love us. Silly child. Someone got "kick back" bucks.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

Why did a bridge contract for San Fransisco to to China?

Tell me that did not happen, OR is there a legitimate reason?

FactCheck.org : Did Obama ‘Approve’ Bridge Work for Chinese Firms?

This is a prime example of the economic concept "competitive advantage". The states mentioned won't admit it but they wanted to avoid higher cost unions and their demands. Remember the state of California is about under.

This really is an amazing place. President Obama is blamed for all kinds of stuff well below his pay grade. So it turns out it wasn't federal money at all, and that the decision to hire Chinese contractors was done by three states--California, Alaska and New York. President Obama had nothing to do with letting federal contracts to repair bridges, much to the dismay of the conservative blogger who initiated the story.

But maybe there are a couple of other questions to be considered...

--Was the Chinese firm the low bidder on the contracts?

--Was the Chinese firm more experienced and qualified to perform the work than others who bid on he job?

--Were the contracts let at the state level, as reported, to avoid egregious federal regulations governing such work?

--Does anyone really believe that the President of the United States actually took the time to intervene in the awarding of bridge maintenance contracts in California, Alaska and New York? Really?

--And last but not least, why wouldn't we let the country who keeps our fiscal ship afloat by buying our bonds benefit by doing business in the U.S., maybe winning ties in the awarding of government contracts? Frankly, keeping China happy sounds like a good idea to me.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

This really is an amazing place. President Obama is blamed for all kinds of stuff well below his pay grade. So it turns out it wasn't federal money at all, and that the decision to hire Chinese contractors was done by three sates--California, Alaska and New York. President Obama had nothing to do with letting federal contracts to repair bridges, much to the dismay of the conservative blogger who initiated the story.

But maybe there are a couple of other questions to be considered...

--Was the Chinese firm the low bidder on the contracts?

--Was the Chinese firm more experienced and qualified to perform the work than others who bid on he job?

--Were the contracts let at the state level, as reported, to avoid egregious federal regulations governing such work?

--And last but not least, why wouldn't we let the county who keeps our fiscal ship afloat by buying our bonds benefit by doing business in the U.S., maybe winning ties in the warding of government contracts? Frankly, keeping China happy sounds like a good idea to me.

Just briefly...Nope Obama did not do it, however please keep in mind that it has been for years public sport to blame the President for almost anything. Do you recall how Bush got the heat for so much that he was not, or even was the government, just like this.

Besides you finding this an "amazing place"...please maintain that attitude wen folks post non factual pieces they found on the net and posted as fact. I try very hard to designate my links as opinion when they are.....but folks are always passing things off here as fact..please come back and call them amazing also

I thought the name of the game was jobs.

We could use a little dose of protectionism whether some like it or not. All other countries in the world do.

Obama could come out long and hard about the states that are not doing the right thing to create/save jobs.

I guess it depends on which and whose political page the issue falls.

Very much needed consistent goals for job creation. Very inconsistent application by politicians.

Jobs for USA workers....remember?

btk

Did I miss something? Where and when on this forum was Obama blamed for this bridge I'be never heard about?

Why are people defending someone who wasn't accused?

You know how some folks are. If its wrong, it must be Obama.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

You know how some folks are. If its wrong, it must be Obama.

That's not quite correct. "If it's Obama, it must be wrong"; there's a distinct difference.