Obama-Robbing Hood? Stealing Money from Oil Companies

[longeyes]

Since when did the safety net become every American trapped in a net, with government holding the trident?

If America ever permits an Obama to go forward with this kind of institutionalized robbery, this nation is over.

[freakazoid]

If America ever permits an Obama to go forward with this kind of institutionalized robbery, this nation is over.

I think it has been over a long time ago. Although the Heller ruling did give me a little hope.

[longeyes]

For some reason, despite apocalyptic leanings, I remain a cockeyed optimist--for the long term.  The next several years look, well, gnarly.

[macadore]

How is this not bribery? "Vote for me, and I'll take money from those big evil oil companies and give it to You!"

Its not bribery when Bush takes money from the rest of us and gives it to Halliburton?  How much do we spend protecting the international oil companies investments in the Middle East? Companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, British Petroleum and so on should foot the entire cost of the war. Its a matter of who gets the bribe, the rich or the rest of us.  So far, it hasnt been the rest of us.

[m1911owner]

Its not bribery when Bush takes money from the rest of us and gives it to Halliburton?

What, exactly, should President Bush have done to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq, if not hire Haliburton?

How much do we spend protecting the international oil companies investments in the Middle East? Companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, British Petroleum and so on should foot the entire cost of the war. Its a matter of who gets the bribe, the rich or the rest of us.  So far, it hasnt been the rest of us.

OK, the country who is our enemy happens to be an exporter of oil, so therefore the war was to benefit oil companies?  I'm afraid I'm not seeing it.  You're going to have to make a lot better case than what you've already made before that makes any sense to a rational person.

So, did President Bush engineer the September 11 attacks, or did the oil companies do that on their own?   

[MicroBalrog]

So, did President Bush engineer the September 11 attacks, or did the oil companies do that on their own?   rolleyes

What did 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? I don't remember Iraq attacking America.

[m1911owner]

What did 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? I don't remember Iraq attacking America.

Hosted the training camp where the 9/11 hijackers trained to take over airliners.  Funded terrorists.  Sheltered terrorists.  What do you want?--fighter escorts with Iraqi markings escorting the airliners as they flew into the World Trade Center?

[MicroBalrog]

What did 9/11 have to do with the war in Iraq? I don't remember Iraq attacking America.

Hosted the training camp where the 9/11 hijackers trained to take over airliners.  Funded terrorists.  Sheltered terrorists.  What do you want?--fighter escorts with Iraqi markings escorting the airliners as they flew into the World Trade Center?

1. Out of the 19 hijackers, which trained in Iraq? I looked over their biographies on the wiki and no mention of any of them ever visitng that country.

2. Iraq funded terrorists belonging to a variety of organizations, but did not surpport Al-Quaeda.

Look, you're attempting to claim macadore is a conspiracy theorist because he says big corporations have too big of a role in Washington? I fail to see how this is wrong, or inconsistent with what we know about big government.

Where government gets really huge, and is capable of making a company mindblowingly wealthy or destroying its source of income with a movement of the legislative or regulatory pen, there is a huge enticement for corporations to try and influence the government one way or the other - including bribing politicans, sicing regulatory agencies on competitors, and so forth.

[m1911owner]

1. Out of the 19 hijackers, which trained in Iraq? I looked over their biographies on the wiki and no mention of any of them ever visitng that country.

OK, none of the hijackers has admitted to training there.  That's, umm, a big surprise. 

2. Iraq funded terrorists belonging to a variety of organizations, but did not surpport Al-Quaeda.

I frankly don't care if the the Islamic terrorists call themselves al Qaeda, Black September, Hamas, or Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts' Club Band.  Same company, different division.  Clean out the whole mess.

Look, you're attempting to claim macadore is a conspiracy theorist because he says big corporations have too big of a role in Washington? I fail to see how this is wrong, or inconsistent with what we know about big government.

Sorry, I am unable to make the leap from "the government is too big" to "the Iraq war was ordered by the oil companies."  "A" is hardly proof of "B".

Where government gets really huge, and is capable of making a company mindblowingly wealthy or destroying its source of income with a movement of the legislative or regulatory pen, there is a huge enticement for corporations to try and influence the government one way or the other - including bribing politicans, sicing regulatory agencies on competitors, and so forth.

No argument there.  Nevertheless, it still doesn't demonstrate that the oil companies ordered the Iraq war, rather than the obvious reason that we are fighting Islamic terrorism.

[MicroBalrog]

OK, none of the hijackers has admitted to training there.  That's, umm, a big surprise.  rolleyes

The 19 hijackers are all dead, they can't 'admit' to training there. The point is, noe of the agencies that investigated 9/11 six ways from Sunday brought up any information about these people training in Iraq.

Sorry, I am unable to make the leap from "the government is too big" to "the Iraq war was ordered by the oil companies."  "A" is hardly proof of "B".

I'm not trying to prove that "the IRaq war was ordered by the oil companies".

I would however argue that the idea "that the oil companies (especially Haliburton) and defense contractors have a vested interested in increased tensions in the  Middle East", while possibly wrong (I've not studied the issue as I frankly don't care either way about America's policy in the ME) is nowhere near as crazed as "America and the Jews planned 9/11".

Conflating them is almost as bad as invoking Hitler in arguments.

[macadore]

What, exactly, should President Bush have done to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq, if not hire Haliburton?

Why, exactly, should I have to pay anyone to rebuild anything in Iraq?

[FTA84]

The problem wasn't that they hired Halliburton.

The problem was how they hired Halliburton.

Basically, it seems Halliburton was given a blank cheque contract to do whatever the US government asked them to.  From what I have seen, hiring Halliburton to do what it did would be like giving your maid a blank check to fly a helicopter.  Basically, they had no expertise in what they were doing, but they would just do it and send the cheque later.  In all fairness, they hired some other contractors in the same style.  The problem is that they all had some connection to the Bush administration.

If Cheney had been VP of Lockheed-Martin, I wouldn't have said anything if they gave them a blank cheque to design a new fighter jet that was needed for the desert war.  However, it was more like hiring LM to run an investment bank.  Furthermore, the government found out that they were abusing the blank cheque privelage (they were running empty trucks, double billing and charging $40 for each coke sold when you can buy coke in Israel and ship it to Iraq for 10 cents).  The Pentagon estimated that something like $100 million was junk charges.  How come they still got paid?

A real waste of tax payer dollars

[m1911owner]

Why, exactly, should I have to pay anyone to rebuild anything in Iraq?

Because, once having invaded and occupied the country, you have a moral, not to mention legal (under international treaties), obligation to establish some reasonable sort of order. 

And you have not answered the question: What, exactly, should President Bush have done to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq, if not hire Haliburton?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What, exactly, should President Bush have done to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq, if not hire Haliburton?

Why, exactly, should I have to pay anyone to rebuild anything in Iraq?

Because it is in your country's national interests to do so.

[m1911owner]

The problem wasn't that they hired Halliburton.

The problem was how they hired Halliburton.

Basically, it seems Halliburton was given a blank cheque contract to do whatever the US government asked them to.  From what I have seen, hiring Halliburton to do what it did would be like giving your maid a blank check to fly a helicopter.  Basically, they had no expertise in what they were doing, but they would just do it and send the cheque later.  In all fairness, they hired some other contractors in the same style.  The problem is that they all had some connection to the Bush administration.

If Cheney had been VP of Lockheed-Martin, I wouldn't have said anything if they gave them a blank cheque to design a new fighter jet that was needed for the desert war.  However, it was more like hiring LM to run an investment bank.  Furthermore, the government found out that they were abusing the blank cheque privelage (they were running empty trucks, double billing and charging $40 for each coke sold when you can buy coke in Israel and ship it to Iraq for 10 cents).  The Pentagon estimated that something like $100 million was junk charges.  How come they still got paid?

A real waste of tax payer dollars

Again, do you have a better suggestion?  I understand that Haliburton is one of two or three companies that have the capability to do the job that needed to be done.  Your characterization of their abilities notwithstanding, it appears to me that, in general, they have managed to accomplish the job that needs to be done, which was the point of hiring them in the first place.

Do you have a suggestion for another company that is obviously a far better choice?

The waste and inefficiency are unfortunate.  They are, however, endemic to government and government programs.  You have not presented one iota of evidence that any other company could have done the job more efficiently, nor have you presented any evidence that any other company has in the past done the same job with materially higher efficiency.

[FTA84]

Do you have a suggestion for another company that is obviously a far better choice?[\Quote]

Again, since they just hired any old company to do any old job on a blank cheque, you why did it have to be ones connected to the administration?

If I gave you a stack of blank cheques, I am sure you could get some inefficent company up and running and in Iraq in a few months.

[m1911owner]

Do you have a suggestion for another company that is obviously a far better choice?

Again, since they just hired any old company to do any old job on a blank cheque, you why did it have to be ones connected to the administration?

If I gave you a stack of blank cheques, I am sure you could get some inefficent company up and running and in Iraq in a few months.

Since you again haven't answered the question, I will take it as an admission of defeat on your part.

However, since I'm a nice guy , I'll give it one more try: Please name just one company that is more qualified for the job than Halliburton.  Certainly, if your complaints have any credibility at all, that shouldn't be hard.

[macadore]

Because, once having invaded and occupied the country, you have a moral, not to mention legal (under international treaties), obligation to establish some reasonable sort of order.

According to whom?

And you have not answered the question: What, exactly, should President Bush have done to rebuild infrastructure in Iraq, if not hire Haliburton?

I answered your question. You just did not like the answer. Let their filthy rich neighbors rebuild them. Let their brothers in faith rebuild them. Let them rebuild themselves, or not.

Because it is in your country's national interests to do so.

Bull. It is in my countrys interest to spend billions fighting the Sunni/*expletive deleted*it war that has been going on for centuries, while our own citizens do not have adequate health care? It is in this countrys best to be the nanny state to the rest of the world, but not to its own citizens? It is robbery to raise taxes on the rich to help everyone else in the U.S. but is not robbery to take money from everyone else to subsidize the rich and defend their investments? Billions to defend OPEC but the back of the hand for our own citizens? Thats perverse.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Because it is in your country's national interests to do so.

Bull. It is in my countrys interest to spend billions fighting the Sunni/*expletive deleted*it war that has been going on for centuries, while our own citizens do not have adequate health care? It is in this countrys best to be the nanny state to the rest of the world, but not to its own citizens? It is robbery to raise taxes on the rich to help everyone else in the U.S. but is not robbery to take money from everyone else to subsidize the rich and defend their investments? Billions to defend OPEC but the back of the hand for our own citizens? Thats perverse.

Your country has spent orders of magnitude more money on the War on Poverty than it has on the War in Iraq, so spare us your ingrateful whining.

Wanna talk about war?  Let's talk about the War on Poverty.

When is it going to be time to declare the War on Poverty lost?  Clearly we need some timetables for withdrawing from the War on Poverty.  It's an untenable situation.  It's a quagmire.  The problems of poverty go back thousands of years, it's folly to think that we can solve these problems ourselves in just a few years.  Isn't about time we stopped wasting so much blood and treasure on the Left's hopeless War on Poverty?

Hrrmph.

At least we're winning in Iraq, at least we're accomplishing something good for our country and the world there.

I wish all of you leftists would just get the hell out of the way.   Let us drill for oil so the price of gas comes back down, and so that we don't have to import nearly so much from the middle east and elsewhere.  Let us clean up Iraq, so that our soldiers can come home.  And for gawds sake, quit taxing our citizens and our businesses half to death to pay for your stupid, pointless feel-good nanny programs.

[macadore]

Wanna talk about war?  Let's talk about the War on Poverty.

Are you changing the subject because you feel you cannot debate the original topic?

I wish all of you leftists would just get the hell out of the way.

Is anyone who disagrees with you a leftist? The only reason to resort to stereotyping and name calling is because you do not have facts and logic on your side. 

Let us drill for oil so the price of gas comes back down, and so that we don't have to import nearly so much from the middle east and elsewhere.

Great idea. Lets also regulate the price of domestic oil so OPEC and Russia cannot continue to control the price of oil and thereby control the worlds economy. Lets guarantee a minimum price for domestic oil so the next time OPEC drops the price of oil to $8.50 per barrel our domestic producers can continue producing their wells rather than plugging them. If we had done this in 1983, we would not be here now. Instead, the Democrats pushed trough a windfall profits tax that was only paid by domestic producers. OPEC got a free pass. Sole entrepreneurs cannot compete with governments.

Let us clean up Iraq, so that our soldiers can come home.

Thats a pipe dream.  Quit being nanny to the world and bring the troops home from everywhere. Start with Europe. We have propped up their economy and protected them since 1942. Enough. Let them pull their own weight. Then bring the troops home from Korea and finally from the Middle East.

And for gawds sake, quit taxing our citizens and our businesses half to death to pay for your stupid, pointless feel-good nanny programs.

So you "feel good nanny programs" for the rest of the world meet with your approval, but nanny programs for our own citizens do not? You keep changing the subject because you can not argue this point. Bushs last budget called for more tax breaks for the rich, more money for the war, and cuts in Medicare. Raising Medicare premiums and co-pays on indigent 75 year old widows so the rich will have more money and they can continue profiting from the rest of us pumping money into Iraq is obscene.

You do realize some people are getting richer off of this war dont you?  They also pay a substantially smaller percentage of their income in taxes than people working for minimum wage. They control the media and do their best to tell you otherwise and you have bought their propaganda. I have noticed how you throw their terms around (e.g., socialism, nanny state, leftist). Try debating this issue without repeating their propaganda and using their terms.

[FTA84]

Do you have a suggestion for another company that is obviously a far better choice?

Again, since they just hired any old company to do any old job on a blank cheque, you why did it have to be ones connected to the administration?

If I gave you a stack of blank cheques, I am sure you could get some inefficent company up and running and in Iraq in a few months.

Since you again haven't answered the question, I will take it as an admission of defeat on your part.

However, since I'm a nice guy , I'll give it one more try: Please name just one company that is more qualified for the job than Halliburton.  Certainly, if your complaints have any credibility at all, that shouldn't be hard.

You seem to have trouble comprehending, sir.  I have said it once (in the first post) and then said it again in the second post.  ANY COMPANY COULD DO AS GOOD AS A JOB (to ask for a company that is more qualified is flawed, since you are asking to name a company to do something no company has ever done before).  I MEAN ANY! McDonald's, Toys 'R' Us, Wal-Mart (they even have the trucks and the worker volume so it may be cheaper), the salvation army, probably even your mom.

[longeyes]

Your country has spent orders of magnitude more money on the War on Poverty than it has on the War in Iraq, so spare us your ingrateful, whining.
Wanna talk about war?  Let's talk about the War on Poverty.
When is it going to be time to declare the War on Poverty lost?  Clearly we need some timetables for withdrawing from the War on Poverty.  It's an untenable situation.  It's a quagmire.  The problems of poverty go back thousands of years, it's folly to think that we can solve these problems ourselves in just a few years.  Isn't about time we stopped wasting so much blood and treasure on the Left's hopeless War on Poverty?
Hrrmph.
At least we're winning in Iraq, at least we're accomplishing something good for our country and the world there.

+!

And ditto the War on Drugs.

[wmenorr67]

Now he wants to open up the oil reserves to lower gas prices.  What a dumba$$.  Why don't you help streamline putting more refineries online.  That would help more than adding more oil to the line when you can't refine it.

[Ben]

Now he wants to open up the oil reserves to lower gas prices.  What a dumba$$.

Actually if it's timed right, for pandering to "The Masses" it's a good idea. There's a very short term drop in prices that would last just through the election. Then of course because we have to once again start setting oil aside to put back into the reserve, because it's a STRATEGIC (what part of that does he not understand) reserve, prices will spike back up because consumer supply goes back down.

It's the same crap Pelosi is pandering. She now claims drilling will only reduce gas prices by 2 cents a gallon, ten years from now, but dropping a limited supply of reserve oil into the consumer market will have significant and "permanent" effect. Dimwits will believe her.

[Regolith]

Do you have a suggestion for another company that is obviously a far better choice?

Again, since they just hired any old company to do any old job on a blank cheque, you why did it have to be ones connected to the administration?

If I gave you a stack of blank cheques, I am sure you could get some inefficent company up and running and in Iraq in a few months.

Since you again haven't answered the question, I will take it as an admission of defeat on your part.

However, since I'm a nice guy , I'll give it one more try: Please name just one company that is more qualified for the job than Halliburton.  Certainly, if your complaints have any credibility at all, that shouldn't be hard.

You seem to have trouble comprehending, sir.  I have said it once (in the first post) and then said it again in the second post.  ANY COMPANY COULD DO AS GOOD AS A JOB (to ask for a company that is more qualified is flawed, since you are asking to name a company to do something no company has ever done before).  I MEAN ANY! McDonald's, Toys 'R' Us, Wal-Mart (they even have the trucks and the worker volume so it may be cheaper), the salvation army, probably even your mom.

Are you kidding me?  Seriously, I hope you are.  NONE of those companies have the resources or infrastructure needed to rebuild the infrastructure of an entire nation.  Not a single one.  Do you even understand what is involved in such an endeavor?  I'm starting to wonder if you're really trying to debate or just trolling.