Post by: charby on August 01, 2008, 06:51:07 AM
Quote
Obama's 'emergency' economic plan
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/1/08 9:38 AM EST Text Size:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an Emergency Economic Plan that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls windfall profits from Big Oil.
Details are in this six-page policy paper. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_emergencyeconplan.html
The first part of Obamas plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.
This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months, Obama said. Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt
Separately, Obamas plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.
Half of the money would go to state governments, which are facing big budget shortfalls, and half would be used for national infrastructure, including replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, rebuilding roads and bridges, and repairing schools.
Obama announced his plan 27 minutes after a Labor Department report showed unemployment hit a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July the highest rate since March 2004, when it was 5.8 percent.
We need to do more, Obama said in a statement. Thats why today Im announcing a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track.
McCain reacted to the surprisingly dour jobs report with a two-paragraph statement: "Across this country, Americans are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest reminder of the economic challenges we face. ... Unlike Sen. Obama, I do not believe that raising taxes is the answer to our economic problems. There is no surer way to force jobs overseas than to raise taxes on businesses.
Obama announced his plan for a windfall profits tax on oil companies on June 9 in Raleigh, N.C., as he launched a two-week economic tour after clinching the Democratic nomination.
Fridays proposal says Obama is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.
Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now, the campaign says.
By MIKE ALLEN | 8/1/08 9:38 AM EST Text Size:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an Emergency Economic Plan that would give families a stimulus check of $1,000 each, funded in part by what his presidential campaign calls windfall profits from Big Oil.
Details are in this six-page policy paper. http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_emergencyeconplan.html
The first part of Obamas plan is an emergency energy rebate ($500 to individual workers, $1,000 to families) as soon as this fall.
This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months, Obama said. Or, if you live in a state where it gets very cold in the winter, it will be enough to cover the entire increase in your heating bills. Or you could use the rebate for any of your other bills or even to pay down debt
Separately, Obamas plan includes a $50 billion stimulus package that his campaign claims would save more than 1 million jobs.
Half of the money would go to state governments, which are facing big budget shortfalls, and half would be used for national infrastructure, including replenishing the Highway Trust Fund, rebuilding roads and bridges, and repairing schools.
Obama announced his plan 27 minutes after a Labor Department report showed unemployment hit a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July the highest rate since March 2004, when it was 5.8 percent.
We need to do more, Obama said in a statement. Thats why today Im announcing a two-part emergency plan to help struggling families make ends meet and get our economy back on track.
McCain reacted to the surprisingly dour jobs report with a two-paragraph statement: "Across this country, Americans are hurting and today's job numbers are just the latest reminder of the economic challenges we face. ... Unlike Sen. Obama, I do not believe that raising taxes is the answer to our economic problems. There is no surer way to force jobs overseas than to raise taxes on businesses.
Obama announced his plan for a windfall profits tax on oil companies on June 9 in Raleigh, N.C., as he launched a two-week economic tour after clinching the Democratic nomination.
Fridays proposal says Obama is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.
Obama simply asks that big oil companies contribute a reasonable share of the windfall profits they receive from high oil prices over the next five years to pay for emergency assistance for families right now, the campaign says.
I have been calling Obama a communist for quite a while, apperently I have been right all along. I can't believe that 45% of the latest poll wants to vote for this guy! Are people that stupid to realize all this rob the rich to pay the poor is going to do nothing but raise consumer prices. Companies don't want to loose money so all extra taxes gets passed on to the consumer.
So is Obama going to mandate a price freeze before this stimulus check?
So have stimulus checks now going to become part of life is the press starts to whine about a recession?
Post by: agricola on August 01, 2008, 07:11:11 AM
Still, if they are coming up with this rubbish now then they must really be concerned at McCain still being in the race.
Post by: HankB on August 01, 2008, 07:17:47 AM
So is Obama going to mandate a price freeze before this stimulus check?
Well, the consumer price freeze Mugabe ordered worked so well in Zimbabwe . . .
Post by: The Annoyed Man on August 01, 2008, 07:39:28 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 01, 2008, 07:52:27 AM
That man should be run out of town with pitchforks.
Post by: El Tejon on August 01, 2008, 08:10:11 AM
Quote
"Across this country, Americans are hurting
Yeah, um, Barry, we had 1.9% growth last quarter. The people that are "hurting" . . . government is the one doing the hurting.
Barry, since you communists are all about "plans", here's Comrade El Tejon's Dva-Part plan for the New Soviet, er, American Economy:
1. Leave us alone.
2. Abolish the Capital Gains Tax.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 01, 2008, 08:50:10 AM
Post by: Waitone on August 01, 2008, 08:55:19 AM
Post by: Nick1911 on August 01, 2008, 08:56:29 AM
ABOLISH GAS TAX.
Post by: French G. on August 01, 2008, 09:12:46 AM
Quote
Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a “short-term, quick-fix” proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges.
In 2000, Mr. Obama supported a bill in the Illinois legislature to suspend most of the state’s 6.25 percent gasoline sales tax. But he later opposed making the reduction permanent, arguing that the state needed the revenue and that the measure had saved consumers little.
In 2000, Mr. Obama supported a bill in the Illinois legislature to suspend most of the state’s 6.25 percent gasoline sales tax. But he later opposed making the reduction permanent, arguing that the state needed the revenue and that the measure had saved consumers little.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217614150-53M7NFwNtFyK3XuoE1LirA
Of course big oil pays corporate taxes on oil revenue too. Combine that and the Federal excise tax and do exactly what he proposes to send us all a check on the gov't dime!
I have a feeling that a lot of the "earmarked" excise tax money never makes it to concrete on roads.
Oh wait, we had this discussion already re. offshore drilling. Everything is a short term quick fix to the energy and economy crises except for whatever pet socialist plan they have like this "windfall tax" scheme or emptying the SPR so we can really be at the mercy of world oil prices when it is gone.
I think I have a new plan for life. If I hear anyone say "carbon footprint, windfall, Algore, wind turbine, fair share, change, we need to do more, etc." I will just assume they are a foreign spy and kick them in the junk.
Post by: longeyes on August 01, 2008, 03:50:51 PM
Post by: freakazoid on August 01, 2008, 06:16:53 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 01, 2008, 06:57:50 PM
How many times do I have to explain that he is not a communist/socialist?
He isn't communist/socialist? You're talking about Obama here, right? The same Obama the rest of us are talking about...?
Post by: FTA84 on August 01, 2008, 07:42:40 PM
Classic example: A friend of mine from highschool went to art school, not just any art school, a fancy private art school (I will grant she is a gifted artist). She came from a working class family so took out student loans. She wouldn't listen to anyone that it was a waste of money. She was insistant that she would make it big time in NYC after graduating the $200k debt would be gone! And if that failed, she would meet and marry one of those elitist rich art snobs that would take care of her. In her third year, she got herself pregnant by some dead beat gangster type. Managed to graduate, with the kid, but couldn't have afford to get her career started because of the kid. So, she waited tables, babysat, ect to pay the bills. Of course, having dead beat boyfriends the whole time. One of these guys with no real finanical future knocked her up again. His parents made him marry her even though he is 37 and works at fast food joint. She has since stopped working because waiting tables she can't cover the cost of taking care of the kids so they just live on welfare. Stay home and do drugs. Anytime they find money they blow it (because they are already in terrible credit card debt and student loan debt).
Now, I talked to her the other day. She is voting for BHO because he will "change" her situation. That is, he will give her free money to continue to make bad choices that the rest of productive society has to pay with. She hates McCain because he won't be increasing hand-outs. The sad part, it is the kids that suffer.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 01, 2008, 08:52:28 PM
Quote
Now, I talked to her the other day. She is voting for BHO because he will "change" her situation. That is, he will give her free money to continue to make bad choices that the rest of productive society has to pay with. She hates McCain because he won't be increasing hand-outs. The sad part, it is the kids that suffer.
The good thing is she will probably "forget" to vote and so it won't matter. Ask her how many other times she voted.
Post by: El Tejon on August 02, 2008, 05:20:39 AM
Quote
How many times do I have to explain that he is not a communist/socialist?
B. Hussein Obama is most certainly a post-American socialist. Michelle is a dirty-mouthed Communist.
Post by: longeyes on August 02, 2008, 07:04:24 AM
Post by: freakazoid on August 02, 2008, 09:45:08 AM
Quote
B. Hussein Obama is most certainly a post-American socialist. Michelle is a dirty-mouthed Communist.
So your telling me that he wishes to put the proletariat in control of the means of production, and turn this contry into a stateless classless society!? Ha.
Also why do people sometimes say Baracks and Hillaries middle name sometimes?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 02, 2008, 09:57:04 AM
Quote
B. Hussein Obama is most certainly a post-American socialist. Michelle is a dirty-mouthed Communist.
So your telling me that he wishes to put the proletariat in control of the means of production, and turn this contry into a stateless classless society!? Ha.
Also why do people sometimes say Baracks and Hillaries middle name sometimes?
The same reason they call Bush "Dubya" after his middle name, because it exists?
Oh, noes, can't say their real middle name!
Post by: m1911owner on August 02, 2008, 10:09:42 AM
Follow the Constitution of the United States.
(Yes, yes, I know. That would mean about a 90% reduction in the size of government, so we can't do that.)
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 02, 2008, 10:11:40 AM
Introducing M1911's Economic Stimulus package:
Follow the Constitution of the United States.
(Yes, yes, I know. That would mean about a 90% reduction in the size of government, so we can't do that.)
Follow the Constitution of the United States.
(Yes, yes, I know. That would mean about a 90% reduction in the size of government, so we can't do that.)
You mean the government is currently not following the Constitution? You're a crazed tinfoil hatter. Probably still live in Mom's garage, too.
Post by: freakazoid on August 02, 2008, 03:03:15 PM
Quote
The same reason they call Bush "Dubya" after his middle name, because it exists?
Dubya is a nickname. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are not, that is there full name. How often do you refer to people by there full name? When I read the paper I never see anybody refered by there full name, sometimes by there first or there last and sometimes by there first and last but never by there full name. The only time I see someone refered by there full name is when it is with Hillary or Obama, as if nobody knows who these people are. I think it started with Obama because they were trying to subtly link him with being a muslim,
as if that would even be a bad thing. And to cover themselves they started doing it with Hillary too.
Post by: FTA84 on August 02, 2008, 05:36:09 PM
Quote
The same reason they call Bush "Dubya" after his middle name, because it exists?
Dubya is a nickname. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama are not, that is there full name. How often do you refer to people by there full name? When I read the paper I never see anybody refered by there full name, sometimes by there first or there last and sometimes by there first and last but never by there full name. The only time I see someone refered by there full name is when it is with Hillary or Obama, as if nobody knows who these people are. I think it started with Obama because they were trying to subtly link him with being a muslim,
as if that would even be a bad thing. And to cover themselves they started doing it with Hillary too.a) Rodham is not her middle name (Diane is). It is her maiden name. I am guessing they do it to connect her to her father's good name. Same reason it was Teresa Heinz Kerry, so you may like her because of your love of the family catsup. Also the same with John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
b) By "Dubya" he meant George W. Bush.
I think middle names come and go. George W. Bush is simply to not confuse this George Bush with his father. Same for John Quincy Adams. Why not John Q. Adams? Because it sounds stupid. Which sounds better? BO or BHO?
Post by: longeyes on August 02, 2008, 07:43:22 PM
If I were married to Theresa and she were still using the name of her dead ex I'd be wondering where exactly I really fit into her universe, but that's a question "war hero" John Kerry doesn't dare ask so long as he needs wifey's money to play in the political sandbox. Exactly what message is Theresa sending?
Post by: Boomhauer on August 02, 2008, 08:22:38 PM
Quote
How is this not bribery? "Vote for me, and I'll take money from those big evil oil companies and give it to You!"
What? You think this BS is anything new? It's a standard policy of the Dems...vote for us, and we will take more money from the taxpayers and give it to you in the form of more handouts...it is vote buying, plain and simple...
But when Republicans want to reverse it, suddenly Big Mediatm (that's what I am calling them now, 'cause prefacing anything with Big automatically means they are evil) gets in a tizzy...
Quote
Also why do people sometimes say Baracks and Hillaries middle name sometimes?
I don't call Obama by his middle name...my typical name for him goes something like "That G(%d$*n F%*$ing Communist SOB" (and that is one of the more polite names I have called him)
Post by: longeyes on August 03, 2008, 06:04:39 AM
If America ever permits an Obama to go forward with this kind of institutionalized robbery, this nation is over.
Post by: freakazoid on August 03, 2008, 09:24:08 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: longeyes on August 03, 2008, 12:43:32 PM
Post by: macadore on August 03, 2008, 01:29:15 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 02:34:05 PM
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?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 03, 2008, 02:35:13 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 02:48:08 PM
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?
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 03, 2008, 02:58:08 PM
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.
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 03:50:07 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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".
Quote
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.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 03, 2008, 03:55:26 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: macadore on August 03, 2008, 05:33:02 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: FTA84 on August 03, 2008, 05:36:27 PM
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
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 05:49:52 PM
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?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 03, 2008, 05:56:02 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 06:03:54 PM
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
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.
Post by: FTA84 on August 03, 2008, 06:39:02 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: m1911owner on August 03, 2008, 07:13:33 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: macadore on August 03, 2008, 07:26:08 PM
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 03, 2008, 08:47:52 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: macadore on August 04, 2008, 03:58:51 AM
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: FTA84 on August 04, 2008, 04:50:54 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: longeyes on August 04, 2008, 06:07:42 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: wmenorr67 on August 04, 2008, 06:09:34 AM
Post by: Ben on August 04, 2008, 06:16:32 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Regolith on August 04, 2008, 06:18:19 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 06:18:37 AM
Post by: FTA84 on August 04, 2008, 06:22:57 AM
Quote
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.
My point is Halliburton didn't have the resources or infrastructure either. They were given a blank cheque and bought up the infrastructure they needed. Anyone could do that.
Yes I must be a troll because I disagree with the more "senior" members of the board.
Seriously, a large part of Halliburton was designed at delievering goods and services to troops. The main part of this being (supplies, food, household items, many things they sell at Wal-Mart) and trucks to get them there. Wal-mart has this covered. They have vendors, trucks, ect. Add in some blank cheque expenses for them to buy things like mobile homes and it could be done.
What was Halliburton's great infrastructure? Were they already building nations??
Post by: agricola on August 04, 2008, 06:32:00 AM
Taking oil out of the strategic reserve makes about as much sense as using your only CO2 fire extinguisher to chill a beer. You'll just have to have it recharged at great expense, and if there's a fire, you're in trouble.
Exactly. What is mystifying to me is that the Dems seem to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that, if they did allow offshore drilling and ANWR to be opened up, they would have that much more money to
At least over here Brown has realised that the spike in the price of oil is actually (for the Government finances, if not the population) a good thing.
Post by: El Tejon on August 04, 2008, 07:23:18 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 08:04:51 AM
CURRENT SPR INVENTORY AS OF August 04, 2008
SWEET SOUR TOTAL
283.5 million bbls 423.7 million bbls 707.2
So if Iran started something in the Straits, we'd have...oops. Not enough.
A preview of his management style, it seems.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 04, 2008, 08:06:23 AM
Do I misremember, or has His Greatness flipped another flop?
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 08:07:17 AM
I thought Obama was against opening the strategic reserve.
Do I misremember, or has His Greatness flipped another flop?
Do I misremember, or has His Greatness flipped another flop?
He flopped.
Quote
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Sen. Barack Obama suggested selling 70 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a speech on Monday, a move he said has lowered gasoline prices in two weeks when done in the past.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-suggests-tapping-oil-reserve/story.aspx?guid=%7B08AF73CC%2DD4B5%2D43D8%2D9E5D%2D4FF588B12850%7D&dist=hplatest
Post by: Scout26 on August 04, 2008, 08:16:13 AM
My point is Halliburton didn't have the resources or infrastructure either. They were given a blank cheque and bought up the infrastructure they needed. Anyone could do that.
And let's not forget who gave Halliburton those initial contracts that got their foot in the door....Wait for it.....William Jefferson Clinton !!!
Seriously, a large part of Halliburton was designed at delievering goods and services to troops. The main part of this being (supplies, food, household items, many things they sell at Wal-Mart) and trucks to get them there. Wal-mart has this covered. They have vendors, trucks, ect. Add in some blank cheque expenses for them to buy things like mobile homes and it could be done.
What was Halliburton's great infrastructure? Were they already building nations??
What was Halliburton's great infrastructure? Were they already building nations??
Yep, they were doing it in Bosnia and Kosovo. Plus they owned KBR:
Quote
Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR, is a major construction company of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. Halliburton announced on April 5, 2007 that it had finally broken ties with KBR, which has been its contracting, engineering and construction unit as a part of the company for 44 years.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp
Read and Learn....
I would rather have a bunch of engineers experienced with building refineries, pipelienes etc, then a bunch of Wal-Mart or MickeyD's drones doing the work of rebuiling the infastructure of a nation. But it's much easier to spit and scream "HATEBUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONEVIL, then to actually do the research and think.
Post by: Scout26 on August 04, 2008, 08:34:43 AM
How many times do I have to explain that he is not a communist/socialist?
Let's see Obama's Energy Plan:
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
Post by: longeyes on August 04, 2008, 10:15:26 AM
"Strategic" is not a concept BHO has mastered yet, although perhaps if his goal is to weaken our emergency military preparedness it makes superb sense.
Post by: Manedwolf on August 04, 2008, 10:20:26 AM
Open up the strategic reserves?
"Strategic" is not a concept BHO has mastered yet, although perhaps if his goal is to weaken our emergency military preparedness it makes superb sense.
"Strategic" is not a concept BHO has mastered yet, although perhaps if his goal is to weaken our emergency military preparedness it makes superb sense.
All part of being a citizen of the world.
Post by: FTA84 on August 04, 2008, 11:32:43 AM
Quote
But it's much easier to spit and scream "HATEBUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONEVIL, then to actually do the research and think.
I don't hate Bush or Cheney. I actually think they have done fairly well these late 8 years on security issues and the economy.
My statement about Halliburton is they simply had little more than what they purchased with these blank cheques. My point is, maybe they had some oil rigging equipment, but say they had no food service people. You could hire McDonalds and they would be experts in food service but not in oil rigs, so they would purchase oil riggers with their blank cheque. Effectively accomplishing the same job.
In any event, unlike yourself, I have a real job where people from all over the world contact me for my ideas and don't argue. I don't need to go floating around the internet screaming about how I am right. Therefore, as I often do, I resign from this thread. You can go on and post your love letters to Halliburton. I shan't be reading them.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on August 04, 2008, 12:16:49 PM
Quote
But it's much easier to spit and scream "HATEBUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONEVIL, then to actually do the research and think.
I don't hate Bush or Cheney. I actually think they have done fairly well these late 8 years on security issues and the economy.
My statement about Halliburton is they simply had little more than what they purchased with these blank cheques. My point is, maybe they had some oil rigging equipment, but say they had no food service people. You could hire McDonalds and they would be experts in food service but not in oil rigs, so they would purchase oil riggers with their blank cheque. Effectively accomplishing the same job.
In any event, unlike yourself, I have a real job where people from all over the world contact me for my ideas and don't argue. I don't need to go floating around the internet screaming about how I am right. Therefore, as I often do, I resign from this thread. You can go on and post your love letters to Halliburton. I shan't be reading them.
Post by: French G. on August 04, 2008, 04:28:57 PM
Quote
Oh wait, we had this discussion already re. offshore drilling. Everything is a short term quick fix to the energy and economy crises except for whatever pet socialist plan they have like this "windfall tax" scheme or emptying the SPR so we can really be at the mercy of world oil prices when it is gone.
I think I have a new plan for life. If I hear anyone say "carbon footprint, windfall, Algore, wind turbine, fair share, change, we need to do more, etc." I will just assume they are a foreign spy and kick them in the junk. Cheesy
I think I have a new plan for life. If I hear anyone say "carbon footprint, windfall, Algore, wind turbine, fair share, change, we need to do more, etc." I will just assume they are a foreign spy and kick them in the junk. Cheesy
It's like I'm his campaign advisor or something. I just knew he'd jump on the drain the SPR bandwagon with mama Pelosi.
Post by: Scout26 on August 04, 2008, 05:07:36 PM
Quote
But it's much easier to spit and scream "HATEBUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONEVIL, then to actually do the research and think.
I don't hate Bush or Cheney. I actually think they have done fairly well these late 8 years on security issues and the economy.
My statement about Halliburton is they simply had little more than what they purchased with these blank cheques. My point is, maybe they had some oil rigging equipment, but say they had no food service people. You could hire McDonalds and they would be experts in food service but not in oil rigs, so they would purchase oil riggers with their blank cheque. Effectively accomplishing the same job.
Uhhh, they did and do have Food Service people. That was one of the reason's that Clinton keep them on in the Balkans as opposed to giving the contract to Dyncorp (the lowest bidder) Oh, and keep in mind that Cheney didn't become CEO of Halliburton until 1995.
Quote
The first LOGCAP was awarded in 1992, as the first Bush administration (including then-Secretary of Defense Cheney) was leaving office. Four companies competed, and the winner was Brown & Root, as it was known at the time (Halliburton changed the name to Kellogg Brown & Root after an acquisition in 1998). The multi-year contract was in effect during much of the Clinton administration. During those years, Brown & Root did extensive work for the Army under the LOGCAP contract in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia; contract workers built base camps and provided troops with electrical power, food, and other necessities.
In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.
In 1997, when LOGCAP was again put up for bid, Halliburton/Brown & Root lost the competition to another contractor, Dyncorp. But the Clinton Defense Department, rather than switch from Halliburton to Dyncorp, elected to award a separate, sole-source contract to Halliburton/Brown & Root to continue its work in the Balkans. According to a later GAO study, the Army made the choice because 1) Brown & Root had already acquired extensive knowledge of how to work in the area; 2) the company "had demonstrated the ability to support the operation"; and 3) changing contractors would have been costly. The Army's sole-source Bosnia contract with Brown & Root lasted until 1999. At that time, the Clinton Defense Department conducted full-scale competitive bidding for a new contract. The winner was . . . Halliburton/Brown & Root. The company continued its work in Bosnia uninterrupted.
In any event, unlike yourself, I have a real job where people from all over the world contact me for my ideas and don't argue. I don't need to go floating around the internet screaming about how I am right. Therefore, as I often do, I resign from this thread. You can go on and post your love letters to Halliburton. I shan't be reading them.
Yep, until my kidney's failed and I to undergo a year of Chemo, (which I just finished), I was the Logistics Manger for a paint can manufacturing company with customers all over the US and Canada, prior to that I was Operations Manager for a company that imported from all over the world with our three largest customers being Wal-mart, Target, and K-mart. Well prior to that I was an Military Police Officer (Platoon Leader, Staff Officer and Company Commander) in the US Army and US Army Reserve. There's a HUGE difference between shipping 5-14 truckloads of crap to various state-of-the-art Wal-mart distribution centers on any given day and trying to figure out how to get a convoy of beans and bullets across a river without a bridge and under enemy fire to a unit that is engaged in combat and may or may not be there when you get there.
Please let me know which companies come to you for ideas, because if they look to someone as closed minded as you and can't think for themselves, I wish to divest myself of any holdings I may have of those companies in either my portfolio or 401(k)'s.
Post by: grey54956 on August 04, 2008, 05:24:38 PM
Kind of like let's spend all our money now, because someday we'll be able to build a time machine, go back, and win lotto.
Post by: longeyes on August 04, 2008, 07:30:33 PM
Trying to explain the policies of the arch-liberals in our gov't rationally is a fool's errand. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to sound good. We always had stupid people around but they weren't actually running for President and sitting in big political and bureaucratic jobs. They at least had some animal cunning. Of course times were simpler then, weren't they? No complex decisions to make about energy policy.
Of course, some are just machiavellian subversives, but that's another bedtime story, boys and girls...
Post by: seeker_two on August 05, 2008, 01:20:18 AM
It's like I'm his campaign advisor or something. I just knew he'd jump on the drain the SPR bandwagon with mama Pelosi.
Was there any doubt that Obama would be a rubber stamp for the Democrat Congress?....
Post by: freakazoid on August 05, 2008, 02:45:21 PM
Quote
Let's see Obama's Energy Plan:
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
I don't think you really understand what that saying means. Oh and, "So your telling me that he wishes to put the proletariat in control of the means of production, and turn this contry into a stateless classless society!?"
Post by: Scout26 on August 05, 2008, 03:41:17 PM
Quote
Let's see Obama's Energy Plan:
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
I don't think you really understand what that saying means. Oh and, "So your telling me that he wishes to put the proletariat in control of the means of production, and turn this contry into a stateless classless society!?"
I think it means that productive have to support the non-productive, whether they want to or not. And yes, I think the BHO wants to nationalize Oil, Medicine and everything else he can put under the .gov's thumb.
Post by: Boomhauer on August 05, 2008, 04:28:02 PM
Quote
Let's see Obama's Energy Plan:
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
From each according to their ability (the oil companies), to each according to their needs (voters).
Keep explaining how he's not a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, and maybe eventually someone might believe you.
I don't think you really understand what that saying means. Oh and, "So your telling me that he wishes to put the proletariat in control of the means of production, and turn this contry into a stateless classless society!?"
I think it means that productive have to support the non-productive, whether they want to or not. And yes, I think the BHO wants to nationalize Oil, Medicine and everything else he can put under the .gov's thumb.
And, of course, that's a great idea. Put the same gov't that can't even run a profitable brothel (see the Mustang Ranch) in charge of extremely essential economic forces...
Post by: freakazoid on August 06, 2008, 05:18:35 PM
Quote
I think it means that productive have to support the non-productive, whether they want to or not.
Nope.
Quote
And yes, I think the BHO wants to nationalize Oil, Medicine and everything else he can put under the .gov's thumb.
Simply wanting to nationalize different things does not make him a socialist/communist. Do you think libraries and prisons should be privatised?
What kind of communist/socialist is he? A Marxist, Leninist, Trot, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, technocrat, etc..., etc..., etc..., etc...
Post by: Scout26 on August 06, 2008, 05:30:50 PM
Simply wanting to nationalize different things does not make him a socialist/communist. Do you think libraries and prisons should be privatised?
If the government owns the means of production that makes him a socialist/communist.
And yes, libraries and prisons should be privatised.