War profiteers? Gm gets 60 billion, halliburton gets 12

JRK defending government using taxpayer funds to do favors for certain cherry-picked companies when Republicans do it, and it's the worst thing in the world when Democrats do it.


Sad what our parties do to the principles of people :(.

Doc Halliburton was doing that job for the US government long before 2003. That what they do for a living in part and allways have


linton Procurement Official Steven Kelman calls allegations that the government rewarded Halliburton "Somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd." "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded - whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert - who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. ... Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits - and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. ... As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million - a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder."
(Steven Kelman, "No 'Cronyism' In Iraq," The Washington Post,11/6/03)

Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce Says Halliburton Allegations Overblown. "William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, is a Democrat who served under Clinton as undersecretary of commerce. He said he disagrees with most of the Bush administration's policies, but thinks the Halliburton controversy is overblown. 'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you. ... I don't think we went to war because we thought it would help selected American companies.'"
(James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News &
Observer, 10/5/03)

Army Corps Of Engineers: "No Reason To Think Halliburton Has The Inside Track." "Scott Saunders, a spokesman for the [U.S. Army] Corps [of Engineers], said there is no reason to think Halliburton has the inside track. 'We've never really done something like this before - gone in and tried to fix a country while it's still being terrorized,' he said. 'We wouldn't have competitively bid the contracts if we didn't think there was more than one firm in the world that could do the job.'"
(James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03)

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the US peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with
helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003)

Under the Clinton administration, Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction contracts for rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Haiti.

In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports that Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.


Hardly a cherry picked event Doc
 
Follow the money: Bailout tracker - CNNMoney.com

I keep reading in these threads about "war profiteering'
and this is why we went to Iraq
Hell why would any-one put there selves in harms way with Obama handing out billions for nothing?

GM is paying back their loan. How much is Haliburton paying back, again?

GM paid one of their loans back, using another gift the government gave GM during bankruptcy reorganization. That allowed them to qualify for another loan which they took. This is on top of the previous gift that GM got to prevent that bankruptcy. Then GM got a sweetheart deal by having the government buy most of the stock that few others wanted since it was a near guaranteed loser. Last year the government diluted its 66% share in the company to half that to allow GM to raise $20 Billion. This week the government has announced its plans to sell most of the remaining stock for another loss.

So $49.5 Billion given or loaned to GM as a special deal, $10 Billion loaned to GM for a Department of Energy "green jobs investment," $6.7 Billion paid back, and all the government has now is $15 Billion (33% of a company valued at $46 Billion).

All to temporarily save 70,000 jobs here and create 20,000 jobs in China. Is this how liberal math works?



(that's $540,000 per US job)

Thank you
 
You claim to have experience in this realm. Please expalin. In my work as a contractor, I know how guaranteed pricing, gross margin and mark up, overhead coverage, etc is all played. Please explain your reference point when you say you have experience.

How much detail?
To start with Bechtel in general is a management firm
they would hire a contractor to perform the labor portion for them. It is my experience that they would use union labor or use Becon in a situation in which non union labor was being utilized
From the Const manager to the lowest level helper there time would be reimbursable
Each would have a unit rate per chargeable hour
this would be a rate that was all inclusive to have that individual doing what ever it was he or she would be doing
this rate would include consumables and small tools
this would be within the "contract" and would have been agreed upon long before there services where needed
Depending on the type of equipment it may or may not have fuel, oil, and maintenance included in its chargeable rate. This would be to keep things as simple as possible.
There would be a way whether it be with P-3 or a simple excel based spread sheet to that would be defined in the "contract" long before the service would be needed

Knowing the DOD it would have some form to fill out that would track these reimbursable cost daily and would have been approved daily
GF 4HR
Foreman 8 hr
Journey elec 8 men 8 hr
helper same
etc...
etc...
compressor 8 hr
pickup
fork lift etc....

Typically what is called an in direct, like the project manager, safety, etc... would have a separate way they would charge there time

All of my dealings with the DOD was hard money and we used P-3 to get paid
as the % of the job was approved (direct construction) the indirects would be covered in a separate chargeable time

more?

Look every thing such as refineries to power plants have contractors they typically have a "maintenance" agreement with contractors such as Flour Daniels that can deal with there needs. What the liberal mind will never understand (I wonder why) just dealing with a DOD scope of work is a specialty in its self
from form 1-16^B1142 to how you charge for toilet paper
This group in a crises would provide those services no different than Flour does for your local power plant
part of your light bill pays for that service the same you tax dollar paid Halliburton

So, were/are you on the government side of things or the contractor side of things?

I work for a large contractor
One other thing
Halliburton did not just wake up one day and decide to start doing this

Clinton Procurement Official Steven Kelman calls allegations that the government rewarded Halliburton "Somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd." "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded - whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert - who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd. ... Many people are also under the impression that contractors take the government to the cleaners. In fact, government keeps a watchful eye on contractor profits - and government work has low profit margins compared with the commercial work the same companies perform. ... As for the much-maligned Halliburton, a few days ago the company disclosed, as part of its third-quarter earnings report, operating income from its Iraq contracts of $34 million on revenue of $900 million - a return on sales of 3.7 percent, hardly the stuff of plunder."
(Steven Kelman, "No 'Cronyism' In Iraq," The Washington Post,11/6/03)

Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce Says Halliburton Allegations Overblown. "William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, is a Democrat who served under Clinton as undersecretary of commerce. He said he disagrees with most of the Bush administration's policies, but thinks the Halliburton controversy is overblown. 'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you. ... I don't think we went to war because we thought it would help selected American companies.'"
(James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News &
Observer, 10/5/03)

Army Corps Of Engineers: "No Reason To Think Halliburton Has The Inside Track." "Scott Saunders, a spokesman for the [U.S. Army] Corps [of Engineers], said there is no reason to think Halliburton has the inside track. 'We've never really done something like this before - gone in and tried to fix a country while it's still being terrorized,' he said. 'We wouldn't have competitively bid the contracts if we didn't think there was more than one firm in the world that could do the job.'"
(James Rosen, "Is Iraq's Reconstruction Rigged?" The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03)

Then, in February 2003, the Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a temporary no-bid contract to implement its classified oil-fire plan. The thinking was it would be absurd to undertake the drawn-out contracting process on the verge of war. If the administration had done that and there had been catastrophic fires, it would now be considered evidence of insufficient postwar planning. And Halliburton was an obvious choice, since it put out 350 oil-well fires in Kuwait after the first Gulf War.

The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the US peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work.

So, did Clinton and Gore involve the United States in the Balkans to benefit Halliburton? That charge makes as much sense as the one that Democrats are hurling at Bush now. Would that they directed more of their outrage at the people in Iraq who want to sabotage the country's oil infrastructure, rather than at the US corporation charged with
helping repair it. (Rich Lowry National Review Editor Sept 22, 2003)


Under the Clinton administration, Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction contracts for rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Haiti.

In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports that Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon in Guam.
 
JRK we get it Clinton did it too, but you're in favor of sweetheart deals that rip off the american public when it does something good for a company that was run by a republican and makes a republican rich.


You're on here posting about it being a good thing that you and I are taxed more so that Halliburton can rip us off.
 
JRK we get it Clinton did it too, but you're in favor of sweetheart deals that rip off the american public when it does something good for a company that was run by a republican and makes a republican rich.


You're on here posting about it being a good thing that you and I are taxed more so that Halliburton can rip us off.

Doc my belief is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing
Now as far as the 1 trillion dollars + we spent?
that number really is probably closer to 100 billion

troops are troops, war are no war
there cost is there cost, war are no war

Either way we could have been alot smarter with the cost
 
JRK we get it Clinton did it too, but you're in favor of sweetheart deals that rip off the american public when it does something good for a company that was run by a republican and makes a republican rich.


You're on here posting about it being a good thing that you and I are taxed more so that Halliburton can rip us off.

Doc my belief is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing
Now as far as the 1 trillion dollars + we spent?
that number really is probably closer to 100 billion

troops are troops, war are no war
there cost is there cost, war are no war

Either way we could have been alot smarter with the cost

100 billion? You are a morel.
 
JRK we get it Clinton did it too, but you're in favor of sweetheart deals that rip off the american public when it does something good for a company that was run by a republican and makes a republican rich.


You're on here posting about it being a good thing that you and I are taxed more so that Halliburton can rip us off.

Doc my belief is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing
Now as far as the 1 trillion dollars + we spent?
that number really is probably closer to 100 billion

troops are troops, war are no war
there cost is there cost, war are no war

Either way we could have been alot smarter with the cost

A sniper with one bullet could've removed Saddam from power if that's what you're biggest concern was, but whether or not we approve of the War in Iraq is a totally different topic.

All I wanted to get out of you is that you think too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at Halliburton, seems at the end of your last post you started to agree with me.
 
JRK we get it Clinton did it too, but you're in favor of sweetheart deals that rip off the american public when it does something good for a company that was run by a republican and makes a republican rich.


You're on here posting about it being a good thing that you and I are taxed more so that Halliburton can rip us off.

Doc my belief is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing
Now as far as the 1 trillion dollars + we spent?
that number really is probably closer to 100 billion

troops are troops, war are no war
there cost is there cost, war are no war

Either way we could have been alot smarter with the cost

A sniper with one bullet could've removed Saddam from power if that's what you're biggest concern was, but whether or not we approve of the War in Iraq is a totally different topic.

All I wanted to get out of you is that you think too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at Halliburton, seems at the end of your last post you started to agree with me.

Too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at *anything* the government throws money at.
 
Doc my belief is that removing Saddam from power was a good thing
Now as far as the 1 trillion dollars + we spent?
that number really is probably closer to 100 billion

troops are troops, war are no war
there cost is there cost, war are no war

Either way we could have been alot smarter with the cost

A sniper with one bullet could've removed Saddam from power if that's what you're biggest concern was, but whether or not we approve of the War in Iraq is a totally different topic.

All I wanted to get out of you is that you think too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at Halliburton, seems at the end of your last post you started to agree with me.

Too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at *anything* the government throws money at.

Perfectly stated, what I'm trying to say to the OP is that he shouldn't excuse one party for doing it solely because he voted for them, doesn't make it any less bad.
 
A sniper with one bullet could've removed Saddam from power if that's what you're biggest concern was, but whether or not we approve of the War in Iraq is a totally different topic.

All I wanted to get out of you is that you think too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at Halliburton, seems at the end of your last post you started to agree with me.

Too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at *anything* the government throws money at.

Perfectly stated, what I'm trying to say to the OP is that he shouldn't excuse one party for doing it solely because he voted for them, doesn't make it any less bad.

I agree with that. However the Haliburton issue is a tad more complex that the outright theft of taxpayer dollars going to GE and GM this time around.
 
Too much US taxpayer dollars are blindly thrown at *anything* the government throws money at.

Perfectly stated, what I'm trying to say to the OP is that he shouldn't excuse one party for doing it solely because he voted for them, doesn't make it any less bad.

I agree with that. However the Haliburton issue is a tad more complex that the outright theft of taxpayer dollars going to GE and GM this time around.

I wouldn't say more complex, but based on the numbers it's "less bad."

I try not too get too much into the numbers though, to me it's about the principle. The principle of doing favors and sweetheart deals for certain hand picked companies at the expense of the US taxpayer.
 
Hey at least they paid Taxes. The Obamy's good buds over at GE don't pay Taxes at all. Top GE Exec Jeffrey Immelt his "Jobs Czar?" What a bleepin scam. Hopey Changey sycophants really are very dumb people for the most part.
 
Perfectly stated, what I'm trying to say to the OP is that he shouldn't excuse one party for doing it solely because he voted for them, doesn't make it any less bad.

I agree with that. However the Haliburton issue is a tad more complex that the outright theft of taxpayer dollars going to GE and GM this time around.

I wouldn't say more complex, but based on the numbers it's "less bad."

I try not too get too much into the numbers though, to me it's about the principle. The principle of doing favors and sweetheart deals for certain hand picked companies at the expense of the US taxpayer.

I guess I tolerate that when it's done in a war zone instead of on Wall Street. But then that gets back around to how poor the government is at managing money.
 
My hope has been to expose the regime in power now for what they really are

If we do not invade Iraq, Halliburton still gets funds from Afghanistan
I think there are many more that would agree that war was a just war, more than Iraq

I also think the spam about Iraq did it no justice

Bottom line is, in my opinion that 15 billion dollar tax payer funded expense was just. It is also not my place in life to criticize those who do not agree

The more anyone who would really study these situations would more and more each day people would realize how upside down all of this is

Obama has set us back a time that cannot be measured in decades
All the hard work that Reagan, Bush-1, Clinton, Bush-2 and the american tax payer put forth with congress, both left and right has been thrown away in a matter of months
 

Forum List

Back
Top