View Full Version : Bush wants 75 Billion more...
nubby
10-26-2004, 06:15 PM
Fox News: Bush Could Propose $75 Billion for War in '05 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136689,00.html)
Bush Could Propose $75 Billion For War in '05
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
WASHINGTON — President Bush (search) plans to send Congress a request early next year to finance wars in Iraq (search) and Afghanistan (search) and operations against terrorism that could reach $75 billion, congressional aides said Tuesday.
A proposal of that magnitude would indicate that the wars' costs, particularly to battle the intensified Iraqi insurgency, are far exceeding what the Bush administration said it was expecting early this year.
White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said administration officials were only starting to assess what is needed to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
"There is literally no way to ascribe a final figure to what we will request," he said.
The Iraq war's price tag has become an issue in the presidential race, with the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry (search), saying Bush has mismanaged the fight and diverted billions of dollars that could have been spent for schools and other priorities. Bush has defended the war as a needed part of the campaign against terror.
"Incompetence has a cost," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a written statement. "This war has been a hideous mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer."
Kolton said the Pentagon has enough money to support U.S. troops well into the spring, adding, "We'll make sure they have what they need to get the job done."
The fresh request would be on top of $215 billion that lawmakers have provided since 2001 to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan and begin rebuilding those countries, according to White House figures.
Taken together, a $290 billion total would be nearly half the $623 billion cost of the Vietnam War and almost half the $613 billion U.S. costs in World War I, using dollars adjusted for inflation.
Several congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the coming request would exceed $50 billion and could reach $70 billion or $75 billion. Others said they think the White House will compress the figure before it is completed.
One aide said the Army, the main fighting force in Iraq, believes it will need $6 billion annually for the next three years for deferred maintenance and to replace and repair destroyed and damaged equipment. It also wants $5 billion to $10 billion for extra troops and equipment needed to fight the war and to reshape its force structure.
According to its latest figures, the Pentagon (search) is spending an average of $4.4 billion monthly in Iraq and $769 million in Afghanistan. Assuming no reduction in U.S. forces or operations in either country, that would equate to more than $62 billion in the 12 months.
The Bush administration began insisting this year that it would not request additional war money until early 2005. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten said $50 billion might be the "upper limit" on next year's war spending.
Under pressure from lawmakers who believed the funds would be depleted sooner, Bush requested $25 billion in May. Administration officials said the money would not be needed until after Oct. 1, when the government's new budget year began.
Congress provided the $25 billion in August. Of that, the Pentagon said $2.2 billion was made available before Oct. 1 for body armor, higher fuel costs and other expenses, and another $5.2 billion has been made available for use over the next three to four months
EatSleepJeep
10-26-2004, 06:22 PM
And most of it goes to Halliburton Inc, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that doesn't pay US taxes and was formerly headed by our Vice President who still receives millions of dollars annually in what has been described as "non-contract defined deferred salary payments." We call those bribes.
GreenJester
10-26-2004, 06:44 PM
And most of it goes to Halliburton Inc, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that doesn't pay US taxes and was formerly headed by our Vice President who still receives millions of dollars annually in what has been described as "non-contract defined deferred salary payments." We call those bribes.
No! Not Dick Cheney! But he's so... so...
Yeah 'kay, I believe it.
jrock5730
10-26-2004, 06:53 PM
And most of it goes to Halliburton Inc, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that doesn't pay US taxes and was formerly headed by our Vice President who still receives millions of dollars annually in what has been described as "non-contract defined deferred salary payments." We call those bribes.
They pay taxes, just a shitload less than they should. But what they pay in taxes, they make up in overcharges. :lol
nubby
10-26-2004, 06:54 PM
Last I heard only 20% of what he asked for the first time had been spent.
jrock5730
10-26-2004, 07:01 PM
I'm suprised this made it out before the election.
EatSleepJeep
10-26-2004, 07:32 PM
They pay taxes, just a shitload less than they should. But what they pay in taxes, they make up in overcharges. :lol
They pay no federal tax as a corporation. Their employees pay regular withholding, but Cayman corporations are exempt.
I wish I could spend money like this.
It's kinda like having a blank check of your family's money, and your family keeps telling you not to spend it. In this case, the blank check is taxes, and we're Bush's family. Please excuse me while I light myself on fire.
mwjorgens
10-26-2004, 07:55 PM
Bush Could Propose $75 Billion For War in '05
just think of what we could do in this country with 2 billion of that. i guess im a dreamer:rolleyes:
#34->Raven
10-26-2004, 08:26 PM
there is no way they already spent that $87 billion. i just don't belive it
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 08:27 PM
And most of it goes to Halliburton Inc, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that doesn't pay US taxes and was formerly headed by our Vice President who still receives millions of dollars annually in what has been described as "non-contract defined deferred salary payments." We call those bribes.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/45012/000101540204001976/body_10ka.htm
I seriously doubt that Halliburton stands to achieve $40 Billion in revenues from the US government next year. I could be wrong, but that doesn't sound accurate. If so, their sales will go up about 300% and they'll need to start hiring a few hundred thousand more employees to handle all that business.
Halliburton is incorporated in Delaware. They do have a subsidiary in the Caymans though (not uncommon in the American business world). They pay a 35-40% tax on income from continuing operations just like if you and I started a business tomorrow.
I'm not sure about the deferred salary payments. Were those also in an SEC filing or something?
lungmigo
10-26-2004, 08:41 PM
Deferred salary payments (as I understand them) are a way for top executives in high paying jobs to save on taxes. They only get a fraction of their "salary" during the year and the rest of it is deferred until they leave the company / retire. Tax saving measure, I think, but I couldn't expain the economics of it.
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 08:57 PM
Deferred salary payments (as I understand them) are a way for top executives in high paying jobs to save on taxes. They only get a fraction of their "salary" during the year and the rest of it is deferred until they leave the company / retire. Tax saving measure, I think, but I couldn't expain the economics of it.
That is accurate, but I think the problem that the thread starter was addressing was the 'non contract defined' part. Deferred salary compensation is common, but it's typically contractual, i.e. there is a written agreement for Mr. CEO to receive $X over X number of years from ABC Corp. The non contractual component is what opens up debate about bribe-type scenarios. But then again, I don't know the specifics on the Cheney/Halliburton case. I'd like to see the SEC filing.
And most of it goes to Halliburton Inc, a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that doesn't pay US taxes and was formerly headed by our Vice President who still receives millions of dollars annually in what has been described as "non-contract defined deferred salary payments." We call those bribes.
what company do you suggest they use?
that's the thing, people, especially people with the user name EatSleepJeep love to point out that Halliburton is this evil company, but they offer no other companies that were 'passed over' for the job.
truth is, Halliburton is the only company in the world that can rebuild a country.
sorry to divert the thread, but it's amazing how people have no clue at what they're angry about.
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 09:19 PM
what company do you suggest they use?
that's the thing, people, especially people with the user name EatSleepJeep love to point out that Halliburton is this evil company, but they offer no other companies that were 'passed over' for the job.
truth is, Halliburton is the only company in the world that can rebuild a country.
sorry to divert the thread, but it's amazing how people have no clue at what they're angry about.
I know, it's hilarious. I love claims about 'shady business dealings' when you can consult all the documents you want from the SEC (for public companies, that is) to obtain facts in support of or against your opinion. If someone thinks Halliburton is the only domestic company with off-balance sheet entities and/or subsidiaries incorporated offshore, they have lost their mind.
I think it might be a good idea if our vice-president didn't get money from Haliburton. We like to call that a "Conflict of Interest."
mmazz72
10-26-2004, 09:25 PM
just think of what we could do in this country with 2 billion of that. i guess im a dreamer:rolleyes:
so you think feeding our hungry, saving our environment, and educating our children are more important than blowing up foreign lands and killing people for unclear reasons??
COMMIE!!!
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 09:26 PM
I think it might be a good idea if our vice-president didn't get money from Haliburton. We like to call that a "Conflict of Interest."
How much and at what times has Cheney received money from Halliburton since 2000? (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly curious).
Wouldn't a dollar be too much? I have something from an economics course I took last year, but it's packed away and not worth the time when I'm sure it's hiding on the internet somewhere.
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 09:44 PM
Wouldn't a dollar be too much? I have something from an economics course I took last year, but it's packed away and not worth the time when I'm sure it's hiding on the internet somewhere.
I personally don't think so. It really doesn't bother me. It's only become an issue with Cheney because he was formally an employee of Halliburton. Any government official whose IRA was loaded with Halliburton stock could be equally or even more biased and we'd never know. I don't think because the VP was an employee of a company, that he should not be able to receive any money he was legally entitled to. Moreover, to show any illicit connection between Cheney and Halliburton, you'd have to have evidence that whatever payments he received were directly attributable and proportional to the government's decision to use Halliburton. The man was the company's former CEO. Any CEO of a large company tends to receive financial benefits long after his employment with the company. Borrowing an econ term, 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'...just because something occurs 'after this' doesn't mean it was 'because of this.'
I mean honestly, does Dick Cheney single-handedly make the decision to use a certain contractor? I don't think so. And what companies exist that have better infrastructure rebuilding capabilities than Halliburton?
marco j
10-26-2004, 10:44 PM
what company do you suggest they use?
that's the thing, people, especially people with the user name EatSleepJeep love to point out that Halliburton is this evil company, but they offer no other companies that were 'passed over' for the job.
truth is, Halliburton is the only company in the world that can rebuild a country.
sorry to divert the thread, but it's amazing how people have no clue at what they're angry about.
:rolleyes:
i know damn well what i'm angry at.
IT'S THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE CHOICE FOR WAR AND CHENEY'S CONNECTION TO HALIBURTON ARE A CLEAR CONFLICT INTEREST!!!!!!!
how can people expect anyone to trust someone (ANYONE) wouldn't make a choice if that choice didn't stand to make them millionaires! again and again.
AnyonebutBush
10-26-2004, 10:48 PM
:rolleyes:
i know damn well what i'm angry at.
IT'S THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE CHOICE FOR WAR AND CHENEY'S CONNECTION TO HALIBURTON ARE A CLEAR CONFLICT INTEREST!!!!!!!
how can people expect anyone to trust someone (ANYONE) wouldn't make a choice if that choice didn't stand to make them millionaires! again and again.And so on and so on :BANG :BANG :BANG :BANG
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 10:55 PM
:rolleyes:
i know damn well what i'm angry at.
IT'S THE OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE CHOICE FOR WAR AND CHENEY'S CONNECTION TO HALIBURTON ARE A CLEAR CONFLICT INTEREST!!!!!!!
how can people expect anyone to trust someone (ANYONE) wouldn't make a choice if that choice didn't stand to make them millionaires! again and again.
This sounds corny, but trusting elected government officials is the fabric that democracy is made of. 'the masses' cannot make decisions in an efficient manner. That is why we elect people to act on our behalf.
Paraphrasing your statement: we are at war because Dick Cheney used to be the CEO of Halliburton. How much money, and on what dates, did Cheney receive these incentives? And how do they differ from incentives he may have received a few years ago prior to the Iraqi conflict. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but please provide some facts to support such a bold accusation.
Also, if you were in charge of setting up the electrical infrastructure for an entire country, which other companies would you be getting proposals from to do the job?
marco j
10-26-2004, 11:09 PM
Also, if you were in charge of setting up the electrical infrastructure for an entire country, which other companies would you be getting proposals from to do the job?[/QUOTE]
pick one NOT RELATED TO THE WHITEHOUSE!!!!!!
:BANG
edit* not trying to be offensive but why is it everytime i ry and show proof all the republicans scatter like i turned the light on?!?!
WJM-WJM
10-26-2004, 11:22 PM
Since you have all of these facts and "proof", please answer these questions (it'll be the second or third time I've asked the questions with no response from anyone making the accusations against Cheney):
How much, and when, did Cheney receive this money?
Was Cheney's annual compensation significantly higher after Halliburton received some of the government's business? Important to consider - Halliburton does not get every single piece of the government's business.
What company is better qualified for the job than Halliburton? "those other ones" is not an acceptable answer. Would it be better to use a less qualified company to do poor work in order to avoid this huge conspiracy you're mentioning?
I think it might be a good idea if our vice-president didn't get money from Haliburton. We like to call that a "Conflict of Interest."
Rob, that's as stupid as someone saying it's a conflict of interest that you still post on ants when you used to be an admin here. Your opinions may be swayed b/c of your affiliation with ants.
ain't that silly?
Hmmm... Fan message board vs. Vice-President of the country. Either you think extraordinarily highly of me, or very little of our leaders.
Hmmm... Fan message board vs. Vice-President of the country. Either you think extraordinarily highly of me, or very little of our leaders.
there are a lot of people who think you're a hell of a lot more evil then Cheney.
Sorry, Jake- not gonna rise to your bait. If you want to talk about the politics of it, that's fine, but I'm not stooping to that level.
Sorry, Jake- not gonna rise to your bait. If you want to talk about the politics of it, that's fine, but I'm not stooping to that level.
:lol
can barely see you up there on that high road you're on.
Nothing productive can come from this line of conversation. I'll reply when you have something relevant to contribute.
Nothing productive can come from this line of conversation. I'll reply when you have something relevant to contribute.
Who said that up there??
:lol
marco j
10-27-2004, 09:59 AM
Rob, that's as stupid as someone saying it's a conflict of interest that you still post on ants when you used to be an admin here. Your opinions may be swayed b/c of your affiliation with ants.
ain't that silly?
nope
you don't make money everytime you post.
WJM-WJM
10-27-2004, 10:21 AM
nope
you don't make money everytime you post.
You mentioned that all Republicans run from you every time you provide all of your facts and proof. Last night, I responded with some very specific questions that dealt with topic we're discussing. To make claims against Cheney like you have, surely you have the answers readily available. I'm just curious when we'll have the privlege of learning from you.
jrock5730
10-27-2004, 11:11 AM
Its a travishamockery!
Number27
10-27-2004, 11:16 AM
there are a lot of people who think you're a hell of a lot more evil then Cheney.
Cheney is evil? News to me...
EatSleepJeep
10-27-2004, 11:24 AM
Since you have all of these facts and "proof", please answer these questions (it'll be the second or third time I've asked the questions with no response from anyone making the accusations against Cheney):
How much, and when, did Cheney receive this money?
Was Cheney's annual compensation significantly higher after Halliburton received some of the government's business? Important to consider - Halliburton does not get every single piece of the government's business.
What company is better qualified for the job than Halliburton? "those other ones" is not an acceptable answer. Would it be better to use a less qualified company to do poor work in order to avoid this huge conspiracy you're mentioning?
You have google? Try "Halliburton Iran" or "Halliburton Cayman" or "Cheney Deferred Salary" You'll get more hits than you can deal with. Don't type in "Cheney 5 draft deferrments" otherwise you'll be read about his extensive draft dodging techniques.
We'll never know, it was a no bid contract. No one was allowed to enter a proposal. Halliburton was given the contract, and then overcharged on most items.
WJM-WJM
10-27-2004, 02:26 PM
You have google? Try "Halliburton Iran" or "Halliburton Cayman" or "Cheney Deferred Salary" You'll get more hits than you can deal with. Don't type in "Cheney 5 draft deferrments" otherwise you'll be read about his extensive draft dodging techniques.
We'll never know, it was a no bid contract. No one was allowed to enter a proposal. Halliburton was given the contract, and then overcharged on most items.
Great response - everyone throws out all of the claims and the response is always 'just look it up' or 'yea, you know...those other companies that were qualified for the business.'
This sheds some light on the topic:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html
I understand the Iran-Cayman situation. That is a legal business activity. It's possible, but it would be hard to imagine, that any energy related companies would not be doing business with middle eastern countries. And Cayman incorporation is not some scheme dreamed up by Halliburton. It's a regular business practice.
Insofar as I can tell (and I'm not claiming to be an expert), Cheney has unexercised stock options and deferred salary payments from Halliburton (kind of like 99% of former CEO's). The deferred salary payments appear to be about $200,000 per year, not "millions." And these payments were earned by Cheney while he was CEO of Halliburton, not while he was VP of the United States. The amounts and timing of such payments would be as per an employment contract. Now, someone mentioned these payments were non-contractual - I'm not aware of any evidence to support that statement.
As for "overcharging" that's a highly subjective term. When you go grocery shopping, the grocery store makes money off your purchases. Are they "overcharging" or simply running a for-profit enterprise.
bseitz
10-27-2004, 02:44 PM
We'll never know, it was a no bid contract. No one was allowed to enter a proposal. Halliburton was given the contract, and then overcharged on most items.
Haliburton also got no-bid contracts from the Clinton Administration, remember? And how much would you charge to guarantee delivery of a gallon of gas into a war zone?
jrock5730
10-27-2004, 02:46 PM
Great response - everyone throws out all of the claims and the response is always 'just look it up' or 'yea, you know...those other companies that were qualified for the business.'
This sheds some light on the topic:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=261.html
I understand the Iran-Cayman situation. That is a legal business activity. It's possible, but it would be hard to imagine, that any energy related companies would not be doing business with middle eastern countries. And Cayman incorporation is not some scheme dreamed up by Halliburton. It's a regular business practice.
Insofar as I can tell (and I'm not claiming to be an expert), Cheney has unexercised stock options and deferred salary payments from Halliburton (kind of like 99% of former CEO's). The deferred salary payments appear to be about $200,000 per year, not "millions." And these payments were earned by Cheney while he was CEO of Halliburton, not while he was VP of the United States. The amounts and timing of such payments would be as per an employment contract. Now, someone mentioned these payments were non-contractual - I'm not aware of any evidence to support that statement.
As for "overcharging" that's a highly subjective term. When you go grocery shopping, the grocery store makes money off your purchases. Are they "overcharging" or simply running a for-profit enterprise.
Get a grip man, there is a huge difference in "over-charging" and "for-profit".
1. Houston-based Halliburton Co. may have overbilled taxpayers by as much as $61 million for trucking gasoline into Iraq, Pentagon auditors said Thursday.
The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency said Halliburton also may have tried to charge the government $67 million more to manage cafeterias for U.S. troops than the company had agreed to pay the subcontractors hired to actually do the work.
In the military's first public criticism of Halliburton subsidiary KBR since the company went to work in Iraq, Pentagon officials said Thursday that they had discovered "serious problems" with the company's costs and demanded a detailed response.
"Right now the burden is on the company to come back and say why this has happened," a senior Pentagon official said.
2. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896/
The Pentagon has already awarded Halliburton Co., the controversial military contractor, deals worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. But now former Halliburton insiders have come forward with new allegations of massive waste of taxpayer money.
Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who worked for Halliburton, was so upset by attacks on the company she e-mailed the CEO in December with a strategy on how to fight the "political slurs." But today, after five months inside Halliburton's operation in Kuwait, deYoung has radically changed her opinion. "It’s just a gravy train," she said.
DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."
DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.
"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.
DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."
Both deYoung and West have since left the company. Pentagon documents obtained by NBC News support the whistleblowers' charges. In December auditors complained of Halliburton's "serious deficiencies," including "lack of cost control and cost consciousness." Some examples:
Purchase of hundreds of high-end SUVs and pickups, loaded with options like CD players, which "most KBR employees do not need."
"Duplication ... and gold-plating" in purchases of computers and high-tech equipment.
Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels.
The company declined an interview but suggests in an e-mail to NBC News that critics are politically motivated: "When Halliburton succeeds, Iraq progresses. Sadly, a few people don't want either of those results."
Halliburton also said the soda problem has been "corrected," and the laundry charges are being investigated, but insists it's "absolutely not true" the company is cavalier about taxpayer money.
Whistleblower deYoung thinks the problem is obvious. "They're using the war as an excuse, but it's not the war," she said. "It was very bad management."
Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.
WJM-WJM
10-27-2004, 02:52 PM
Haliburton also got no-bid contracts from the Clinton Administration, remember? And how much would you charge to guarantee delivery of a gallon of gas into a war zone?
:thumbsup
Amazing - perhaps Halliburton really is the #1 company to do this job - could it be possible?
Yeah, this gas delivery situation isn't like pulling up to the BP station to fill up your SUV.
WJM-WJM
10-27-2004, 03:02 PM
Get a grip man, there is a huge difference in "over-charging" and "for-profit".
1. Houston-based Halliburton Co. may have overbilled taxpayers by as much as $61 million for trucking gasoline into Iraq, Pentagon auditors said Thursday.
The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency said Halliburton also may have tried to charge the government $67 million more to manage cafeterias for U.S. troops than the company had agreed to pay the subcontractors hired to actually do the work.
In the military's first public criticism of Halliburton subsidiary KBR since the company went to work in Iraq, Pentagon officials said Thursday that they had discovered "serious problems" with the company's costs and demanded a detailed response.
"Right now the burden is on the company to come back and say why this has happened," a senior Pentagon official said.
2. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896/
The Pentagon has already awarded Halliburton Co., the controversial military contractor, deals worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. But now former Halliburton insiders have come forward with new allegations of massive waste of taxpayer money.
Marie deYoung, a former Army chaplain who worked for Halliburton, was so upset by attacks on the company she e-mailed the CEO in December with a strategy on how to fight the "political slurs." But today, after five months inside Halliburton's operation in Kuwait, deYoung has radically changed her opinion. "It’s just a gravy train," she said.
DeYoung audited accounts for Halliburton’s subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."
DeYoung produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.
"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.
DeYoung also claims people were paid to do nothing. Mike West says he was one of them. Paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, West claims he never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said. "OK, so we did."
Both deYoung and West have since left the company. Pentagon documents obtained by NBC News support the whistleblowers' charges. In December auditors complained of Halliburton's "serious deficiencies," including "lack of cost control and cost consciousness." Some examples:
Purchase of hundreds of high-end SUVs and pickups, loaded with options like CD players, which "most KBR employees do not need."
"Duplication ... and gold-plating" in purchases of computers and high-tech equipment.
Halliburton employees living in 5-star hotels.
The company declined an interview but suggests in an e-mail to NBC News that critics are politically motivated: "When Halliburton succeeds, Iraq progresses. Sadly, a few people don't want either of those results."
Halliburton also said the soda problem has been "corrected," and the laundry charges are being investigated, but insists it's "absolutely not true" the company is cavalier about taxpayer money.
Whistleblower deYoung thinks the problem is obvious. "They're using the war as an excuse, but it's not the war," she said. "It was very bad management."
Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.
There definitely could be some misdoings - I'll grant you that the possibility exists, not only with Halliburton but other government contractors as well. But it's also not unlike getting charged $7 for an aspirin at a hospital when you could go to the drugstore across the street and buy 100 of them for $3. Also keep in mind, a $100 million "overcharge" on a $5.6 Billion project is a 1.8% difference. Things have to be kept in perspective.
bseitz
10-27-2004, 03:03 PM
Pentagon auditors apparently agree. They're withholding $186 million from the company and threatening to hold back even more unless Halliburton corrects the problems.
I'd love to see the government (all levels) held to the same standards of accountability. They make Haliburton look like rank amateurs when it comes to fraud, waste, and abuse. Unfortunately, we don't have the option of withholding payment since they steal it right off the top. But hey, it's just the peasants' money. They can always stick a gun to our heads and take more.
EatSleepJeep
10-27-2004, 06:44 PM
There definitely could be some misdoings - I'll grant you that the possibility exists, not only with Halliburton but other government contractors as well. But it's also not unlike getting charged $7 for an aspirin at a hospital when you could go to the drugstore across the street and buy 100 of them for $3. Also keep in mind, a $100 million "overcharge" on a $5.6 Billion project is a 1.8% difference. Things have to be kept in perspective.
Hundred million here, hundred million there, and pretty soon were talking about REAL money. :lol
pedelen99
10-27-2004, 06:50 PM
what company do you suggest they use?
WalMart.
- Phil
nickc_11
10-27-2004, 06:54 PM
Sad part of it all is, even if Kerry is elected, we are going to spend a fortune rebuilding Iraq, and Halliburton is still going to get a lot of the work. I find it pointless to worry about the money going to Iraq, we no longer have a choice. Our appointed leader rushed into the wrong decision, and while I would love to see him have to clean up his mess, I dont think we, as a nation, can afford that.
WJM-WJM
10-27-2004, 07:43 PM
Hundred million here, hundred million there, and pretty soon were talking about REAL money. :lol
:lol A hundred million bucks is a lot of dough. But you still have to look at it in context. If you were having a house built, a cost overrun of 5-10% would be common. It's no different on a multi-billion dollar project. No one is going to nail the costs right on 100% of the time...on a $200k house...or a $5.6B country reconstruction. Note: I'm not excusing Halliburton if they indeed were acting unethically, but I don't think a 1-2% screwup is that big of a deal.
nubby
10-27-2004, 11:44 PM
Rob, that's as stupid as someone saying it's a conflict of interest that you still post on ants when you used to be an admin here. Your opinions may be swayed b/c of your affiliation with ants.
ain't that silly?
That was one of the most idiotic analogies I've heard in a while.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.