Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (22077)	12/30/2003 12:10:17 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

"It's a dishonest way to go to "war", when Bush never met a special interest he didn't like. It makes the entire effort look like a trillion-dollar exercise in profiteering. " This was the trillion dollar exercise that paved the way to war..... members.tripod.com

To: MSI who wrote (22077)	12/30/2003 12:18:35 AM
From: gamesmistress	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793625

and raise the minimum wage by over 35% Doubt it. Well, my calculations may have been incorrect, but the article said Dean would raise the minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.00/hour. By my calculations that increase of $1.85/hour is over 35% of $5.15. if his philosophy really is to "give the working people a little more money and they might be able to go down and spend something on Main Street," LET US KEEP OUR FRIGGIN" TAX CUT!!! How much was your tax cut? Withholding dropped $200-$300/month. How does that compare with increased taxes and expenses from every other part of gov't? How would I know? If you're saying that "gov't" (federal, state, local) will be saying that they "have to" raise other taxes and fees to compensate for the loss from the tax cut, instead of looking for ways to trim the budget or cut expenses, they AlWAYS do that. Whether or not there's a tax cut as an excuse. It's OUR money. Dean's claim is the disjointed assembly of special interest legislation has made us worse off, by far, than 4 years ago. The tax cut was great for me, temporarily, not good in the longer term for me and everyone I know who has kids or owns property. We have a kid, and own property. For us to be better off, we should keep more of our own money to use as we see fit. It's a dishonest way to go to "war", when Bush never met a special interest he didn't like. It makes the entire effort look like a trillion-dollar exercise in profiteering. I have no idea what you mean by this.

To: MSI who wrote (22077)	12/30/2003 1:23:46 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793625

NY Times: No Evidence of Halliburton Profiteering Monday Dec. 29, 2003; 4:13 p.m. EST A comprehensive investigation into Halliburton's multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure shows "no evidence of profiteering" by the Houston-based oil services company. That's the verdict by the New York Times, which assigned its Whitewater sleuth Jeff Gerth and investigative ace Don Van Atta to lay bare all the tawdry details of how Vice President Dick Cheney's former company was reaping big-bucks profits from sweetheart deals imagined by Democrats. One problem: Gerth and Van Atta found almost nothing for Dems to hang their hats on. In fact, not only couldn't the Times find any evidence that Halliburton was stuffing its pockets under-the-table - even the aboveboard revenue collected by the company hasn't been much to write home about. "So far this year, Halliburton's profits from Iraq have been minimal," the Times admitted. "The company's latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission shows $1.3 billion in revenues from work in Iraq and $46 million in pretax profits for the first nine months of 2003." That's a slender 3.5 percent margin, hardly enough to make any self-respecting war profiteer look twice. No wonder this story hasn't been leading TV and radio news reports all day. Too be sure, Times editors did their best to make it sound as if something fishy was going on. The report's front-page headline - "Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs" - gave no clue to the exoneration that followed. And subheadlines like "Little Public Disclosure" and "An Absence of Competition" hinted darkly of shady deals where Cheney's friends were lining their pockets with blood money. But even the Times had to admit that Halliburton's original Iraq contract was won "in a bidding process in December 2001." What about that widely cited report last month claiming the company had overpaid by as much as 100 percent for Kuwaiti gasoline? Turns out that news is pretty much a political bust, too. Company spokeswoman Wendy Hall explained that the Army Corps of Engineers needed the fuel imported to Iraq within 24-hours - not much time to launch a competitive bidding process. "There's a premium for getting it done fast," explained Gordon Adams, a military procurement expert at George Washington University. Anyone who disagrees ought to try sending all their mail by next-day-air and see what happens to their postage budget. Another factor that sent job cost estimates through the roof: sabotage by terrorists. "As the war wound down, more work came [Halliburton subsidiary] KBR's way, mostly because of acts of sabotage on pipelines and Iraq's oil facilities," the Times noted. "When security problems made the production of fuel inside Iraq even more difficult -- leading to shortages -- the government asked Halliburton to import fuel." If the Times' report on Cheney's old company is the best the Democrats can do, it's time for Terry McAuliffe to begin searching for a new campaign boogeyman ASAP.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/29/165459.shtml