1
   

Haliburton rips us off!!!

 
 
pistoff
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 11:39 pm
This is a patern of ripps offs is the hall mark of the Dubya gang of blundering thieves.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,608 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2003 11:53 pm
Just saw this on the Daily Show myself. I seriously get most of my news from that show these days.
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 12:48 am
charging the Iraqi troops 2.24 for .72 cent gasoline that we helped them get!! that's a ripoff at it's finest.

P.S. who doesn't watch the daily show
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 02:50 am
VP Cheney
Prolly most that read this know that VP Cheney was the CEO of this ripp off company, right?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:06 am
Re: VP Cheney
pistoff wrote:
Prolly most that read this know that VP Cheney was the CEO of this ripp off company, right?


The key word there being was.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:08 am
Cheney
Do ya really think that this scumbag won't go back to Haliburton when his VP stint is over in 2004?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 08:22 am
as reported this morning, the price gauging only amounts to 61 million, prolly won't even cover Cheney's stock options.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 10:04 am
dyslexia wrote:
as reported this morning, the price gauging only amounts to 61 million, prolly won't even cover Cheney's stock options.

$61 million is more than their quarterly net income.
That explains their 150% projected earnings growth for next quarter while earnings for the industry as a whole is expected to decline 23%.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 10:40 am
ye110man wrote:
$61 million is more than their quarterly net income.
That explains their 150% projected earnings growth for next quarter while earnings for the industry as a whole is expected to decline 23%.


It's hardly an explanation for anything. The $61 million is income, not profit. Go read all of the on-line stories on this. It seems Halburton got ripped off by their Kuwatti supplier and just passed the rip-off on to the government.

A 150% earnings growth doesn't mean much when expenses go up by 150% too.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 10:48 am
Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's budget chief, said that "contractor improprieties and/or contract mischarging on department contracts will neither be condoned nor allowed to continue."

The subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, also submitted a proposal for cafeteria services that inflated the cost by $67 million, the officials said. The Pentagon rejected that proposal, they said.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 06:51 pm
Re: Haliburton rips us off!!!
pistoff wrote:
This is a patern of ripps offs is the hall mark of the Dubya gang of blundering thieves.


Haliburton has been doing work for the U.S. government for decades. Haliburton did work for the Clinton administration, Haliburton did work in Bosnia, Algeria, and they helped build Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.

Thats right, they were hired for numerous contracts under Bill Clinton. Not a peep about it then huh? Thats because it doesn't fit into whiney liberal ideology. American soldiers and American taxpayers were responsible for desposing Saddam, and now your mad that French appeasers aren't getting contracts for it...boo hoo
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 07:49 pm
Re: Haliburton rips us off!!!
CerealKiller wrote:
pistoff wrote:
This is a patern of ripps offs is the hall mark of the Dubya gang of blundering thieves.


Haliburton has been doing work for the U.S. government for decades. Haliburton did work for the Clinton administration, Haliburton did work in Bosnia, Algeria, and they helped build Iraq's infrastructure in the first place and did not win all of them. I don't think Halliburton has ever been denied a contract under either Bush.

Thats right, they were hired for numerous contracts under Bill Clinton. Not a peep about it then huh? Thats because it doesn't fit into whiney liberal ideology. American soldiers and American taxpayers were responsible for desposing Saddam, and now your mad that French appeasers aren't getting contracts for it...boo hoo

You conveniently left out the fact that under Clinton Halliburton actually competed for the contracts.

And I don't know if it's coincidence or something more sinister but Halliburton won contracts immediately before President Bush Sr and Secretary of Defense Cheney left office and immediately after President Bush Jr. and VP Cheney took office.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2003 11:05 pm
Didn't Cheney try...
to provide N. Korea with nuclear material when he was CEO of Haliburton?

Yeah, it's a pure coincidence that Haliburton got uncontested contracts.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 12:42 am
Here's a challenge to all Liberals. Name a company that is better suited than Haliburton to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.


Haliburton built much of Iraq's infrastructure decades ago. They helped build Iraq. They have been working for the U.S. government for decades, and also under Bill Clinton in multiple countries.


Name the company and why it is better suited to handle the job.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 01:08 am
Since you brought that up
You name one.


Does this make it right that they got a no bid contract and now are part of cheating the American taxpayer?
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 01:33 am
Re: Since you brought that up
pistoff wrote:
You name one.


Does this make it right that they got a no bid contract and now are part of cheating the American taxpayer?


No one is forcing you to answer my question. If you can't, then don't.

Did Haliburton go through a bidding process for every project in the Clinton years?? If not, where were the protestors then? They didn't exist, because it didn't fit their agenda.

If you believe that another company was snubbed out of the bidding process in favor of Haliburton, tell me why that company is better and why they even merited a bid. Haliburton helped build Iraq, now they are helping to rebuild it.

The government caught them overcharging and now they'll be dealt with, isn't this what you want ?
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 05:42 am
Halliburton has a history of defrauding the Pentagon and other malfeasance. The gas price gouging is but the latest example.

From

Quote:
April 8, 2003

House Democrats Want Halliburton Probe
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Halliburton's KBR subsidiary has a record of gouging the government in
contracts awarded without competition, Reps. Henry Waxman of California and
John Dingell of Michigan contended in a letter to the General Accounting
Office.

The lawmakers cited these previous problems with KBR, formerly Kellogg,
Brown & Root:

--A GAO finding in 1997 that the company billed the Army for questionable
expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of
plywood that cost $14.06.

--A year 2000 follow-up report on the Balkans work that found inflated
costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day.

--$2 million in fines paid in February, 2002, to resolve fraud claims
involving work at Fort Ord, Calif. The Defense Department inspector general
and a federal grand jury had investigated allegations by a former employee
that KBR defrauded the government of millions of dollars by inflating prices
for repairs and maintenance.

The Securities and Exchange Commission already is investigating
Halliburton's accounting practices, looking into an accounting change made
in 1998, during Cheney's tenure as CEO.



What's more:

From

Quote:
May 22, 2003
Dancing With the Devil
By BOB HERBERT
NY Times

A Democratic congressman, Henry Waxman of California, has raised pointed questions about the propriety of rewarding Halliburton with lucrative contracts as part of the U.S. war on terror when the company has gone out of its way to do business in three nations that the U.S. has accused of supporting terror: Iraq, Iran and Libya.

In an April 30 letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Mr. Waxman wrote:

"Since at least the 1980's, federal laws have prohibited U.S. companies from doing business in one or more of these countries. Yet Halliburton appears to have sought to circumvent these restrictions by setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries and territories such as the Cayman Islands. These actions started as early as 1984; they appear to have continued during the period between 1995 and 2000, when Vice President Cheney headed the company; and they are apparently ongoing even today."

According to Mr. Waxman, a subsidiary called Halliburton Products and Services opened an office in Tehran, Iran, in February 2000, has done work on offshore drilling projects and has asserted, "We are committed to position ourselves in a market that offers huge growth potential."

Shareholder complaints since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, particularly from the pension funds of the New York City Police and Fire Departments, have prompted Halliburton officials to agree to reevaluate their operations in Iran.

The federal government has been well aware of Halliburton's shenanigans. In his letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Waxman noted that "Halliburton was fined $3.8 million in 1995 for re-exporting U.S. goods through a foreign subsidiary to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions."

The fine was not enough to stop the company from dancing with the devil. It still has dealings in Libya.

Now, with the U.S. takeover of Iraq, Halliburton has hit the jackpot. It has only recently been made clear that an "emergency" no-bid contract given in March to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root covers far more than the limited task of fighting oil well fires. The company has been given control of the Iraqi oil operations, including oil distribution.

"It's remarkable there's been so little attention paid to the Halliburton contracts," said Mr. Waxman. In addition to doing business in countries that have sponsored terrorism, the congressman said, Halliburton has been accused of overcharging the U.S. government for work it did in the 1990's. And last year the company agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to ward off possible criminal charges for price gouging.

"Their reward for that terrible record," said the congressman, "was a secret no-bid contract, potentially worth billions, to run Iraq's oil operations."


Despite it all, this very company got exclusive contracts to "rebuild" Iraq. This is cronyism at its basest.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 09:50 am
Re: Since you brought that up
CerealKiller wrote:
Did Haliburton go through a bidding process for every project in the Clinton years?? If not, where were the protestors then? They didn't exist, because it didn't fit their agenda.

I'm not aware of any Halliburton no-bid contracts under Clinton.

CerealKiller wrote:
If you believe that another company was snubbed out of the bidding process in favor of Haliburton, tell me why that company is better and why they even merited a bid. Haliburton helped build Iraq, now they are helping to rebuild it.

Source please. How exactly did Halliburton help build Iraq?
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 10:52 pm
Re: Since you brought that up
[Source please. How exactly did Halliburton help build Iraq?[/quote]

Detailed investigative reports by the Financial Times and the International Herald Tribune revealed that Halliburton, through two if its subsidiaries, skirted the sanctions on Iraq and did some $23.8 million in business with the ‘evil’ regime. The oil services company was paid to rebuild the very same Iraqi infrastructure that its CEO was complicit in destroying as defense secretary under Bush I. Interestingly, one month prior to the publication of these reports, Mr. Cheney had claimed: “I had a firm policy that I wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal.” Cheney's company did its business in Iraq through European subsidiaries “to avoid straining relations with Washington and jeopardizing their ties with President Saddam Hussein's government,” (Risen 7-28-2002; Lee 11-13-2000; Bruno and Vallette 9-2000; Flanders 10-06-2001; Cavelli 11-19-2001)
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2003 10:56 pm
Bechtel next?
Under investigation. Look for news about that next week.

The stench is wafting strongly about the Neo con budy deals..
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Haliburton rips us off!!!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 10:16:27