View Full Version : Where's the liberal outcry on this?
01-09-2004, 02:45 PM
Here's a story that of course is not being reported nationally, is of course not being blown out of proportion. Of course it doesn't have Dick Cheney's name on it, but there should be just as much of an outcry.
01-09-2004, 02:56 PM
What's your point here? One company had direct ties to the VP and won a no-bid contract with the govt. The other seems to be just the same old corporate curruption that happens when no one is looking.
Don't see how politics is involved at all here.
01-09-2004, 02:59 PM
That is an outrage
01-09-2004, 03:12 PM
A company overcharged the goverment. Just because the other one was related to Cheney doesn't mean it was his fault that it happened. There should be a huge outcry because another company has done this.
01-09-2004, 04:14 PM
The point of liberals bringing up Haliburton is simple. The VP sits on their board and has Billions of personal assets invested with the company. So of course we have a problem with the VP profitting at the expense of taxpayers. Of course we think something smells fishy when halliburton is awarded all the contracts in Iraq, especially when Cheney was one of the main people convincing us that Iraq had WMD's and was a threat to the US.
We know that every company overcharges the Government. Not every company has a Government official sitting on its Board while it's overcharging the government, nor does every company have a Government official on its Board profitting from said overcharging....
Liberals have always favored monitoring this bahavior by corporations, but Conservatives paint us as wanting Big Government whenever we try to curb these activities............
01-12-2004, 08:18 AM
Cheney still benefits financially from his association with Halliburton. Though he had no experience in the oil business, he was put in charge of Halliburton soon after leaving the first Bush White House because of his close ties to government officials in Washington, D.C. and the Middle East. He used those ties to get business for Halliburton, though he actually did considerable harm to the company through some of his more brainless financial transactions--such as the acquisition of a company facing hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuit damages. [It's hard to know who was a more incompetent businessman, Bush or Cheney. They both set the bar so high.] A Vice President who continues to benefit financially from a large oil services company that does most of its business with the government is an obvious cause for concern. Once upon a time conservatives knew things like this. That was before they sold their souls to George W Bush for a few tax cuts.
However, the larger point that JPORTERWEB should be trying to make is still valid. The fact is the public hears little about the non-stop corruption in corporate America and how it empties the taxpayers' pockets on a regular basis. Now, I understand that JPORTER is not going to draw the inevitable connection between this corporate malfeasance and corporate America's servants in the Republican party, but the rest of us can still see that obvious point.
01-12-2004, 11:02 AM
I hear ya Spence, the problem is that these same people cry and moan everytime the govt wants to regulate something a little more, when the fact is that if the govt had a little more control and oversight over the corporate world this curruption would be on a much smaller scale.
01-13-2004, 04:15 PM
spence says:A Vice President who continues to benefit financially from a large oil services company that does most of its business with the government is an obvious cause for concern. Once upon a time conservatives knew things like this. That was before they sold their souls to George W Bush for a few tax cuts.
[/QUOTE] keino says:The VP sits on their board and has Billions of personal assets invested with the company. So of course we have a problem with the VP profitting at the expense of taxpayers. Of course we think something smells fishy when halliburton is awarded all the contracts in Iraq, especially when Cheney was one of the main people convincing us that Iraq had WMD's and was a threat to the US.
Isn't it standard policy of all federal policy makers at least at the highest ranks to divest themselves of their financial interests and to turn over their investment portfolios to a blind trust. This also includes stepping down from any boards of influence. So Cheney should no longer benefit financially from Halliburton or any other holding that he should have an impact on in his policy making. Correct me if I am wrong. If you are wrong then admit it and take back your statements accusing him of illegally benefitting from his policy making position in our government! If I am wrong then I will apologize.
01-13-2004, 09:06 PM
You're not wrong. His loot sits in trust as does all his interst in the Company. So while he does not benefit financially in his capacity as VP, he does as beneficiary of the Trust. If Halliburton is profitable, so is the Trust. I will not take back my accusations until Cheney discloses went went on in the closed door energy meetings in which he has such an obvious conflict of interest. Remember "conflict of interest" can be the mere appearance of inpropriety.
01-14-2004, 09:53 AM
If Halliburton is worth more when Cheney is no longer VP, he gains financially. He is in a position to influence government contracting decisions in favor of Halliburton. Halliburton and other companies with close ties to the Bush White House [such as Bechtel] have already won a number of contracts without having to bid for them. [That means the contracts were awarded to those companies without the benefit of competition, so other companies lost out on the chance and taxpayers pay more because there was no competition.] It's pretty cut and dry.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.