Senate votes to extend debt limit

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
madame_zora said:
Well BND, your posts would make sense, except that they don't. Are you saying that Halliburton HASN'T gotten a huge cut of the money? Or are you saying you're okay with that? or are you just adding your .02 to make no point at all, as usual?


For the billionth time, I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, and never have been. That's a limp excuse to keep deriding me, but I guess it's all you've got.

http://lpsg.org/showthread.php?t=24859


I thought I was wasting my limp excuse to deride you in commenting on your continual fascination with conspiracy theories, not in purely being a dyed in the wool democrat. Besides, even if my $.02 has devalued to a fraction of a penny, that's never stopped me before.

Sure, Halliburton has earned quite a bit of money during this war. Part of it because of connections (that's been going on since our country began, right or wrong) and part of it because they are very good at doing some things in this world that other companies cannot do. In either event, there should be stricter review of all government contracts from the standpoint of payment for performance, but it seems neither party wants to go there. One thing to add to the list of things to do in this country is to reform the process for granting gov't contracts. You can hate no-bid contracts all you want, but sometime take a look at the process you do have to go thru to legitmately get a contract and say that's fair.

Also, more Presidents that just those surnamed Bush make a habit of calling on Halliburton to do certain jobs - just check under Clinton's resume and you'll see he too called upon them..more than once.

And they have more going for them than just being Dick Cheney's old company insofar as the way they keep their bills paid. With the oil market as tight as it has been the past few years, nearly all oil/oil services stocks have seen large run-ups in their market values. Yes, especially Halliburton, who for one thing specializes in "pressure pumping" (which has nothing to do with sex). They virtually own the market when it comes to getting the last drop out of old oil wells that,when prices were $10-15/barrel, nobody cared about but when prices are $50+, everyone cares about. That ability has certainly added to their bottom line.

It's your right to hate Bush all you want. It's just kind of sad that you're sold, lock, stock, and barrel, on the belief he'd keep troops in the field purposely just to keep Halliburton in a contract...with the Dems and Reps in Congress' consent. But, I guess this 21st Century version of "All the President's Men" is all you've got.
 

10.5andproudofit

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Posts
236
Media
9
Likes
71
Points
173
Location
new york
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i have nothing against bush or the present administration. i feel there has been a marked decline in the overall willingness of politicians to listen to the people on both sides of the fence.

when you say tight oil market you mean competitive not low margin correct? exon mobile had the highest profit margins ever recorded at the end of the last quarter for the oil / refining industry.

if you mean competitive, i'll concede its competitive only in an oligopolistic sense. new competitors are virtually barred from entrance do to the massive undertakings necessary to be sucessful in the oil industry. to much verticle integration is necessary for most outfits to purchase a profitable oil business.

the issuance of government contracts, has actually gotten more fair. halliburton does not favor one party or the other, though i think we could possibly agree they do service a lot of government contracts.

i say its gotten more fair because of the recent outsourcing. now i know i rant and rave against outsourcing, and i stand by that. however at least now the government is realizing its gross inefficiencies and is trying something, regardless of how misguided i think it may be.

i just can't see long term benifits being reaped from exporting so much potential GNP from US industry, but it is a temporary fix. if they can wean off of this in a reasonable amount of time, say 2-3 years, then i think we really could get america's economy a little more stabalized. (not saying we are in the tank, we still report growth)

however it is the rate of the different areas of growth that concern me. oil products, be it gas, or heating oil, was projected at 25% of a family's income this past winter. dont forget that all comes out of a family's post tax earnings as well.

this is up from a projected 10-15% of the early 90s (i dont remember the exact figure sorry! it was on MSNBC a while back if you want to try their website?)

its not just oil that bothers me, many jobs dont have annual increases that even match the current inflation rate, and the housing bubble still hasn't popped though i think it will in 8-10 more months, right after the next heavy buying season into next winter.

i dont think being a democrate really is pertinate. i already stated im an independent, with many conservative tendencies, but i really dont feel like either party is representing what they project as their image.

just throwin it out there, i mean nothing malicious to anyone, but i do like to talk this stuff out there's definatly a lot to be reaped from it.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Extended the debt limit, eh?

Remember how hot the repubs were for the Balanced Budget Amendment? Wasn't that part of the 1994 "Contract with America"?

I guess we're all wearing the blue dress now.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
SpeedoGuy said:
Extended the debt limit, eh?

Remember how hot the repubs were for the Balanced Budget Amendment? Wasn't that part of the 1994 "Contract with America"?

I guess we're all wearing the blue dress now.

It's my impression/stereotype, gained from reading the American press (for what THAT's worth) that

Democrats want to raise taxes/run deficits in order to spend $$ on social initiatives (Medicare, welfare, etc) for the non-moneyed classes.

Republicans want to not raise taxes/run bigger deficits in order to spend $$ on social initiatives (defence contracts, mainly) for the moneyed classes.

Both parties are addicted to spending. They're doing it to please different groups, of course. And ultimately, the same groups will be paying for it (the non-moneyed classes, via either inflation or higher taxes). The Democratic approach seems a wee bit more honest when broken down as I have (based on my media-derived impressions), but the Republicans do a much better job of convincing the general public that their spending agenda is patriotic/for the national good/etc.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
As someone (DR?) pointed out earlier, I can't see the US invading or doing anything more than shaking its fist at Iran. One thing the Iraq war has demonstrated is that the U.S. military in its current iteration is overstretched. Assuming they're in Iraq until the end of this administration, there simply isn't the manpower to attempt a "regime change" in Iran.

I personally am expecting Israeli airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities once the diplomatic options can be shown to be exhausted.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
BnD, we really don't disagree as much as YOU seem to want to. I can't remember if you are a Christian, and it really shouldn't matter, but haven't enough parts of the "conspiracy theory" been revealed as being TRUE to warrant some attention? My chief complaint is that nomatter how many times someone in this administration has been found with their hands in the cookie jar, it keeps getting swept under the rug. The only CONSISTANT reason I can find for this is that people seem to want to believe bush is a Christian, whether or not it's true. I find that frustrating.

Sure Clinton used Halliburton, as did most of our leaders. The difference is the CONFLICT OF INTEREST when the people making the decision to award no bid contracts award them to companies IN WHICH THEY OWN STOCK! Sorry, that's a big fuck-off problem for me, other people go to jail for that.

Still, defend bush, like he needs it. I don't hate him because he's a republican. He's made a mockery of his party though, and I hate him for being a worthless, greedy and vapid MAN. You are right though that I DO believe he would keep us in war just to advance his personal profits. In fact, I think (and there is evidence to this point) that it was planned before he even won (or took) the presidency.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get us. Think of how many things I've worried about have turned out to be true. What would it mean to someone like you if there was irrefutable evidence that he's been a bad man all along? Pull up your pull ups because I think that day will come.

Hey, I know how it feels, I've voted for politicians that I later regretted once I saw how they performed in office, why is this mistake so hard for people to admit? Do they feel like they'd be letting down their religion? Seriously, I honestly can't figure out why there is a core group that just won't concede the point, and it's causing a mess for everyone. Everybody makes mistakes, especially when deciding who to trust, but we make the best decisions we can based on the information available. Now that there's more information, why is it that the firm republicans won't consider reviewing it? The dems will abandon a bad man like the plague in most cases, why do the repubs defend their bad apples?

Yeah, we desperately need a legitimate third party, but unless someone steps up who is independantly wealthy and not insane (like boss Ross, who I voted for, haha) I don't see how they could fund a campaign.
 

brainzz_n_dong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
226
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Age
34
There are things we agree on and (obviously) things we don't. A point of faith for you, as you stated, is that you feel Bush would keep us at war to maintain/increase personal profits and that's one I feel comes from the anti-Bush fervor that began the day after the Supreme Court decision in 2000. Be that as it may, even if we'd not invaded Iraq the oil market would be within shouting distance of where it is now. Facts of the matter are that Iran is developing/has nearly developed nukes, India and China are rapidly expanding economically and demanding more and more oil to fuel their economies, and world supply is just barely ahead of all of this. Invasion or not, I'd doubt oil (and those people who currently own their livelihoods to it) would be much higher than it was 5-7 years ago.

I have gone on record, primarily when discussing things with you or in threads where you are also talking, that Bush disappoints me as a conservative and that I'd not have invaded Iraq at the time/place that he chose to do so. I feel Bush is a situational conservative, tilting that way when needed to keep the base going. I feel he leans more that way than his father did, but while I respect his father personally, politically he did a lot of wind-twisting. While I am a Christian, I'd practice my faith differently when it comes to matters of pubic policy than he choses. I feel you draw more flies with honey than vinegar and I feel he has temporarily advanced Christian causes but at the long-term cost of a backlash.

I've got to head off to work, so that's all for now.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
That's what I thought. I haven't heard from you in a while and there's been a lot of hubbub around here recently, so I really couldn't remember a couple of things, but we are not that far off. bush being a "situational conservative"? That's a pretty good description for me. I would just apply it a bit more Liberally (pun intended) with his track record of changing the reasons why we're at war to begin with to say situational conservative=someone who stands for nothing.

I can't possibly build a relationship with anyone based on an eggregious list of lies from the beginning. I won't make an exception for him just because he's the prez. I know you think I judge him harshly because of some national rallying, but I assure you, it's solely based on HIS own behavior. He's been a shit his whole life, and it's been very well documented. He didn't become a "great man" or "man of God" magically after 9/11, no sale. As socially permissive as I am, it's easy to miss that I am pretty fiscally conservative, so he offends me in every sense possible- socially intolerant and fiscally absurd.
An absolutley horrible leader in every sense of the words.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
madame_zora said:
Rock, I would like nothing more than to believe you there. My only problem is that seeing how things have already happened forces me to prepare myself for eventualities I would never have considered before. I now see american stupidity to be a positively limitless commodity, even where self-preservation is concerned. What worries me now is not just the greedy, but the fundies who actually believe this is a GAWDLY war making irrational decisions. There have already been so many, I just have to be ready because I believe it is the intention of this administration to stay at war SOMEWHERE as long as they are in office. They're already setting the groudwork for invading Iran, it's not like the upcomming "talks" are going to yeild anything of value that would prevent it. Still, I'd love to be wrong.
The Bush Administration has absolutely made a big mess of this, as it not only makes the US look stupid to any logical person, but Iraq is like quicksand, and now the US has no troops to fuck with Iran.

Regardless, most of what we see in the news is saber rattling. There will be no war with Iran. Iran and the US have been talking through back channels for some time now, and Iran even conceded to meet with the US over Iraq a few days ago.