| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/13 |
| 2003/11/7 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10972 Activity:kinda low |
11/6 Doubts about the profiteering motives of the Iraq action?
http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx
\_ And they say there's no looting:
"At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie Sloan,
executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, testified that
"Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice President Dick
Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon
of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, despite experts'
conclusions that the total price should be less than $1 a
gallon." Sloan added that Iraq's state oil company is
importing "the exact same gas" for 97 cents.
\_ Experts? Which experts? Gas in a war torn country still
suffering partisan attacks should pay half of what I do in
the most stable country on the planet? I think not. Also,
that's not called looting. The word you're looking for is
'gouging'. The real gouging is going on right here in the
Bay Area. I'd bet a buck you're one of the RIDE BIKE! folks
who think high gas prices here are a good thing while at the
same time you're bitching about the high price somewhere else.
\_ personally, i believe gas prices, like other prices,
shoule be determined by the free market. Maybe the
market would set prices in iraq at 4 bucks per gallon,
and at one dollar per gallon in the bay area, but
we won't know until we try will we? It's ironic
that the profiteers who have taken control of our
federal gonvernment claim to be pro-free market
and then appear to be socialists when it makes their
business associates rich.
\_ (1) Iraq is in an area where people are swimming in oil,
and they don't have to ship it half way around the
world, yet they are paying $2.65 which is much higher
than what most of this country is paying.
(2) There is a big difference between higher gasoline
prices due to taxes (that goes to pay infrastructure
improvements and pollution control, etc.) and
higher gasoline prices due to price gouging that
goes straight to pockets of fat cats like Dick Cheney.
\_ If location is so important please explain to me why I
pay 25 cents more per gallon living near a few refineries
than I do when I drive to the more remote parts of the
Bay Area which is getting their gas from the same
refineries? It's called price gouging. As for your
second point, you have absolutely no idea what the price
breakdown is for taxes,fuel costs, transport, security or
anything on Iraqi gas (or US gas either I'd guess). The
real price gouging is going on right here in the Bay Area.
Tell me, you out there RIDING BIKE!?
\_ Since you insist on being a moron, I will explain
it to you. Difference in transportation cost is
insignificant between where you live and other areas
of the Bay Area compared to the other costs of
the gasoline. However, difference in tranportation
cost becomes significant when it is half way around
the world compared to right at the doorstep (i.e.
Kuwait to Iraq). As for the breakdown of price,
the Iraqi state oil company is selling at $1 per
gallon, so can you tell us which of the factors
you mentioned (tax, fuel, transport, security) is
the cause of the additional $1.65 Halliburton is
charging?
\_ You completely ignored my question about why I pay
more living next to a refinery than I do when I
drive 200 miles in land where gas comes from the
same refinery. If you're going to call someone a
moron and then explain why they're a moron, at least
put some effort into your proof. This is the point
where I'm supposed to call you a moron in return but
I won't. Your intellectual dishonesty speaks for
itself.
\_ BC raised taxes throughout his administration and
you're worried about a measly $1.65? Grow up.
\_ Non-sequitor post of the day.
\_ free Kevin!!
\_ That totally follows...
OP: Something bad has happened in the Bush
Administration.
Rep: It's Bill Clinton's fault!! |
| 7/13 |
|
| www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has outraged the Democrats. Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language. The White House and House GOP leadership didnt want the provision in there, charged Sen. A Senate Democratic aide said, Several House Republican conferees were clearly empathetic, but they had to look to a higher authority. That higher authority was the White House, which had sent the marching order to strip this from the bill. Another Democratic aide said that the White House got to House Republicans. The aide pointed to Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenners R-Wis. Leahy added that he believes with the amount of money flowing into Iraq, there will be a lot of greedy fingers. Leahy indicated that he was willing to compromise on the provision. He agreed to include a firm sunset provision advocated by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens R-Alaska. Stevens, Democratic aides said, was very supportive of the provision throughout the conference committee process. However, in conference, House Republicans spurned any compromises. House Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said other reasons for rejecting the provision included that it would have also applied to international assistance and that it did not define what constitutes excessive profiteering. Leahy this week introduced stand-alone legislation targeting war profiteering. However, if it passed, it would go into effect later than the supplemental and would not cover the upcoming time period, thus lessening its effectiveness. Leahy said yesterday it would be a long road before the stand-alone legislation is completed. Leahys measure would slap penalties on those who materially overvalue any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq. Sloan added that Iraqs state oil company is importing the exact same gas for 97 cents. She concluded that between $286 million and $339 million of the $900 million the administration has requested for the importation of petroleum products could be wasted if Halliburtons pricing practices are not stopped. Durbin said the Iraq spending bill opens the door for fat and sloppy good-old-boy contracts. The lawmaker said that those seeking greater transparency were unable to examine many contracts because they are classified. Asserting that this has nothing to do with security, Durbin added, This administration classifies anything that might be embarrassing. While it was House Republicans who wanted the profiteering provision stripped out in conference, Durbin pointed out that Senate Republicans, who had supported the provision in committee and on the floor, did not stand up and fight for the language. We cant dump the whole bill just because a provision on profiteering isnt included. Domenici added that some thought the amendment was written in a political way. Other attempts by Congress to require more accountability for spending the money, especially the reconstruction funds, were for the most part watered down or removed. |