Does War Actually Make Money?

[Padawanbater2]

Ok... Here it is:

When I was in Iraq, KBR Haliburton was everywhere. Best of all, they were doing jobs that soldiers used to do. The Army no longer has any Cooks or Barbers (did you know that?) All independent contractors like Haliburton. Strangely, all of our electronic work, our bus driving, our laundry, and many other menial tasks were done by independent contractors. KBR even had their own medics! Another job outsourced!

Here's the rub:

Army Electrical Technician: 30,000-40,000 a year.

Haliburton Electrical Technician: 100,000-120,000 a year.

Army Bus driver (MOS 88M): 30,000-40,000 a year.

Haliburton Bus Driver: 80,000-100,000 a year.

You see? Get the picture? Army Occupations in the Bush administration were slowly (or quickly in some cases) replaced all together. Why? To save money? No! It cost MORE money to hire the Civilian contractors. Fucked up, huh? Really fucked up thing was this: Those Blackwater guys were doing Army Special forces work. I never would have thought that COMBAT would have been privately contracted, support roles maybe, but COMBAT?!

So, what does it all mean? It means that yes, WAR is good for the economy. It puts taxpayer money right back into the hands of private business, thus spurring economic development. Of course, we could just GIVE that money to schools and health care, which would actually be better for the economy than spending on defense, but there you go. So is it a conspiracy? No, it's pretty out in the open actually. I saw it every day with those KBR guys and their kushy jobs.

Good Post. Not to mention KBR was issued no bid contracts paid for by our taxes. So what would have cost (like you pointed out) standard amounts inflated to three times as much... Why was this, Rick, Cracker?

 

[rocksteady6]

Can i just say as, the orginal poster of the thread, that i have certainly learned a great deal and thank you for not turning this into a name calling debarcle.

 

[CrackerJax]

Good Post. Not to mention KBR was issued no bid contracts paid for by our taxes. So what would have cost (like you pointed out) standard amounts inflated to three times as much... Why was this, Rick, Cracker?

Well we can start by trying to figure out how a no bid equals three times the cost.

Start there.

then we can move to a second issue, where as you just read....KBR helped us win the war....and helped soldiers do their own duty...thereby helping them stay alive. he said as much and he was there.

So.... let's just go with the 3 times the cost...which comes from where again? but let's just assume that's correct.

How much is a soldiers life worth to you? Willing to trade it off to save a few bucks?

I'm not. I would gladly have my taxes go up 10 times if it meant the guys over there will be that much safer.

You don't trade $$$ for lives. Not if you are an American.

 

[speeka]

I have read numerous threads claiming that war drives the economy and is actually a money making scenario for the nation involved. In money making i dont mean that they do it on purpose, as this would be condemmed for obvious reasons.... Am i wrong?

Wrong & very Naive. It's not the nation who makes the money, its the bankers, oil company's & weapon manufacturers who make the money. Their children then become Leader's & keep the cycle going.
Hitler during WW2 was financed by American banks & industries.

 

[speeka]

You don't trade $$$ for lives. Not if you are an American.

That sounds very nice, but from the track record so far, the opposite is true by a country mile.

 

[medicineman]

Come on Rick, Even you should see the collusion between Cheney and Haliburton. It's not a conspiracy when it's right in your face. As I said, When he was secretary of defense, He iniciated the privitization of military support, setting up liasons with corporations like Halliburton and the defense department, in fact directly with Halliburton as one of the contractors. Then he left office to work for, you guessed it, Halliburton, for an exhorbitant salary, No collusion? Next, he got the Iraq war started, Yeah I said it, It was Cheney and his Neo-con friends that lied us into war with Iraq. Then guess what, while still on salary or commission, or stock payoffs or whatever from Halliburton, to the tune of around 300K per year, more than his salary as VP, the defense department (wonder if Cheney had anything to do with this) issued no bid contracts to, guess who, Halliburton. Now if you can't see the possibility of collusion, then you are one dumb ass motherfucker.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Well we can start by trying to figure out how a no bid equals three times the cost.

The point was it costs MORE for the American tax payers to employ KBR to do exactly what Army engineers could do. Substantially more.

then we can move to a second issue, where as you just read....KBR helped us win the war....and helped soldiers do their own duty...thereby helping them stay alive. he said as much and he was there.

That isn't what artwallis said at all. Go back and read his post.

Here's the rub:

Army Electrical Technician: 30,000-40,000 a year.

Haliburton Electrical Technician: 100,000-120,000 a year.

Army Bus driver (MOS 88M): 30,000-40,000 a year.

Haliburton Bus Driver: 80,000-100,000 a year.

You see? Get the picture? Army Occupations in the Bush administration were slowly (or quickly in some cases) replaced all together. Why? To save money? No! It cost MORE money to hire the Civilian contractors. Fucked up, huh?

Also, if we "won the war" the world would be a very different place. The war includes occupation after the fact, and from where I sit, over 5,000 Americans have been killed and over a million Iraqi's have lost their lives. What exactly did we "win", Cracker?

So.... let's just go with the 3 times the cost...which comes from where again? but let's just assume that's correct.

How much is a soldiers life worth to you? Willing to trade it off to save a few bucks?

Again, you're missing the point completely. It is not about saving lives, it's about making money. Why would the US government employ KBR instead of the military at a substantially higher cost, like standard procedure in every other American war? Why not just have the military do what KBR does?

Answer that.

I'm not. I would gladly have my taxes go up 10 times if it meant the guys over there will be that much safer.

You don't trade $$$ for lives. Not if you are an American.

...how bout a quick search, let's see what we come up with... "safer" huh? OK...

Professional negligence

KBR's maintenance work in Iraq has been criticized after reports of soldiers electrocuted from faulty wiring.[28] Specifically, KBR has been charged by the Army for improper installation of electrical units in bathrooms throughout U.S. bases. CNN reported that an Army Special Forces soldier, Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth, died by electrocution in his shower stall on January 2, 2008. Army documents showed that KBR inspected the building and found serious electrical problems a full 11 months before his death. KBR noted "several safety issues concerning the improper grounding of electrical devices." But KBR's contract did not cover "fixing potential hazards;" It covered repairing items only after they broke down.[29] Maseth's family has sued KBR.[30] In January 2009, the US Army CID investigator assigned to the case recommended that Maseth's official cause of death should be changed from "accidental" to "negligent homicide". KBR supervisors were blamed for failing to ensure electrical and plumbing work were performed by qualified employees, and for failure to inspect the work.[31] In late January 2009, the Defense Contract Management Agency handed down a "Level III Corrective Action Request" to KBR. This is disseminated after a contractor is found being in a state of "serious noncompliance," and is one step from suspending or terminating a contract.[31] Despite these issues, KBR was recently awarded a $35 million contract for major electrical work.

Not to mention the sexual assaults, and when brought to managements attention the victims are fired... Classy..


FY 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill



I really don't expect much out of you at this point Cracker, but lets see if you can answer that question I posed at the top;

Why would the gov. choose KBR over the US military?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Now if you can't see the possibility of collusion, then you are one dumb ass motherfucker.

I'm convinced Cracker doesn't actually give a fuck about what he thinks is "right", he's more interested in opposing anyone on this forum he views as a "leftist", just like all the rest of the "conservatives" (with the exception of JO and Rob).

For them, it's more important to win the argument, even with wrong information, than to admit your opponent has a better idea than you do.

This is seriously depressing and these guys are twice my age. I know how my dad thinks, I know how my grandpa thinks, they're not changing their views of the way they see things anytime soon. I hate to say it, but the world will be a better place in 20-30 years when all these hard headed conservative assholes are gone.

At least you keep it real Med.

 

[Near]

I have read numerous threads claiming that war drives the economy and is actually a money making scenario for the nation involved. In money making i dont mean that they do it on purpose, as this would be condemmed for obvious reasons, but i find it hard to believe that a nations government can spend so much money on the entire process and anyone can feel that its profitable. Sure certain business with thrive but in the scheme of things surely it is detrimental in the long term. Am i wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. You didn't take into account the fact that it's not the corporations involved who pay for the expenses, the government does that. Corporations are able to make an astronomical profit from war because they are the ones being paid, not the ones spending. In many cases the amount they are payed is not fair at all, they use extremely inflated prices. All you need do is look at the profits made by corporations involved in wars to confirm what I've said.

 

[CrackerJax]

The military uses their own engineers whenever it is possible and feasible.

Not the case in Iraq....

Spend the money....save the soldiers.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The military uses their own engineers whenever it is possible and feasible.

Not the case in Iraq....

Spend the money....save the soldiers.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Why can't the military use Army engineers in Iraq?

 

[RickWhite]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.


“Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.”


Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001; $262,392 in 2002; $278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Involvement_in_the_Iraq_war

As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.

And all that took was a 10 second google search... For someone claiming to be so smart... you're not so smart Rick.

I know you are just a teenage kid, but are you really that stupid that you think everything you read on the internet is true?

And you are talking about pennies. The guy was the CEO of a huge corporation - $300K is chump change. And you don't know the particulars of the situation. He was the CEO after all.

Do you have any REAL PROOF of anyone pocketing large sums of money to which they are not entitled? No - you don't.

Of course there are people that make money during war. The fact that private contractors are there means they are making a profit. Why shouldn't they?

The question the OP was asking is whether or not war is good for the economy. A blind retard can see that it has been horrible for ours.

The fact is, and I don't mean it as an insult, you are an uninformed and overly opinionated teenager who makes these oversimplifications because you lack a true understanding and therefore the ability to say anything of substance. You do this in most of your threads. God forbid you might try actually learning about a subject instead of making intellectually lazy guesses - but that wouldn't be your style.

The fact is, we go to war to protect our interests and because the people we elect believe it is the right thing to do. Yes, it is fun and sexy to imagine there is some conspiracy involving evil plots to make billions. But, this isn't a movie and that stuff doesn't happen in real life. Maybe you should stop watching so much TV.

 

[CrackerJax]

Paddy has a copy paste education...but no foundation to work with on what he digs up.


They do use army engineers in Iraq.....

Oh my.

They didn't have nearly enough to do the JOB. Figure it out....

 

[Padawanbater2]

The single fact that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, then left that company to serve as VP, then awarded the exact same company no bid contracts at substantially inflated prices, while receiving compensation (any amount), should make you stop and think.

Or is it all just a big coincidence?

Also, I'm not a teenager, I'm 22.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Paddy has a copy paste education...but no foundation to work with on what he digs up.


They do use army engineers in Iraq.....

Oh my.

They didn't have nearly enough to do the JOB. Figure it out....

The military uses their own engineers whenever it is possible and feasible.

Not the case in Iraq....

You seem to be taking two different positions.

So they didn't use them, or they did, they just didn't have enough?



Also, why would they pay them substantially higher to do the same job? (with our taxes, you'd think if gov. was trying to cut the costs, or even be fiscally efficient, they'd just use the military like standard procedure..., No? Just me?)

 

[RickWhite]

The single fact that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, then left that company to serve as VP, then awarded the exact same company no bid contracts at substantially inflated prices, while receiving compensation (any amount), should make you stop and think.

Or is it all just a big coincidence?

Also, I'm not a teenager, I'm 22.

Thanks for proving my point. You are just making an assumption; and a childish one at that. There is nothing unusual about that arrangement. How many companies can do what Halliburton does? None?

Guess what else. Obama worked for ACORN. Then ACORN was awarded a bunch of money. Should we assume Obama got a huge kickback?

 

[RickWhite]

You seem to be taking two different positions.

So they didn't use them, or they did, they just didn't have enough?



Also, why would they pay them substantially higher to do the same job? (with our taxes, you'd think if gov. was trying to cut the costs, or even be fiscally efficient, they'd just use the military like standard procedure..., No? Just me?)

Are you joking? You really think you understand the financial reason for the military hiring private contractors. If a team of accountants spent a week explaining it to you you would still be hard pressed to understand it. I'm betting you have never even heard of Quickbooks and you think you are qualified to have an opinion on this issue - what a tool.

Do you think maybe because the cost of training additional engineers would cost more that hiring a private company? Do you think just maybe there is a reason you might not be aware of what with your zero understanding of the issue and all.

You are proof that one needs know nothing to have an opinion.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Thanks for proving my point. You are just making an assumption; and a childish one at that. There is nothing unusual about that arrangement. How many companies can do what Halliburton does? None?

Guess what else. Obama worked for ACORN. Then ACORN was awarded a bunch of money. Should we assume Obama got a huge kickback?

It's clear conflict of interest. Cheney has reasons to award Halliburton the contracts.

Go look at Halliburtons stock, take notice of it before and after 911.

Wonder if Cheney has any Halliburton stock... hmm...

There are probably similar things going on with Acorn. Just like Cheney and Halliburton, Obama has a conflict of interest with Acorn.

 

[IAm5toned]

civillain engineers are cheaper than army corps....
not knocking the army corps, but its true.
there is a major military testing facility very close to where im at.
im talking high tech.... and talking no more about it.
but my point is, 90% of the engineering staff are civilian contractors employed by major manufacturing corporations (pratt & whitney, boeing, GE, raytheon, etc etc etc.)

 

[Padawanbater2]

Are you joking? You really think you understand the financial reason for the military hiring private contractors. If a team of accountants spent a week explaining it to you you would still be hard pressed to understand it. I'm betting you have never even heard of Quickbooks and you think you are qualified to have an opinion on this issue - what a tool.

Do you think maybe because the cost of training additional engineers would cost more that hiring a private company? Do you think just maybe there is a reason you might not be aware of what with your zero understanding of the issue and all.

You are proof that one needs know nothing to have an opinion.

Dude, you completely skirted the question and point I made, just like Cracker.

Why the hell do they pay them so much more than the soldiers with our tax dollars?

They employ these companies because they make profits off having them in the warzones.

You're sitting there saying "fuck the troops, a private company can do it better and I don't mind financing them instead".

Every soldier I've talked to opposes the shit KBR and Halliburton and Blackwater do in the war, they all feel like they're being cheated and outsourced. Why the hell would they have joined the military to risk their lives for meager wages when they could have just signed on with KBR or one of the subsidiaries and made substantially more at half the risk?