The Bastards are Moving ... to Dubai

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Halliburton moves HQ to Dubai</font size>
<font size="4">Will shift its corporate headquarters from Texas
to the Mideast ... Federal investigators last month
alleged Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of
the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq</font size></center>

Atlanta Journal Constitution
By JIM KRANE
Associated Press
Published on: 03/12/07

Dubai, United Arab Emirates — Oil services giant Halliburton Co. soon will shift its corporate headquarters from Texas to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.

"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai."

Lesar, speaking at an energy conference in nearby Bahrain, said he will relocate to Dubai from Texas to oversee Halliburton's intensified focus on business in the Mideast and energy-hungry Asia, home to some of the world's most important oil and gas markets.

His announcement appears to signal one of the highest-profile moves by a U.S. corporate leader to Dubai, an Arab boomtown where free-market capitalism has been paired with some of the world's most liberal tax, investment and residency laws.

In 2006, Halliburton — once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney — earned profits of $2.3 billion on revenues of $22.6 billion.

Federal investigators last month alleged Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/03/11/0312athalliburton.html
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Cheney's Halliburton Stock Options Rise 3,281% </font>
<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/77/225726852_394e1353b4_m.jpg" align="left"></div>
halliburtongraph.gif

<font size="4" color="#000000" face="times new roman"> You can't beat the combination of War Profiteering and Crony Capitalism in the Bush-Cheney Cabal.

Vice President Dick Cheney, the former head of Halliburton, who has steered numerous no-bid no-compete contracts for the War on Iraq to his former company holds Halliburton stock options which have risen 3,281% since 2004, says New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, in a report
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif" align="right"></div>
Lautenberg claims that Cheney's stock options, which were worth $241,498 a year ago are now valued at more than $8 million. Senator Lautenberg a World War II veteran is the retired millionaire founder of ADP the financial data processing firm. Senator Lautenbergs findings were validated by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRC).

The CRC concluded in 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office <b>does constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate the proceeds to charities.</b>

The Congressional Research Service also found that <b>receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.</b>
Vice-President Cheney has repeatedly claimed that <b>he didn't have any financial ties to Halliburton.</b> He said the following on NBC's Meet The Press <b>"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,"</b>

<span style="background-color: #FFFF53"><b>The profits of the military-industrial complex are soaring, and higher military budgets are being appropriated.
<font color="#ff0000" size="5">
The value of Cheney's Halliburton stock options has not merely doubled or tripled but multiplied by a factor of 32.
</font>
</b></span>

“Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.</font>
<div align="left">
<!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF17B.jpg" align="left">
</div><p>

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/home.html
<p>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>
<p><p>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333"><b>
When you are stealing billions of taxpayer money despite a 28% public approval rate .......You Dance Your Ass Off......Watch Bush, Condi & Laura try to get with the beat :D :D :D </b></font><p>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKvHptCq8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKvHptCq8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



<
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
<font face="arial black" size="5" color="#d90000">
Cheney's Halliburton Stock Options Rise 3,281% </font>
<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/77/225726852_394e1353b4_m.jpg" align="left"></div>
halliburtongraph.gif

<font size="4" color="#000000" face="times new roman"> You can't beat the combination of War Profiteering and Crony Capitalism in the Bush-Cheney Cabal.

Vice President Dick Cheney, the former head of Halliburton, who has steered numerous no-bid no-compete contracts for the War on Iraq to his former company holds Halliburton stock options which have risen 3,281% since 2004, says New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, in a report
<div align="right"><!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/images/chart0306.gif" align="right"></div>
Lautenberg claims that Cheney's stock options, which were worth $241,498 a year ago are now valued at more than $8 million. Senator Lautenberg a World War II veteran is the retired millionaire founder of ADP the financial data processing firm. Senator Lautenbergs findings were validated by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRC).

The CRC concluded in 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office <b>does constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate the proceeds to charities.</b>

The Congressional Research Service also found that <b>receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.</b>
Vice-President Cheney has repeatedly claimed that <b>he didn't have any financial ties to Halliburton.</b> He said the following on NBC's Meet The Press <b>"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,"</b>

<span style="background-color: #FFFF53"><b>The profits of the military-industrial complex are soaring, and higher military budgets are being appropriated.
<font color="#ff0000" size="5">
The value of Cheney's Halliburton stock options has not merely doubled or tripled but multiplied by a factor of 32.
</font>
</b></span>

“Halliburton has already raked in more than $20 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all.</font>
<div align="left">
<!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF17B.jpg" align="left">
</div><p>

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/home.html
<p>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>
<p><p>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#333333"><b>
When you are stealing billions of taxpayer money despite a 28% public approval rate .......You Dance Your Ass Off......Watch Bush, Condi & Laura try to get with the beat :D :D :D </b></font><p>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKvHptCq8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bkqKvHptCq8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>



<
 

modified

Rising Star
Registered
Interesting I just wonder about the implications of this. One large corp moves ok... then another one and another.... to a pro business hands off government that believes in the true spirit of Laissez-faire please don't touch :smh: .

So now that they're a Middle East based company will they still be able to do business with the US govt/military? :rolleyes: You know it.. they still have a corporate office in Houston ,the executive branch in their back pocket, and billions in agreed upon contracts that are binding :rolleyes: . That part is saddening :(
 

nittie

Star
Registered
It cost $600 for a ticket to Dubai, you can get workers for 18 cents per hour, high tech workers go for $8 an hour. A guy I do business with is going over there for six months he says if things go well he'll be able to set his company up and compete with major businesses when he gets back.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
A while back -- during the Bru-ha-ha over outsourcing (2004) -- a number of states proposed bills that would ban state contracts from being sent abroad. Of course, with entities like Halliburton and others which maintain a rudimentary presence in the U.S., so that they can maintain the appearance of being a U.S., company, that might pose a problem (is it or is it not a U.S. company?).

The argument with those states was that "public contracts" ought not be outsourced because outsourcing "public funds" has a direct bearing on "job creation" within the states. That is, you're outsoucing the jobs that created the state's revenue in the first place. Therefore, using public money to outsource jobs that created the state's revenue = declining state revenue and a decline in state services.

WITH RESPECT TO 'PUBLIC FUNDS', what if there was a formula to determine whether a company is a U.S. company or a foreign company? A rule that would trip up companies like Halliburton (which lives high off public funds) that has a rudimentary presence in the U.S. - with the bulk of its operations headquartered in some foreign country ?

Except where necessary (of course defining necessary could be problematic), is it a good practice to use PUBLIC FUNDS to finance your own demise ???

QueEx
 

modified

Rising Star
Registered
QueEx said:
A while back -- during the Bru-ha-ha over outsourcing (2004) -- a number of states proposed bills that would ban state contracts from being sent abroad. Of course, with entities like Halliburton and others which maintain a rudimentary presence in the U.S., so that they can maintain the appearance of being a U.S., company, that might pose a problem (is it or is it not a U.S. company?).

The argument with those states was that "public contracts" ought not be outsourced because outsourcing "public funds" has a direct bearing on "job creation" within the states. That is, you're outsoucing the jobs that created the state's revenue in the first place. Therefore, using public money to outsource jobs that created the state's revenue = declining state revenue and a decline in state services.

WITH RESPECT TO 'PUBLIC FUNDS', what if there was a formula to determine whether a company is a U.S. company or a foreign company? A rule that would trip up companies like Halliburton (which lives high off public funds) that has a rudimentary presence in the U.S. - with the bulk of its operations headquartered in some foreign country ?

Except where necessary (of course defining necessary could be problematic), is it a good practice to use PUBLIC FUNDS to finance your own demise ???

QueEx

Its a bad practice because it doesn't encourage the kind of reinvestment needed. Also that formula seems like it would be a compromise. One that Haliburton would have the wherewithal to go around. And when all else fails [lobbying included] they could just buy/merge with their competitors thus creating only one feasible alternative sigh..
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I agree. There is a way around every roadblock. But my questions really goes beyond the practices -- to the policy: should "public funds" i.e., taxpayer dollars, fund outsourcing???

QueEx
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
nittie said:
...You can get workers for 18 cents per hour, high tech workers go for $8 an hour. A guy I do business with is going over there for six months he says if things go well he'll be able to set his company up and compete with major businesses when he gets back.


<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/artofthestamp/SubPage%20table%20images/artwork/history/Abraham%20Lincoln/BIGabraham.jpg" align="left" width="220" height="271"></div>
<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#0000FF">
<b>Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Abraham Lincoln
December 3, 1861
</b></font>



<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
Peeps, the current RepubliKlan political leadership and their corporatist (fascist) allies are the spawn of the slave holding plantocracy and the successors to the fascist states of the 20th century.

Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain are all admired by the RepubliKlan as prototypes for the type of ‘business economy’ they want to bring to the United States. In such a ‘business economy’ , labor has no rights, labor unions are banned; capital in the hands of a selected elite control the entire economy.

Todays RepubliKlans DO NOT agree with Abraham Lincoln’s philosophy about labor & capital that is quoted above.

Do these conditions sound like any major country on the world stage today, that’s operating a capitalist economy? Name the country…. Need a hint? 60% of the merchandise on the shelves of Wal-Mart, Target, & K-Mart come from this country. The country is China.

By proposing to move it’s company headquarters to Dubai , Halliburton is just being more aggressive than other American Trans-Global corporations who have been stealthily moving their jobs to India, Singapore, Indonesia, China, Barbados etc. The technical nerve-centers (those large rooms full of servers & mainframes) of the worlds largest financial institutions and insurance companies have already been moved to India.

Top level SAP or PeopleSoft IT workers who in the US would earn as much as $150. per hour are having their jobs outsourced to India where their replacements are being paid $35. per hour. Along with the $35. per hour, they are given Citibank credit cards with a $25,000. Credit line and a 35% interest rate. This is the vaunted new Indian middle-class that you see smiling and shopping in the malls on television. They are the new wage-slaves, they work 6 days a week, 12 -15 hours per day with few benefits.

At the top of this capitalist pyramid are the Indian ‘shot-callers’ such as <font color="#ff0000"><b> TATA Consultancy Services</b></font> who have a dedicated sales force which is successfully pitching Fortune 500 CEO’s to kill American jobs and send the business to much lower cost India.

These cost savings are the “productivity increases” that you hear about when you listen to a business report. This is why corporations can announce higher profits and their stock price goes up, meanwhile American workers wages adjusted for inflation have been going down since 1999. Peeps I’m done, sometimes I forget that this is primarily a tits & ass board.
</font>

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="6"></hr><p>
<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#d90000">
Capitalism Doesn't Require Democracy</font><font face="times new roman" size="4" color="#000000">

<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->
<img src="http://www.usm.maine.edu/sb/Reich.jpg" width="200" height="280"></div>
<font face="arial narrow" size="2" color="#0000FF"><b>
Robert Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written ten books, including The Work of Nations, which has been translated into 22 languages; the best-sellers The Future of Success and Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Reason. His articles have appeared in the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal. Mr. Reich is co-founding editor of The American Prospect magazine. </b></font>
<b>January 10, 2006

by Robert B. Reich</b>

www.CommonDreams.org

You may remember when the world was divided between communism and capitalism, and when the Chinese were communists. The Chinese still call themselves communists, but now they’re also capitalists.

In fact, visit China today and you find the most dynamic capitalist nation in the world. In 2005, it had the distinction of being the world’s fastest-growing major economy.

China is the manufacturing hub of the globe. It’s is also moving quickly into the highest of high technologies. It already graduates more computer engineers every year than the United States.

Its cities are booming. There are more building cranes in use today in China than in all of the United States. China’s super-highways are filled with modern cars. Its deep-water ports and airports are world class. Its research and development centers are state of the art. At the rate its growing, in three decades China will be the largest economy in the world.

Communist, as in communal? Are you kidding? The gap between China’s rich and poor is turning into a chasm. China’s innovators, investors, and captains of industry are richly rewarded. They live in luxury housing developments whose streets are lined with McMansions. The feed in fancy restaurants, and relax in five-star hotels and resorts. China’s poor live in a different world. Mao Tse Tung would turn in his grave.

So where are the Chinese communists? They’re in government. The communist party is the only party there is. China doesn’t have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It doesn’t tolerate dissent. Authorities can arrest and imprison people who threaten stability, as the party defines it. Any group that dares to protest is treated brutally. There are no civil liberties, no labor unions, no centers of political power outside the communist party.

China shows that when it comes to economics, the dividing line among the world’s nations is no longer between communism and capitalism. Capitalism has won hands down. The real dividing line is no longer economic. It’s political. And that divide is between democracy and authoritarianism. China is a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government.

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other. That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets. As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.

Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive. It’s true that democracy needs capitalism. Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy. For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government. Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and thereby provides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

But China shows that the reverse may not be true -- capitalism doesn’t need democracy. Capitalism’s wide diffusion of economic power offers enough incentive for investors to take risks with their money. But, as China shows, capitalism doesn’t necessarily provide enough protection for individuals to take risks with their opinions.
</font>
<br>
<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="10"></hr>
<p>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
muckraker10021 said:
Peeps I’m done, sometimes I forget that this is primarily a tits & ass board.
No. This is the Politics Board where, primarily, people are primarily interested in knowing and understanding whats going on around them.

But then again, maybe you're right. The primarily tits & ass people don't appear to have time for such primary pursuits ...

QueEx
 

nittie

Star
Registered
For months I've been asking why is the stock market so high when we're losing 2 wars...when theres job layoffs everyday...when the poverty ranks are up over 20%...Where is this so-called American Economy we hear so much about? Point is times are changing whether we like it or not. As a small business man I understand why companies move even though it goes against my personal views. Businesses are being forced to move because they're playing catchup. They underestimated the world and now the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm not condoning the pratice just admitting that it is real and it won't be changing anytime soon. Today's businesses are not far from Abe Lincoln's thinking either he was a capitalist first and foremost if he were alive today he would be a free trader.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
nittie said:
It cost $600 for a ticket to Dubai, you can get workers for 18 cents per hour, high tech workers go for $8 an hour. A guy I do business with is going over there for six months he says if things go well he'll be able to set his company up and compete with major businesses when he gets back.


Networking, connections, production, capital gain, we need to get in on this.... :hmm:
 

modified

Rising Star
Registered
Sorry didn't mean to skirt around the issue. Public funds should not be used to fund outsourcing. Its already enough that state/county/local governments have special tax "incentives" and the like for corporations to move in and setup.

I hear you Muckraker "higher profits", "lower unemployment" yet wage stagnancy an insult. The wealthy just grab a bigger part of the pie and willingly report it. Though I can't prove it I believe another reason for the war is to tie up funds and sadly cut other (mostly social)services in the process.

Looking at Dubai what can the US do to become a destination? Halliburton's move was possibly precipitated by Sarbanes-Oxley and other stringent scrutiny on its business dealings with the govt. Less regulation maybe???[Enron/Worldcom :hmm: :smh:] I don't know.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Moving Halliburton out of the U.S. signals one or all of the following:

Funneling funds of overpriced government contracting,
Flight from prosecution,
Protection Cheneys' gold mine,
A bigger plan to suck all the final juice out of the United States worth,
a type of precursor to the NWO...
 
Top