Iraq oil revenue soars, creating huge surplus

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JamieinNH, Mar 11, 2008.

  1. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    U.S. still investing billions in rebuilding, facing squeeze at home


    WASHINGTON - Iraq is not spending much of its own money, despite soaring oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget surplus, U.S. auditors told Congress on Tuesday.

    The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically because of record oil prices.


    "The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. ... One of the questions is who should be paying."

    Story Link


    Someone please explain to me why this type of business happens? Why are we still paying for this if they have over 60 BILLION in revenues?!?!?

    We need to stop paying for this.. If they want us there then they need to ANTE UP!

    Jamie
     
  2. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is impossible because the naysayers said we took all their oil which they claimed was the main reason for the war! Now the same group says Iraq simply can't make any profit from their natural resources because that would be wrong.
     
  3. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not sure if they want us there... I am sure they won't pay for us to be there.
     
  4. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Agreed. It wasn't their idea for us to be there.
     
  5. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Smerk if you want, but as I see it, we are spending our grandchildren's money and they are making money..

    Even if we leave the debate of whether we should or shouldn't be there or stay or get out, you have to agree that with us spending so much, and them spending so little.. it just don't add up.

    Now, would you like to discuss this or continue to mock it?

    Jamie
     
  6. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    True.. so very true.. and yet we continue to suck our grandkids dry while they make a bunch of money.. Next thing you will know they will hold it over our head somehow like OPEC is doing now.

    Jamie
     
  7. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    True.. but given we removed Saddam, which was a good thing, now it's time for them to stand up and figure it all out.. If they want us there, they should pay for it.

    Jamie
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I may want to do both or neither! I think this story is loaded with the typical baloney of politics!

    It's their oil isn't it? They are entitled to the profits of their resources aren't they? Every time someone gets a little cash in their pocket someone else is ready to claim it as theirs! Little account is made for today's wealth relative to yesterday's or tomorrow's dire conditions. Of course, if we don't think that's fair then we should just take the oil as some seem to think we already have.

    Sure they need to spend money for their own selves - I think they are - and sure we need to back off the spending when the time is right - I think we are. I'm not convinced this report on these current oil profits accounts for the whole balance sheet of Iraq's financial condition. I'm rather skeptical of the this kind of reporting.

    Any time Congress wants to cut spending on Iraq they have the power to do it. If they want to do so, that's fine with me. But, if they want start making Iraq out to be evil for making a profit on their own oil, then I think that's just another cheap shot.

    If we did force them to pay up with the oil money then someone would quickly jump out from behind the bushes screaming "see, see, it was about the oil"!

    Now, would you like to think about it or just stay on the "make 'em pay" bandwagon?
     
    #8 Dragoon68, Mar 11, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2008
  9. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I was trying to say earlier is we want to be there because of the unforeseen ramifications if we leave. I don't blame them for not paying for that. As you stated earlier, we can argue about if we should or shouldn't have gone but at this stage we can't just leave and they clearly don't want us there. Whenever we leave there will be a civil war and I don't believe there's any getting around that. We're just trying to stack the cards sorta speak so we can have a US friendly outcome.

    I do believe they should be footing the bill to rebuild their country. We paid for water treatment facilities, sewer and power systems etc... However, kind of pointless since those same things are being destroyed in the war. :BangHead:

    Hate to say it but we're close to the just "nuke um" and let God sort it out position...
     
  10. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fence sitting huh? Either you want to argue the merits of the article, or you want to mock, you can't do both in my opinion.

    As far as this being political.. Do you even know who Comptroller General David Walker is? And what office he works for? Here a hint... You do realize that he isn't "in" politics.

    Yes, just as it's their country we're fighting for.. Don't you think they should step up and take some responiblity for their country?

    Sure they are... but that doesn't change the fact that they should be using their money to fund thier new country. If the Iraq government and Iraq people really want chance they will fight for it, pay for it and take it at all cost. Didn't we as the US? Didn't we fight for what we believe in and pay for it?

    Just more mocking... I am not one of the "people" you keep talking about. I haven't said we taken their oil etc.. So until some of those "people" come into this thread, how about keeping it on point...

    So you agree with me then?

    Is that your opinion, or do you have a link for me?

    Of course we do, and since they are making more profits than people anticipated I think it's time to start scaling back the amount we spend.

    Maybe you're right.. but this report did say their profit could be in the area of 60 Billion, that's billion with a B. I think that's a good start for them to start spending their own money in their own country. How much does their "rainy day" fund have to have in it before we can ask them to pitch in? 300 Billion? 200 Billion?

    Also, why do you not trust this report... I refer you back to David Walker and who he is and what his job is. Again, I will give you a hint.. It's NOT politics.

    I think you're the one pulling cheap shots.. No one in this article has made Iraq ou to be evil as you put it... This article just stated the simple truth that at 30-60 Billion dollars, they can pay for some of their own way...

    More mocking I see... :rolleyes:

    I didn't know there was a bandwagon.. I thought we were talking about an article about their profit and our spending... You see, you can't even say that you agree with the article with all the mocking you're doing..

    Oh well.. Maybe you will read it on Fox news and than you'll take notice. Until then, I stand by my orginal statement and opinion.

    Jamie
     
  11. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose of the war was to give the Saudis control over the oil. They own the Bush family.
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    This seems like you're telling me I have to choose "A" - your "correct" answer - or "B" - your "incorrect" answer. It makes me all the more determined to choose "C" - my answer - which, naturally, I believe to be correct.

    No, I don't know David Walker personally. I have a hard time remembering the names of my local officials much less those in the federal government. But, yes, I do know what the General Accounting Office is. I know that the GAO is often considered to be an "independent" agency. It is an auditing arm of Congress. It is asked by Congress to investigate various matters as Congress deems appropriate.

    In this case, Congress asked the GAO to investigate Iraq's spending of their oil revenues. The request, as can be expected from politicians, presumes certain points that may or may not turn out to be true. So, yes indeed, this is a political issue. It was made during recent hearings where some testimony was being given but, as usual, heavily spiked with statements by the questioners. That doesn't mean there are no facts in the matter. It just means that there was some political motive to the request for the investigation. The GAO has previously investigated related matters and questioned the ability of Iraq to manage its finances. I'm sure there are issues that need to be addressed. I question our own government's ability to manage money with Congress being the worst on all!

    But, given that the GAO does typically do its work without too much political influence, then the investigation should eventually confirm the allegations to be true, false, or uncertain. Let's hope for facts being reported and the proper action being the ultimate result.

    By answering "yes" to this statement I would, in effect, be adding to the implication that Iraqis are taking no responsibility for their country and that would simply not be true. I certainly think the Iraqis are, ultimately, responsible for their country and I certainly hope that they continue to rapidly move towards taking it all on themselves. I also think that we, as the winners, have some moral obligation - with limits for sure - to help them complete the transition from war to peace. I don't want us to pay the bill any longer than is necessary to accomplish our goals. We've seen a dramatic increase in their taking that on in the area of military and law enforcement operations. We are taking less and less of a lead role in those activities. Many Iraqis have given life and limb to their new found freedom. Many Iraqis have given up their wealth in the course of the war.

    It's a presumption to say that they haven't been using their money. They have been. Read the reports carefully and you'll see that even it acknowledges this fact.

    We as the US did, in fact, receive some help from other interested parties in our revolution but, clearly, we did pay the price for our freedom.

    I'm certainly not saying you have or haven't claimed the war was about oil. I haven't been keeping track of your views on this so I don't know what they might be. That wasn't my point.

    My point was the irony that Iraq my have a lot of wealth from oil while at the same time many people claimed we were there to take it all. The truth is always shows up in the light. We weren't there to take the oil and we haven't done so. We, in fact, took actions to help get more of the wealth from the oil into the hands of the people. We're always being the "good guys" aren't we?

    What report? The news report you quoted? The most recently requested investigative report hasn't been issued yet! In fact, unless the investigation started in the last few days it's still pending. So let's not quote the allegations as proved facts just yet!

    I think a "billion with a B" is enough to buy about 2 million votes with promises, scares, implications, lies, etc. at only $500 each. That's about all it takes for some people to sell their vote. It's not beyond belief that waving the issue of Iraq's oil revenues around in the face of higher gasoline prices doesn't have some connection to buying votes. There's always some kind of implied promise made that government can and should control free market prices and solve all our daily problems in addition to wars and at no cost to any of us. I think if we really want to save billions we can cut out a lot of things starting even with this investigation.

    But, back to the subject, I think if it does turn out Iraq can fund more of the costs of reconstruction and stabilization of their new nation then we should cut back our own spending accordingly. It may take longer than we want. Remember, even today - 60 years after the fact - where still in Europe spending a lot of our tax money. There may be other good reasons to maintain a presence in the Middle East just as there were in Europe. On the other hand, I tend to want to limit our involvement to war fighting when there's no other better choice, followed by short term maintenance of order after hostilities are over, and then very limited assistance afterwards. I don't care for "handouts" either at home or abroad.

    It's a pending investigation with no conclusions. We don't have a full picture of the whole Iraq's net wealth nor their recent, current, and projected budgets. The cheap shots are those that imply otherwise starting with the headlines.

    Yes, I'd probably be a lot more inclined to believe something I read in FoxNews verses MSNBC. Even so, I don't believe everything they write either. I don't trust the news media much at all. But just for fun compare the article you quoted to this one in FoxNews. The title of the first is "Iraq oil revenue soars, creating huge surplus" and of the second is "GAO Asked to Audit Iraqi Oil Revenue". The former mixes the news in such a way to imply that the full investigation is complete and the results align with what the statements made by members of Congress during recent hearings. The latter states that the GAO has been asked to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter.
     
    #12 Dragoon68, Mar 12, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2008
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why don't you get your Senator to add that to the list of things for the GAO to investigate?
     
  14. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry that my cutting and pasting excluded the URL to the article! Here is the FoxNews link.
     
    #14 Dragoon68, Mar 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2008

Share This Page

Loading...