Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 12 2005, 11:24 AM
Who says they didn't remain impartial?[post=498395]Quoted post[/post]
We do, because it's our duty as Americans to question the government at every turn.
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 12 2005, 11:24 AM
Who says they didn't remain impartial?[post=498395]Quoted post[/post]
(CBS/AP) A report by the Congressional Research Service undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of a continuing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Thursday.
The report says a public official's unexercised stock options and deferred salary fall within the definition of "retained ties" to his former company.
Cheney said Sunday on NBC that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
Democrats pointed out that Cheney receives deferred compensation from Halliburton under an arrangement he made in 1998, and also retains stock options. He has pledged to give after-tax proceeds of the stock options to charity.
Cheney's aides defended the assertion on NBC, saying the financial arrangements do not constitute a tie to the company's business performance. They pointed out that Cheney took out a $15,000 insurance policy so he would collect the deferred payments over five years whether or not Halliburton remains in business.
Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the Congressional Research Service to weigh in.
Without naming Cheney or Halliburton, the service reported that unexercised stock options and deferred salary "are among those benefits described by the Office of Government Ethics as 'retained ties' or 'linkages' to one's former employer."
Lautenberg said the report makes clear that Cheney does still have financial ties to Halliburton. "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese," Lautenberg said.
Cathie Martin, Cheney's spokeswoman, said the question is whether Cheney has any possible conflict of interest with Halliburton, "and the answer to that is, no."
Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. The company's KBR subsidiary is the main government contractor working to restore Iraq's oil industry in an open-ended contract that was awarded without competitive bidding.
According to Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure report, the vice president's Halliburton benefits include three batches of stock options comprising 433,333 shares. He also has a 401(k) retirement account valued at between $1,001 and $15,000 dollars.
His deferred compensation account was valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, and generated income of $50,000 to $100,000.
In 2002, Cheney's total assets were valued at between $19.1 million and $86.4 million.
Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that accused Halliburton and Cheney of misleading investors by changing the way the company counted revenue from construction projects.
The lawsuit was filed last year by Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, on behalf of three small investors, who said the company tried to polish financial results by booking revenue on cost overruns before it was certain of getting paid.
Halliburton has contracts worth more than $1.7 billion for its work in Iraq, and it could make hundreds of millions more from a no-bid contract it was awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers, The Washington Post has reported.
According to The Post, while Cheney was defense secretary the Pentagon chose Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to study the cost effectiveness of outsourcing some military operations to private contractors. Based on the results of the study, the Pentagon hired Brown & Root to implement an outsourcing plan. Cheney became Halliburton CEO in 1995.
Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@May 12 2005, 01:36 PM
You're silly if you don't believe that this war is any different from any other. We didn't care that the Nazis were killing 6 million jews until we got attacked, until we incurred economic losses and until they threatened our economic ties to allies.
I will say this however, I certainly don't believe that even though we're there for money we're not also there on ethic grounds.
[post=498404]Quoted post[/post]
As for going to war simply for money, do you think I'm going to deny this? Are you that ignorant to believe that every war wasn't based on economic gain? Why else would we fight over land? We're materialistic beings and always have been. Long before this country was founded people waged war for land which equated to money.
Originally posted by pissedoffsol@May 12 2005, 12:38 PM
fixed income doesn't mean anything for bonuses though. a bonus is a 1-time thing and can be any percent of a salary.
[post=498407]Quoted post[/post]
No Brian, read again. I even bolded it for you both. Its fixed. His income is fixed. As I pointed out after recked stopped reading when he saw all that he wanted, he is still receiving money from the company but its been fixed since 1999...meaning its not going to chance. He has an insurance policy that guarantees him that money, meaning it won't hurt him one bit finnacially if the company goes to ruins. He's getting the same coin now with the 72 million dollar bonus as he did before it.
Halliburton is not a group of nice guys looking out for the worlds best interests. Perhaps you missed it when their subsidiary Kellog, Brown & Root overcharged America an estimated $61 Million for gasoline delivery in Iraq.
Originally posted by pissedoffsol@May 12 2005, 12:41 PM
That's just not the case. We didn't even KNOW about the concentrations camps and such until well after the US entered WWII.
That said, i will agree on the monetary ties for both cases--- but in the case of WWII, it was for the well being of EVERYONE- the entire economy. not the president, vice president, and their friends.
Basically its impossible for anyone to refute the monetary issue behind every war/conflict yet people still harp on the idea and act as if its something new. If you could make a buck, would you turn it down? I doubt it, so why then do you hold double standards for your government? "...because its our government and we just do" I don't think is justifyable.
...I'll tell you that Bush and his "friends" aren't the only people that are going to economically benefit from this war. If we get the oil that everyone seems to hate but everyone uses and it no longer costs us $2.25 a gallon then the general public will have benefited. If big business gets a contract to develope weapons or build thermuses or do this or do that, that just created more job opportunities than were available the day before. War causes productivity, productivity causes economic gain.
Originally posted by reckedracing@May 12 2005, 12:44 PM
i saw the part about his insurance, but my claim still stands that cheney has an interest in halliburton according to the rules described by the Office of Government Ethics... FACT, prove me wrong
and STOCK OPTIONS are not fixed income...
do you know what stock options are???
stock options comprising 433,333 shares
he gets to buy the stock at a set price, the more the stocks value increases the more money he makes off of every share he options and sells...
so where's your no ties to halliburton theory now???
Originally posted by reckedracing@May 12 2005, 12:51 PM
ok, every war/conflict was based on money
BUT DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT?!?!?!
fuck no...
and i do not have double standards for our gov't...
this monetary gain does not affect you or me or any other joe citizen, it affects the elite...
ok, gas prices... how much have they gone up since the war started???
point proven WRONG YET AGAIN...
and jobs created???
how many jobs have been lost sicne the war started???
point proven WRONG ONE MORE TIME...
Originally posted by reckedracing@May 12 2005, 06:41 PM
this money is not going TO THE PEOPLE, its going to big corporations...
not your average joe citizen, the same joe citizen thats risking his life in this god forsaken war...
[post=498410]Quoted post[/post]
Originally posted by 92b16vx@May 12 2005, 04:40 PM
I amn jjst going to chime in here for a sec if you don't mind. MILLIONS of people have interest in Halliburton. Since WWII all retirees of them and KBR have been drawing retirment pensions, these people for the most part are normal middle class folks that DO have a vested interest in Halliburtons survival. I know this because if Halli goes down, my mom loses a big chunk of change that was left by my grandfather, a former KBR employee after WWII. Just letting you know, that there are a LOT more average people reling on Halli and KBR than people like Dick. What he is getting is nothing compared to the amounts they pay out to non spotlighted persons.
[post=498562]Quoted post[/post]