Cheney's Halliburton Stock options:
 

Up 3,000% Now worth $9,000,000

[url]http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/press/2003/01/2005915804.html[/url]

<snip> In September 2003, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a memorandum to Senator Lautenberg concluding that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

The CRS report can be downloaded at:

[url]http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf[/url]

The CRS findings contradict Vice President Cheney's puzzling view that he does not have a financial interest in Halliburton. On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton where he was employed as CEO for five years, from 1995 to 2000, Vice President Cheney said:

"And 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. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years.

Nothing to see here, the VP has no financial ties with Halliburton, move along......

*goes to next thread*

[QUOTE=psoper]Nothing to see here, the VP has no financial ties with Halliburton, move along......[/QUOTE]

haha! This type of ish is unbelievable. Honestly, our democracy can at times be utterly rediculous

For six years, I used to drive I-80 every day to/from work.
Every so often, I'd pass a middle-aged white collar type driving a white Ford Exploder with "Halliburton" on it.
Well, shortly after the "liberation" of Iraq, the Exploder became an Expedition.

I guess it's good to be connected to the King.

But, so what if Dick is making money.
It comes with the territory; no one was complaining when the last admin was profiteering off of our backs.

[img]http://www.larryflynt.com/ad_parodies_gallery/source/oreilly-parody.htm[/img]

Now everyone can laugh at this.

[QUOTE=Oaf]....
But, so what if Dick is making money.

[/QUOTE]

My problem isn't with him making money (well maybe a little of it is, I mean we pay his VP salary- he's supposed to be working for us, not them) but rather that he LIES about having no financial ties, we saw plenty of republicans up in arms over the last administrations lying....

[QUOTE=Oaf]no one was complaining when the last admin was profiteering off of our backs.[/QUOTE]

only republicans, they complained about everything clinton did from when he woke up till he went to bed.

Rational people didn't complain because it didn't happen- at least not as brazenly and openly as bushcheney inc. does business.

Please show me one instance where his administration is alleged to have been "profiteering off of our backs"

So if you worked for google and had stock in the company, and later on ran for govenor and won, would you give up what you had fairly earned prior?
Heck no !
Welcome to capitalisim, where the smart make money and the dumb watch mtv.

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN]So if you worked for google and had stock in the company, and later on ran for govenor and won, would you give up what you had fairly earned prior?
Heck no !
Welcome to capitalisim, where the smart make money and the dumb watch mtv.[/QUOTE]

Most states have what we call "conflict of interest laws" which restrict people holding office from getting payment from other interests, this way people don't worry about elected officials being beholden to interests apart from the office which they were elected to serve.

Maybe you wouldn't want to sell your google holdings, but you would probably have to in order to legally serve in the position you were elected to.

But suppose you were the hypothetical govenor who held onto his google stocks, and then suppose you gave google a no-bid contract to be the sole-source of seraching for all of your state government, that would just be good business right?

If this doesn't strike you as blatent corruption, I have a hard time imagining what would

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN]So if you worked for google and had stock in the company, and later on ran for govenor and won, would you give up what you had fairly earned prior? [/QUOTE]


Uh, you'd sell the stock and end up with the cash...so you wouldn't give up what you fairly earned prior, you'd give up 'potential future' earnings...but that's a fair trade off considering you're trying to gain power.

[QUOTE=MVWRX]Uh, you'd sell the stock and end up with the cash...so you wouldn't give up what you fairly earned prior, you'd give up 'potential future' earnings...but that's a fair trade off considering you're trying to gain power.[/QUOTE]
You're right.

[QUOTE=psoper]But suppose you were the hypothetical govenor who held onto his google stocks, and then suppose you gave google a no-bid contract to be the sole-source of seraching for all of your state government, that would just be good business right?

If this doesn't strike you as blatent corruption, I have a hard time imagining what would[/QUOTE]
You really can't link the two together like that, considering the circumstances for awarding the contract you speak of.

oops, double post, duh

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN]You're right.


You really can't link the two together like that, considering the circumstances for awarding the contract you speak of.[/QUOTE]
Which circumstances are those, vibe?

The fact that they already won the bid in 2001 for the pre-war planning of fighting oil fires, so it only made sense to go with the one who had already put together a plan, instead of starting from scratch. The clinton admin. did the same thing in when they awarded halliburton a contract in the balkens in 1992 and lost the bid in 1997, halliburton was awarded a no bid contract because it seemed foolish to switch mid stream.

Psst, What's the DFL?

[QUOTE=VIBEELEVEN]The fact that they already won the bid in 2001 for the pre-war planning of fighting oil fires, so it only made sense to go with the one who had already put together a plan, instead of starting from scratch. The clinton admin. did the same thing in when they awarded halliburton a contract in the balkens in 1992 and lost the bid in 1997, halliburton was awarded a no bid contract because it seemed foolish to switch mid stream.

Psst, What's the DFL?[/QUOTE]

With the knowlege we have, however (the GAO reported that halliburton LOST 1/3 of the equipment for which it was responsible in Iraq, and also has a well documented record of inflating prices and fleecing the american people for large amounts of money) it seems foolhardy to keep awarding these contracts to halliburton subsidiaries.

DFL is the Deomcratic Farmer-Laborer party, Minnesota's version of the Democratic party.