US Senate panel rejects Iraq plan

[Amazon 7]

Uh have you ever gotten stock options......????


HEre is how they work.. you get your options at a given price.. you can BUY the stock at that price.... OR you can hang onto them.. not buy.... and when the STOCK price goes up.. you can EXERCISE the options at the higher price.. and get the difference between... you STRIKE price... and the current price.


So in essence... by GIVING his old company a no bid contract he has helped their bottom line.. hence their stock price.. the difference means he gets a HELL of a lot more for his options.

Now we get into tax write offs..SO instead of giving a few thousands of dollars to charity and getting THOSE tax write offs..... his stock is now worth MILLIONS in charitable giving... which offsets what he has to pay on any tax bill that is due. Plus he funnels it into some charitable trust that is also beneficial to him...

Smart Accountants.... but his family fortune is certainly enhanced at the very least by what he does not have to pay in taxes... much like the taxes you do not have to pay for being out of the country on the job you have

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Uh have you ever gotten stock options......????


HEre is how they work.. you get your options at a given price.. you can BUY the stock at that price.... OR you can hang onto them.. not buy.... and when the STOCK price goes up.. you can EXERCISE the options at the higher price.. and get the difference between... you STRIKE price... and the current price.


So in essence... by GIVING his old company a no bid contract he has helped their bottom line.. hence their stock price.. the difference means he gets a HELL of a lot more for his options.

Yup... those same options that he'll never see a penny of profit from, because they're in an irrevocable trust?

As for the "giving a no-bid to"... same old story -

1.) PROVE that CHENEY 'gave them the contract'
2.) Look up LOGCAP

Quote

Now we get into tax write offs..SO instead of giving a few thousands of dollars to charity and getting THOSE tax write offs..... his stock is now worth MILLIONS in charitable giving... which offsets what he has to pay on any tax bill that is due. Plus he funnels it into some charitable trust that is also beneficial to him...

I'm still waiting for the proof that the FIRST trust was charitable to him... now you're inventing a SECOND one? Also the trust is responsible for any taxes connected with the sale of the options, so explain how CHENEY is going to get a tax break from it.

Quote

Smart Accountants.... but his family fortune is certainly enhanced at the very least by what he does not have to pay in taxes... much like the taxes you do not have to pay for being out of the country on the job you have

You've still not shown how he's EARNING anything on those options so that he'd need to pay taxes on them.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,120]

>You've still not shown how he is profiting from this . . .

He is being paid. Period, end of story. He directed that his pay go to something he prefers to spend his money on. That's fine. You could do that too. So could I. It doesn't change the fact that he is being paid and that his actions have resulted in more work for Halliburton. You can spin it any way you like; those are the bottom line facts.

I swear, if you were a democrat you'd be arguing that Clinton never actually had sex with Lewinsky, saying things like "why don't you look up the meaning of 'sexual intercourse' in the dictionary and then get back to us, okay?"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Also the trust is responsible for any taxes connected with the sale of the options, so explain how CHENEY is going to get a tax break from it.

The trust is responsible for paying any taxes due as a result of the exercising of the options, it is silent on who gets the actual tax benefit from the donation of the money.

I also would like to know who would fight if the trust was broken? It would have to be a civil suit, started by a party or beneficiary to the contract.

I know the contract says that it can't be broken, but contractual obligations are broken all the time.

In the end you ahve a VP who gets a salary from a company which has directly benefited from the actions of the government. Whichever way you spin it, the perception is aweful.

[billvon 3,120]

Question of the day - who made the following speech?
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Iraq. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date. . . in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Iraq allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible.

. . .

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.
------------------------

Hint #1 - it was not recent.

Hint #2 - I replaced the name of the ill-fated occupation of that day with today's ill-fated occupation.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Question of the day - who made the following speech?
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no reason for the United States of America to remain in Iraq. The American people want them home, I believe the majority of Congress wants them home, and to set an artificial date. . . in my view, is not acceptable. The criteria should be to bring them home as rapidly and safely as possible, an evolution which I think could be completed in a matter of weeks.

Our continued military presence in Iraq allows another situation to arise which could then lead to the wounding, killing or capture of American fighting men and women. We should do all in our power to avoid that.

I listened carefully to the President's remarks at a news conference that he held earlier today. I heard nothing in his discussion of the issue that would persuade me that further U.S. military involvement in the area is necessary. In fact, his remarks have persuaded me more profoundly that we should leave and leave soon.

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Iraq. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long--longer than necessary--then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible.

. . .

I, along with many others, will have an amendment that says exactly that. It does not give any date certain. It does not say anything about any other missions that the United States may need or feels it needs to carry out. It will say that we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible.
------------------------

Hint #1 - it was not recent.

Hint #2 - I replaced the name of the ill-fated occupation of that day with today's ill-fated occupation.

His first name is "John", and the country is Somalia

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>You've still not shown how he is profiting from this . . .

He is being paid. Period, end of story. He directed that his pay go to something he prefers to spend his money on. That's fine. You could do that too. So could I. It doesn't change the fact that he is being paid and that his actions have resulted in more work for Halliburton. You can spin it any way you like; those are the bottom line facts.

I swear, if you were a democrat you'd be arguing that Clinton never actually had sex with Lewinsky, saying things like "why don't you look up the meaning of 'sexual intercourse' in the dictionary and then get back to us, okay?"

By that logic, Powell should have been stripped of his position since he could influence things for the military and was getting paid by them.

I'm still waiting for that proof that it was CHENEY's actions that resulted in more work in Iraq for Halliburton. You *are* familiar with the fact that the contract program that Halliburton is performing under was first set up in the late 80's?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Also the trust is responsible for any taxes connected with the sale of the options, so explain how CHENEY is going to get a tax break from it.

The trust is responsible for paying any taxes due as a result of the exercising of the options, it is silent on who gets the actual tax benefit from the donation of the money.

I also would like to know who would fight if the trust was broken? It would have to be a civil suit, started by a party or beneficiary to the contract.

I know the contract says that it can't be broken, but contractual obligations are broken all the time.

In the end you ahve a VP who gets a salary from a company which has directly benefited from the actions of the government. Whichever way you spin it, the perception is aweful.

Then by all means, wade through the tax laws and figure it out. I would THINK that the trust would bear the burden of tax for profits gained by the trust, but I'm not a tax lawyer. Did you read the contract?

As for the deferred salary bit - read the contract for his deferred salary, and prove to me that any actions he has taken as VP could affect that, and I will agree that it's improper.

Of course, the fact that this whole discussion is MOOT is a different point.

hint: 18 USC § 202 (c)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

he still has a significant financial interest in the company. He specifically stated that he did not.

You've still not proven it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Yup... those same options that he'll never see a penny of profit from, because they're in an irrevocable trust?

As I pointed out the other day, yes..the trust as written is irrevocable. But that doesn't mean a damn thing because it states in the contract, section 8c, that Cheney can withold the money for any reason and that the charities have no legal recourse. So basically Cheney can do whatever he wants with the money. BFD if it's irrevocable.

But the bigger picture is that you have a VP who has ties to a war profiteering contractor which has been busted for defrauding the taxpayer under the VP's watch, been busted numerous times for overbilling, does business with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or basically anyone who will do business through their Cayman fax machine, bribes Nigerian officials, gives kickbacks to Kuwaiti contractors, etc. The list is quite long and in the end, the VP drives the foreign policy which creates profits for himself and his "old" company and the taxpayer takes it up the backside. I really don't see how anyone can defend this sort of relationship between business and government.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

he still has a significant financial interest in the company. He specifically stated that he did not.

You've still not proven it.

Sorry, maybe you'll take the word of the Congressional Research Service report on the matter.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/crs.pdf