Well, maybe if you get around to it you can say something half-way connected to the OP instead of just crapping in it. However stupid my poorly researched and unsupportable my posts are, at least they’re anything to do with the thread.
Hm. I’m not even sure if you’re serious, but generally when people say “you can’t prove a negative,” they are speaking generally about unprovable negatives, and the statement is not meant to be overly literal or comprehensive in the sense that NO negative statement can be proven. If you prefer, “It’s unreasonable to ask someone to prove some negatives.” On the other hand, not being able to prove a given negative doesn’t mean it is false. It would be a fallacy to presume, for example, that because it would be impossible to prove that no money is being slipped under the table to Cheney, that no such money is being slipped under the table. Nothing in the case makes it unreasonable to suspect such an activity, either with those specific parties, or with pols and big business in general (hence the stupidity of likening suspicion of big business buying pols with “tinfoil hattery”).
This thread? Puh-leeeeeze. But I guess you missed post #41, if you want serious.
Hey, we’ve been over this Cheney/Halliburton pay issue half a dozen times, so anyone who’s been here thru the last election just isn’t paying attention if this is news.
Anyway, lighten up, man. This is a **Reeder **thread, and almost all of them end up that way. I was just yanking your chain about the 2nd stupidest thing.
What else is there to say? You’ve truthfully admitted that your posts are stupid, poorly researched, and unsupportable.
Which is par for the course in a Reeder thread.
I was aware of the blind trust’s existence. However, I honestly don’t know just what a blind trust does, or is supposed to do.
My assumption is that Cheney still owns the stock but cannot do anything with it by way of buying more or selling what he owned at the time the trust was created. Another assumption is that the trust is obligated to protect Cheney’s financial interest and to increase his net worth if possible. A further assumption is that any dividends from the stock would be paid to the trust. A final assumption is that Cheney (or his designates) will at some point regain control of his assets, including any profits or losses related to Haliburton stock.
If I am in error on these points, please correct me.
From RobLibDem:
I know this is converntional wisdom but if you look at Haliburton’s 10-K, you’ll see the company is not highly profitable to begin with. The income statement shows net losses for the past three years (after some shut down expenses). Even read it their favor, Haliburton is only making about 2-3 % net on sales before the shut down costs. The balance sheet shows approximately a billion dollar net accured liability on asbestos and silica claims.
Also, the government services are not a highly profitable business line even within Haliburton. Look at the operating income by business line. All the government services account for nearly half of revenue but only 10% of operating income. When making only 1% operating income on revenue, Haliburton’s government services are not a very profitable piece of the business. Walmart has fatter margins.
Why am I so sure that he will get a LOT of money from them when he leaves office, one way or another?
You’re talking about an ad logicam fallacy, but it has nothing to do with whether an assertion is phrased positively or negatively.
Because you hate Bush and Cheney and want to believe the worst about them in all possible instances.
A blind trust is a trust that is managed by a third party fiduciary who has complete discretion over its management. Its specific assets are not known to the beneficiaries.
The agreement specifies that the trust is “irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended”. It is up to the trust administrator when and whether to sell the stock. But if he does, then 40% of each sale goes to the University of Wyoming, 40% goes to George Washington University’s medical faculty, and 20% goes to Capital Partners for Education, a scholarship fund for poor students who wish to attend private schools. By the terms of the agreement, neither Cheney nor his wife may ever profit from any sale or purchase.
Who gets the tax deduction?
I don’t know. I would research the tax law, but it would make me ill. All I know is that the Cheneys may not benefit from the assets in any way.
Thanks for the information. However, I still believe that the profits to be disbursed as you indicate derive from the sale of stock options and not from the sale of stock owned at the time the trust was created. In the meantime, I assume the third party who manages the trust is competent to make investments and that the trust benefits (increases in value) from those investments. If this is correct, what becomes of the increase? Who or what benefits from a positive cash flow? If you are saying that the Cheneys do not, cannot, and will not benefit, what is the point of the blind trust? Is it clearly stated anywhere that the trust is or will be a philantropy?
To me, it is irrelevant if Cheney benefits personally or not. With my experience in the corporate world, I can tell you that a lot of what goes on is networking, you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours. There’s no reason for me not to believe that nepotism is involved. Can I prove it? No, not unless I am able to access info on who Cheney’s friends were in Haliburton, if he’s still in touch with them, if he talks to them regularly now etc.
John Mace summed it best. It has the appearance of impropriety. I would withdraw my suspicion if I learn that every contract Haliburton was granted was after a rigorous review process with free competition and Cheney’s complete non-involvement.
Cheney’s financial disclosure. He is heavy in Vanguard bond mutual funds. The Haliburton ownership is deferrend comp and stock options. From the statement, it does not appear that he owns Haliburton stock outright.
Yes. Read the documents. Please.
As a geologist, I used to always have Halliburton log my wells for two simple reasons; they were a hell of a lot cheaper than French concern Schlumberger and in my opinion they had a better product. They were very, very good at what they did. They started off as a well cementing company, began aquiring other companies that performed other services (including Brown & Root) and eventually got to the point where they could do everything for you from the prospect’s conception to delivering the product to the gas station. It’s the exact same strategy Schlumber followed, their main competition.
Along the way the G&G software company I subsequently worked for was added to the mix. So nowadays the company I always had respect for includes me in the emails detailing what’s going on operations-wise around the world. That includes events honoring the people performing dangerous work around the world and, unfortunately, a lot of sad news about our coworkers that have been taken prisoner and executed in places like Iraq. It fucking sucks and saddens us deeply.
Halliburton is an easy scapegoat for some. I actually don’t begrudge people for their hostility but many of us that have been exposed to the people of Halliburton for a number of years are of the opinion that resentment is sorely misplaced. It’s a good company and an overwhelming portion of the time is absolutely the best candidate to get a job done.
Yell cha ching and war profiteer all you want. You’re mistaken, but then let’s just keep that our little secret.
You’d think that a company so tied into the administration, and making soooo much filthy lucre off of war profiteering and the like, would have been a good investment. But they haven’t even beat the dow during Bush’s term in office.
Naw, let’s not.
SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT AUDITS AGAINST HALLIBURTON
Just the latest example:
Fully linked at source – with plenty more “little secrets” revealed.
Do you think that is proof of anything? Or even evidence towards anything?
I don’t know if there’s anything shady going on with Halliburton (although I suspect litost is correct about back-scratching), but this means nothing. The question is how they got the contracts they have. Whether the income from these contracts drive up their stock prices are not is totally moot.