Cheney Still being paid by Halliburton.

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks, Bowfinger.
-------------------------
Not nearly as much as some others who voted for it.
-----------------------------------------
Nothing like facing the issue head on. You should get paid for your spin, you're talent?s going to waste.

There's no issue to face except for one you are trying to make up. Which appears to be your only talent.

Should every Congressman who would benefit from a tax break recuse himself from voting on it?

Oh I know what it was. Two and half years ago when Cheney decided to take the deferred payments he knew that the 2002 elections would result in Republican control of Congress, he knew that a tax cut would be enacted and he knew he'd get to cast the deciding vote.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Something that has always baffled me is how a person with a net worth of $ 250,000
can get ellected to a congressional position that pays $ 150,000 a year -
and 2 years later have a nest egg worth over $ 5 million dollars.

I don't believe stock investments rise that fast - unless there is insider trading
or skimming for profit like the Enron bunch.
The only logical explanation is under the table pay-offs that are hidden well.

*NOTE: This is NOT directed at Cheney, he makes 15 Million/year already (Blind Trust)
but rather at freshman Representatives and Senators since the "Term Limit Years"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Something that has always baffled me is how a person with a net worth of $ 250,000
can get ellected to a congressional position that pays $ 150,000 a year -
and 2 years later have a nest egg worth over $ 5 million dollars.

I don't believe stock investments rise that fast - unless there is insider trading
or skimming for profit like the Enron bunch.
The only logical explanation is under the table pay-offs that are hidden well.

*NOTE: This is NOT directed at Cheney, he makes 15 Million/year already (Blind Trust)
but rather at freshman Representatives and Senators since the "Term Limit Years"

Exactly - we need to change the system. How to do so is the tricky part since the people that have "the say so" are part of the problem.

CkG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks, Bowfinger.
-------------------------
Not nearly as much as some others who voted for it.
-----------------------------------------
Nothing like facing the issue head on. You should get paid for your spin, you're talent?s going to waste.

There's no issue to face except for one you are trying to make up. Which appears to be your only talent.

Should every Congressman who would benefit from a tax break recuse himself from voting on it?

Oh I know what it was. Two and half years ago when Cheney decided to take the deferred payments he knew that the 2002 elections would result in Republican control of Congress, he knew that a tax cut would be enacted and he knew he'd get to cast the deciding vote.

UQ,
I think the agenda of the right was on the table (maybe just under) back in 2000 when they espoused a tax cut strategy to the people and again in '01 when the tax cut of '01 was debated in committee. I remember comments about the divident issue among many others. I also recall a "off the wall, seemingly" statement by the Microsoft guy Balman (sp) when he said something about starting dividends because "it" may pass into law this congressional cycle.

Recuse the congress .... they'd not be able to get a quorum on anything if that were the case, I'd venture.

But, Who benefits from the dividend tax issue? Only those who have stock that pays dividends and not in already deferred or tax free vehicles. Them folks for the most part are the ones who send the checks (hard money) and fund the (soft money) Pac's etc. the decision makers of the enabling force. The Money Men.
Cheney's vote may ought to have been no. Why you ask. Because the low amount of tax cut may not be sufficient to really get the economy going and may just turn out to be a waste. If the package called for $750b giving part won't cut it IMHO. Let the Conservatives have their package in total and see if it works if it don't oust them. As it stands they have wiggle room to say.... "It couldn't work because the Liberals did not give us the full package"... a mistake and a mistake. I believe the Dems thought the 750b might work and feared the loss of the economy as an issue in '04. If true this suc!s too.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks, Bowfinger.
-------------------------
Not nearly as much as some others who voted for it.
-----------------------------------------
Nothing like facing the issue head on. You should get paid for your spin, you're talent?s going to waste.

There's no issue to face except for one you are trying to make up. Which appears to be your only talent.

Should every Congressman who would benefit from a tax break recuse himself from voting on it?

Oh I know what it was. Two and half years ago when Cheney decided to take the deferred payments he knew that the 2002 elections would result in Republican control of Congress, he knew that a tax cut would be enacted and he knew he'd get to cast the deciding vote.

UQ,
I think the agenda of the right was on the table (maybe just under) back in 2000 when they espoused a tax cut strategy to the people and again in '01 when the tax cut of '01 was debated in committee. I remember comments about the divident issue among many others. I also recall a "off the wall, seemingly" statement by the Microsoft guy Balman (sp) when he said something about starting dividends because "it" may pass into law this congressional cycle.

Recuse the congress .... they'd not be able to get a quorum on anything if that were the case, I'd venture.

But, Who benefits from the dividend tax issue? Only those who have stock that pays dividends and not in already deferred or tax free vehicles. Them folks for the most part are the ones who send the checks (hard money) and fund the (soft money) Pac's etc. the decision makers of the enabling force. The Money Men.
Cheney's vote may ought to have been no. Why you ask. Because the low amount of tax cut may not be sufficient to really get the economy going and may just turn out to be a waste. If the package called for $750b giving part won't cut it IMHO. Let the Conservatives have their package in total and see if it works if it don't oust them. As it stands they have wiggle room to say.... "It couldn't work because the Liberals did not give us the full package"... a mistake and a mistake. I believe the Dems thought the 750b might work and feared the loss of the economy as an issue in '04. If true this suc!s too.

Have you been listening to Rush with your wife again

BTW - I agree with Rus...I mean your assesment of the tax-cut situation as it pertains to the election

CkG

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: mastertech01

Indeed, NEWSWEEK learned last week that Halliburton is not a finalist for a $600 million reconstruction contract in Iraq.

Grafted from the linked article. It doesnt appear they got nearly as much as implied, although I admit I havent seen the contracts or know the entirety of thier benefit to Halliburton.

From CNN..

Halliburton contracts in Iraq, Afghanistan at $600 million

 

[UltraQuiet]

HJD - The agenda of Republicans has always been to lower taxes except for the 'read my lips' fiasco. If the R's would have gotten one more vote in the Senate, Cheney would still be getting the same tax break.

As far as recusing Congressman, you stated what I considered to be obvious and didn't bother to write.

The political reality of this tax pkg. is as you stated. If it doesn't work it was because there hasn't been enough time or it wasn't the pkg. that was requested. Anyone speaking out against it is "for raising taxes". If it does work or, more accurately, the economy improves (as it is likely to do) then Bush gets full credit. The best the D's can do is try to characterize it as an attack on the middle class or a tax break for the rich. Good luck with that. I really don't think there is any political downside to cutting taxes.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Thanks, Bowfinger.
-------------------------
Not nearly as much as some others who voted for it.
-----------------------------------------
Nothing like facing the issue head on. You should get paid for your spin, you're talent?s going to waste.

There's no issue to face except for one you are trying to make up. Which appears to be your only talent.

Should every Congressman who would benefit from a tax break recuse himself from voting on it?

Oh I know what it was. Two and half years ago when Cheney decided to take the deferred payments he knew that the 2002 elections would result in Republican control of Congress, he knew that a tax cut would be enacted and he knew he'd get to cast the deciding vote.

UQ,
I think the agenda of the right was on the table (maybe just under) back in 2000 when they espoused a tax cut strategy to the people and again in '01 when the tax cut of '01 was debated in committee. I remember comments about the divident issue among many others. I also recall a "off the wall, seemingly" statement by the Microsoft guy Balman (sp) when he said something about starting dividends because "it" may pass into law this congressional cycle.

Recuse the congress .... they'd not be able to get a quorum on anything if that were the case, I'd venture.

But, Who benefits from the dividend tax issue? Only those who have stock that pays dividends and not in already deferred or tax free vehicles. Them folks for the most part are the ones who send the checks (hard money) and fund the (soft money) Pac's etc. the decision makers of the enabling force. The Money Men.
Cheney's vote may ought to have been no. Why you ask. Because the low amount of tax cut may not be sufficient to really get the economy going and may just turn out to be a waste. If the package called for $750b giving part won't cut it IMHO. Let the Conservatives have their package in total and see if it works if it don't oust them. As it stands they have wiggle room to say.... "It couldn't work because the Liberals did not give us the full package"... a mistake and a mistake. I believe the Dems thought the 750b might work and feared the loss of the economy as an issue in '04. If true this suc!s too.

Have you been listening to Rush with your wife again

BTW - I agree with Rus...I mean your assesment of the tax-cut situation as it pertains to the election

CkG

I don't listen to Rush... I thought he was deaf? Anyhow my wife and I don't talk of political issues. She was a hippy chic when I met and married her... then she saw the light, so I remain in the darkness of my self imposed reality. Neither side interests me. I am for fiscal puberty and social integrity.