I'm still upset about no-bid contracts going to Halliburton, a company that I believe Cheney was still earning income from running when they "won" said contracts.
Federal officials have all their assets placed in a blind trust when they are elected, to prevent conflicts of interest such as this. While it's possible (nee likely) that Cheney profited off of the Haliburton contracts there was really no way for him to know that one way or the other.
I'm still upset about no-bid contracts going to Halliburton, a company that I believe Cheney was still earning income from running when they "won" said contracts.
Federal officials have all their assets placed in a blind trust when they are elected, to prevent conflicts of interest such as this. While it's possible (nee likely) that Cheney profited off of the Haliburton contracts there was really no way for him to know that one way or the other.
That's cute
Yea, I don't get this. Like, Obama makes money from sales of his book, but when he's president, he doesn't know if his book is making any money? Therefore he won't want people to buy it anymore?
I'm still upset about no-bid contracts going to Halliburton, a company that I believe Cheney was still earning income from running when they "won" said contracts.
Federal officials have all their assets placed in a blind trust when they are elected, to prevent conflicts of interest such as this. While it's possible (nee likely) that Cheney profited off of the Haliburton contracts there was really no way for him to know that one way or the other.
That's cute
Yea, I don't get this. Like, Obama makes money from sales of his book, but when he's president, he doesn't know if his book is making any money? Therefore he won't want people to buy it anymore?
I don't even know where to start with just how bad that analogy is. A published book deal is in no way comparable to owning stock in a company with ongoing operations.
Illinois machine politics was the reason that I was initially hesitant on Barack Obama. Illinois, along with a few other states like Missouri and Ohio, have the reputation that nobody is 100% clean. I didn't want any sort of scandal coming up during the general election and fucking over a democratic win. Thankfully, the primaries were brutal enough that if there was any corruption going on with our man, it would have been exposed.
I'm reading a lot of "say it ain't so Jesse Jr!" on the vlogs and I cannot believe how gullible people are. It was the same thing with Edwards, there's not a genuine bone in his body, and people just fawned over the motherfucker. Maybe I'm exaggerating, I don't know the men. But I can only see them as having only personal ambitions with how manipulative they come off as in their speech and mannerisms.
I'm still upset about no-bid contracts going to Halliburton, a company that I believe Cheney was still earning income from running when they "won" said contracts.
Federal officials have all their assets placed in a blind trust when they are elected, to prevent conflicts of interest such as this. While it's possible (nee likely) that Cheney profited off of the Haliburton contracts there was really no way for him to know that one way or the other.
That's cute
Yea, I don't get this. Like, Obama makes money from sales of his book, but when he's president, he doesn't know if his book is making any money? Therefore he won't want people to buy it anymore?
I don't even know where to start with just how bad that analogy is. A published book deal is in no way comparable to owning stock in a company with ongoing operations.
So you're saying if Obama has stock in a company then, when he becomes president the trust will sell it all and buy random stuff, so he doesn't know what he owns stock in anymore?
I don't understand how Cheny would be unable to know whether or not he owns Haliburton stock.
So you're saying if Obama has stock in a company then, when he becomes president the trust will sell it all and buy random stuff, so he doesn't know what he owns stock in anymore?
I don't understand how Cheny would be unable to know whether or not he owns Haliburton stock.
I don't quite understand either.
I mean, I get that they're not in charge of the trust, and can't see what's in it, but if they turn over X, Y, and Z to the trust at the beginning, do the executors have to like mix it up and sell portions or all of X, Y, and Z and convert them to different assets, or can they just leave it like it is? I would imagine they'd leave it like is, which kinda defeats the whole purpose as someone could go "Well, I owned X shares of BigCorp when I got into office, and lets see, today thats gone up $20/share since I've been here. Great, that's $Texas! Perfect!" Can someone explain this?
I get that there's going to be some uncertainty. Cheney couldn't say for sure "well, I've still got all that Halliburton stock, so I'll make sure they do well", but something still seems weird.
Since everyone already commented on how corrupt Blagojevich is, I'm not going to really say anything about him but I will say that watching corrupt pieces of shit like him go down brings a smile to my face. The bad news is that another corrupt shit chunk is going to take his place and the cycle will probably keep going on and on for a long time.
The alternative is either they liquidate all their holdings upon taking office, which is asinine, or they run the risk of looking like Thaksin Shinawatra any time they adjust their portfolio.
Much like democracy itself, it's the worst solution, except for all the others.
The alternative is either they liquidate all their holdings upon taking office, which is asinine, or they run the risk of looking like Thaksin Shinawatra any time they adjust their portfolio.
Much like democracy itself, it's the worst solution, except for all the others.
Right, I read that before posting. My confusion still stands.
Who are the executors in the case of a politician? Do they have a goal for the trust's value? Do they want to keep it worth what it was when the politician went in? Do they want to increase the total value of the trust? Do they have to do whatever they can to minimize the possibility of the politician making money off the policies he/she enacts?
I apologize in advance if I completely do not understand how a trust, or especially a blind trust, works. This sort of thing is not my bag, baby.
[QUOTE=Scooter;8186823So you're saying if Obama has stock in a company then, when he becomes president the trust will sell it all and buy random stuff, so he doesn't know what he owns stock in anymore?
I don't understand how Cheny would be unable to know whether or not he owns Haliburton stock.[/QUOTE]
More or less. I wouldn't use the term random as the trustee will be trying to make a profit, but the assets will certainly be switched to a significant extent. The entire point is that Dick Cheney can't be said to be favouring Haliburton for his own advantage if he doesn't know if he owns any of their stock. That's not to say he won't wind up on the board of directors at a later date, but that's a separate issue.
Obama likely has a similar arrangement and won't know if bailing out a particular bank or automaker helps him personally. Transparency is generally a good thing, but in this case it's opacity that protects the public trust.
Edit: Beat'd. Beat'd so hard. I really haven't learned not to work while I make poast.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Who are the executors in the case of a politician? Do they have a goal for the trust's value? Do they want to keep it worth what it was when the politician went in? Do they want to increase the total value of the trust? Do they have to do whatever they can to minimize the possibility of the politician making money off the policies he/she enacts?
I apologize in advance if I completely do not understand how a trust, or especially a blind trust, works. This sort of thing is not my bag, baby.
It is my understanding that the executor/trustee/fiduciary will generally be a lawyer who then works with a investor/broker. The idea is to make money just as it is for any broker.
Everyone is trying to guess what companies, government, and the economy will do. If the broker has no inside information there's no conflict of interest.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I'm still upset about no-bid contracts going to Halliburton, a company that I believe Cheney was still earning income from running when they "won" said contracts.
Federal officials have all their assets placed in a blind trust when they are elected, to prevent conflicts of interest such as this. While it's possible (nee likely) that Cheney profited off of the Haliburton contracts there was really no way for him to know that one way or the other.
That's cute
Yea, I don't get this. Like, Obama makes money from sales of his book, but when he's president, he doesn't know if his book is making any money? Therefore he won't want people to buy it anymore?
I don't even know where to start with just how bad that analogy is. A published book deal is in no way comparable to owning stock in a company with ongoing operations.
So you're saying if Obama has stock in a company then, when he becomes president the trust will sell it all and buy random stuff, so he doesn't know what he owns stock in anymore?
The trust doesn't necessarily sell it. It might, it might not. There's no way for a federally elected official to know what their investments are (outside of stuff like homes and book deals, and I imagine that they all owned real estate they didn't know about for a while during the housing boom.) This is why people mocking Bush for not knowing he owned a lumber company in the 2004 election were idiots.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. — who was cited in a criminal complaint against Rod Blagojevich — has been an informant for at least a decade with the U.S. Attorney's office, and has informed on the embattled governor of Illinois, though not in the case currently under investigation, Jackson spokesman Kenneth Edmonds told CNN Tuesday.
Good thing he is a politician, because his career as an informant is over...
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. — who was cited in a criminal complaint against Rod Blagojevich — has been an informant for at least a decade with the U.S. Attorney's office, and has informed on the embattled governor of Illinois, though not in the case currently under investigation, Jackson spokesman Kenneth Edmonds told CNN Tuesday.
Good thing he is a politician, because his career as an FBI informant is over...
On the other hand, he probably couldn't be an FBI informant if he wasn't squeaky clean, so he's going to be the cleanest guy out of this mess.
Eh, in this kind of case its a bit different. We're not talking about him informing on drug dealers, but on state officials. If someone tried to get him in on a corrupt scheme or offered a bribe or sought a bribe, he could be an informer. He could even simply be their source in the "back halls of power" telling them who likes whom, who is working with this guy or that, etc.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Yeah, maybe if he had shoes thrown at him there would some coverage. Why aren't people in the streets protesting this guy out of office?!?
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Yeah, maybe if he had shoes thrown at him there would some coverage. Why aren't people in the streets protesting this guy out of office?!?
There is nonstop coverage about Blago. Are you living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars, in an alternate reality? At least 20 minutes of every show last night on CNN and MSNBC was devoted to this, the more chattering class pundit ones devoted nearly twice that.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Yeah, maybe if he had shoes thrown at him there would some coverage. Why aren't people in the streets protesting this guy out of office?!?
?
Have you been paying attention, or are you specifically just talking about the bookie thing? Because if you aren't talking about just the bookie thing, then you must have been living in a cave. This thing has dominated news coverage since it broke.
He hasn't even been indicted yet and the powers at be are still trying to figure out the fastest way possible to remove his power as governor, both Democrats and Republicans. This is moving far faster than most of the federal level scandals have been lately.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Yeah, maybe if he had shoes thrown at him there would some coverage. Why aren't people in the streets protesting this guy out of office?!?
There is nonstop coverage about Blago. Are you living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars, in an alternate reality? At least 20 minutes of every show last night on CNN and MSNBC was devoted to this, the more chattering class pundit ones devoted nearly twice that.
Seriously, the only things that have competed with this in terms of coverage have been the shoe throwing at the President, the auto bailout, and the Madoff scandal. When you are competitive with a $50 billion Ponzi scheme in terms of coverage, then you know you have a big story.
Edit: And did the findings that Palin abused her authority in Troopergate get much coverage? I'm trying to remember if it did.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Did you just link to a news story on Blago to chide the press about not talking enough about Blago?
Not just the media but general public outrage as well. I know it's cold in Chicago this time of year but I hadn't seen much on protests against this slime.
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Did you just link to a news story on Blago to chide the press about not talking enough about Blago?
Not just the media but general public outrage as well. I know it's cold in Chicago this time of year but I hadn't seen much on protests against this slime.
Wow, to think Mos Eisley was bad...
The guy had an approval rating in the single digits before this became public. The state legislature is putting together impeachment proceedings, which has never happened before in Illinois. Do you expect an armed coup?
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Did you just link to a news story on Blago to chide the press about not talking enough about Blago?
Not just the media but general public outrage as well. I know it's cold in Chicago this time of year but I hadn't seen much on protests against this slime.
Wow, to think Mos Eisley was bad...
Protest what? Madigan is going to the Supreme Court to get him ousted ASAP, and the legislature voted unanimously to start impeachment when they convened on Monday. Am I supposed to go put him under citizen's arrest while he's out on bail?
Posts
That's cute
Yea, I don't get this. Like, Obama makes money from sales of his book, but when he's president, he doesn't know if his book is making any money? Therefore he won't want people to buy it anymore?
I'd rather not have an indicted senator with a cloud of corruption and legal problems enveloping him representing me.
I don't even know where to start with just how bad that analogy is. A published book deal is in no way comparable to owning stock in a company with ongoing operations.
it's a pickle since the costs and difficulty of a special election would make it very tough for anyone.
I guess I'm just a cynical motherfucker.
Picky, picky.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Durbin and Obama spoiled me.
So you're saying if Obama has stock in a company then, when he becomes president the trust will sell it all and buy random stuff, so he doesn't know what he owns stock in anymore?
I don't understand how Cheny would be unable to know whether or not he owns Haliburton stock.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
I mean, I get that they're not in charge of the trust, and can't see what's in it, but if they turn over X, Y, and Z to the trust at the beginning, do the executors have to like mix it up and sell portions or all of X, Y, and Z and convert them to different assets, or can they just leave it like it is? I would imagine they'd leave it like is, which kinda defeats the whole purpose as someone could go "Well, I owned X shares of BigCorp when I got into office, and lets see, today thats gone up $20/share since I've been here. Great, that's $Texas! Perfect!" Can someone explain this?
I get that there's going to be some uncertainty. Cheney couldn't say for sure "well, I've still got all that Halliburton stock, so I'll make sure they do well", but something still seems weird.
The alternative is either they liquidate all their holdings upon taking office, which is asinine, or they run the risk of looking like Thaksin Shinawatra any time they adjust their portfolio.
Much like democracy itself, it's the worst solution, except for all the others.
Who are the executors in the case of a politician? Do they have a goal for the trust's value? Do they want to keep it worth what it was when the politician went in? Do they want to increase the total value of the trust? Do they have to do whatever they can to minimize the possibility of the politician making money off the policies he/she enacts?
I apologize in advance if I completely do not understand how a trust, or especially a blind trust, works. This sort of thing is not my bag, baby.
I don't understand how Cheny would be unable to know whether or not he owns Haliburton stock.[/QUOTE]
More or less. I wouldn't use the term random as the trustee will be trying to make a profit, but the assets will certainly be switched to a significant extent. The entire point is that Dick Cheney can't be said to be favouring Haliburton for his own advantage if he doesn't know if he owns any of their stock. That's not to say he won't wind up on the board of directors at a later date, but that's a separate issue.
Obama likely has a similar arrangement and won't know if bailing out a particular bank or automaker helps him personally. Transparency is generally a good thing, but in this case it's opacity that protects the public trust.
Edit: Beat'd. Beat'd so hard. I really haven't learned not to work while I make poast.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It is my understanding that the executor/trustee/fiduciary will generally be a lawyer who then works with a investor/broker. The idea is to make money just as it is for any broker.
Everyone is trying to guess what companies, government, and the economy will do. If the broker has no inside information there's no conflict of interest.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I've heard some stuff that he was working with the Feds on other cases against Blago, but not necessarily this one in particular.
Hmm, that seems to match up with what CNN says (found a link finally).
Good thing he is a politician, because his career as an informant is over...
On the other hand, he probably couldn't be an FBI informant if he wasn't squeaky clean, so he's going to be the cleanest guy out of this mess.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But it's possible that he volunteered.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6559104
Also, where is the media in all this? Is it because Blago is a Democrat and gets a free pass?
Man, what?! What news stations are you watching, because that's all that seems to be getting coverage. With brief interludes to throw shoes at the President.
Yeah, maybe if he had shoes thrown at him there would some coverage. Why aren't people in the streets protesting this guy out of office?!?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
There is nonstop coverage about Blago. Are you living under a rock, in a cave, on Mars, in an alternate reality? At least 20 minutes of every show last night on CNN and MSNBC was devoted to this, the more chattering class pundit ones devoted nearly twice that.
?
Have you been paying attention, or are you specifically just talking about the bookie thing? Because if you aren't talking about just the bookie thing, then you must have been living in a cave. This thing has dominated news coverage since it broke.
He hasn't even been indicted yet and the powers at be are still trying to figure out the fastest way possible to remove his power as governor, both Democrats and Republicans. This is moving far faster than most of the federal level scandals have been lately.
In response to the corruption of the Republican Governor, George Ryan.
Seriously, the only things that have competed with this in terms of coverage have been the shoe throwing at the President, the auto bailout, and the Madoff scandal. When you are competitive with a $50 billion Ponzi scheme in terms of coverage, then you know you have a big story.
Edit: And did the findings that Palin abused her authority in Troopergate get much coverage? I'm trying to remember if it did.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Not just the media but general public outrage as well. I know it's cold in Chicago this time of year but I hadn't seen much on protests against this slime.
Wow, to think Mos Eisley was bad...
The guy had an approval rating in the single digits before this became public. The state legislature is putting together impeachment proceedings, which has never happened before in Illinois. Do you expect an armed coup?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Protest what? Madigan is going to the Supreme Court to get him ousted ASAP, and the legislature voted unanimously to start impeachment when they convened on Monday. Am I supposed to go put him under citizen's arrest while he's out on bail?