In the grand scheme of things the amount spent on the secret service to protect ex-Presidents is probably negligible. I also don't consider it money wasted since even as ex-Presidents they are still targets after they tenure.

Apparently that number is up to $850k. :eek:


That's approaching real money!


And though they haven't charged it...I'd have no problem accepting the $1,100 a month the government deemed the Clintons are able to collect for the Secret Service taking up space in their home. :D

Hell, for that money I'd be glad to let them take up space in MY home! Mrs. WI probably wouldn't mind either. ;)

Steph,

I believe that your post quoted below is the one to which you refer.

If that is true, then my response to you is that you are mistaken.


You made a claim of the form “such-and-such is true”. The particular claim was:


I asked if you had any evidence to support your claim. You will notice that there is no circularity involved. You made a claim. I asked if you could support your claim. Please note also that inquiring if you can substantiate a claim you have made does not amount to an attack on you point of view. Finally, as you were the one to make the claim, it is your responsibility to substantiate it; I am under no obligation to provide any evidence to the contrary. Your claim stands or falls on its own merits.

You have not yet provided evidence to warrant your claim. Should you do so, and I find the evidence you provide credible and persuasive (that Halliburton's profits are the result of an abuse of power linking back to VP Cheney), then I, like other reasonable people, will agree that appropriate remedies should be sought against Mr. Cheney.

Despite having denied there being any continued financial interest in Halliburton, as a shareholder Mr. Cheney has experienced an increase in his net worth. While it was noble of him to give up any unvested stock options when he took office, this amounted to 400,000 of the 1,160,000 share options he had at the time of his resignation from Halliburton. Within a week of resigning, Mr. Cheney exercised options to purchase stock at less than then current value. But then that is what the whole point behind stock options is. At any rate, this netted him $35 million.

He continues to hold 433,333 stock options.

As Halliburton's profits rise, so do all stockholders. And part of Halliburton's profits are from lucrative contracts for services in Iraq. Not all of them, obviously, but $10 billion is nothing to sneeze at. That figure was from 2005.

That having been said...owning stocks and options does not constitue a crime. Nor does his continuing to collect annual compensation from Halliburton.

What you're asking for, jseal, is not whether or not he profitted, but for proof that Mr. Cheney is directly responsible for the contracts Halliburton is/was awarded that generate the profits they (and in turn he) reap. That, I repeat, is a smoking gun that none of us will find.

WildIrish,

Yes sir. You are probably correct about that.

Don't all former presidents have secret service? I'm confused about this point.

Steph,

President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. In 1997, Congress modified the law to limit Secret Service protection for subsequent presidents to 10 years after leaving office.

I think many people have shown he's profited. AGAIN, I ask you to disprove these claims.

Please show me how Mr. Cheney is not profiting from Halliburton.

Steph,

Many thousands of people profit from Haliburton. It is a "for profit" corporation. Profit is what it is in business to achieve.

I had promised myself I'd leave Pixies. It's mostly an American site. I wanted people to join this thread to discuss the positive things the Bush admin has put forward.

Sadly, I've got jseal writing the way he normally writes.

Bullshit aside, your VP is profiting from this war. There are links in this thread that prove it.

Jseal, you have kids in university. I'll ask you this -- what are you thoughts on the American economy? How do you feel about the debt incurred from this war?

I lowered myself to almost gloat because my country refused to join this war. I stood by it then, I stand prouder now. I read a lot. I am against this war more now.

I was asking for comments. Of course, jseal, you're you. I ask you straight questions, I get links back.

Tell me your thoughts on this war. Tell me your thoughts on the economy. What are your feelings on the economy your grandchildren will face. If possible, give me some opinions. No links, please.

Steph,


I have a difficult time accepting that as stated when the initial post to this thread was




Yes. I write the way I normally write. Just as it would be inappropriate for me to tell you to adopt some artificial technique when you try to communicate with others, so too I feel that it is inappropriate for others to tell me to write in a way that I find odd, artificial, or bizarre.


It is not immediately obvious what relevance the fact that my children being in college has to the two following questions. If your allusion is to the debt burden of the “Iraq event” future generations (my children) will be obliged to discharge, then you may want to consider it - the debt burden of the “Iraq event” – as a fraction of what the total U.S. Federal Debt was at the time the event ends. This would provide a reasonable representation of “the debt incurred from this war”. Then, deflating the 2003-2008 dollars to 1975, 1953, 1945, 1918, etc., we would be in a position to plausibly compare the “the debt incurred from this war” with the debt incurred from those wars.

You will need to provide more information about your question of my thoughts on the American economy for me to answer that question usefully.


Good. Democracies need knowledgeable citizens.


You received my comments.


You received more than “just” links. I use links to warrant claims I make. Providing supporting information, as the links do, is a customary practice employed when people attempt to persuade others. I recommend it to everyone. The alternative, to people like me, is unpalatable - expecting people with whom you are having a discussion to accept whatever you say because you said it. That seems unreasonable.


War has always existed. It is a result of how we as humans are constituted. You may want to keep in mind that Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, said today that the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear program. I shall be glad to see this war end, but I am not so foolish as to expect an end to wars.

You will need to be less vague in re your request of my thoughts “on the economy”.

Neither you nor I nor anyone has the least idea of the nature of the economy (Maryland? American? Global?) my grandchildren will face. My grandchildren, when they will need to deal with, face, or interact with “the economy” as independent agents will not do so until 2028 at the earliest. Anyone who claims that they can speak authoritatively on the economy of Maryland, much less that of the U.S. or that of the whole world twenty years (or more, no grandchildren on the horizon yet) in the future either does not know what they are talking about and is a fool, or does, and is a liar.

Steph, I don't know exactly the answer to your questions regarding the cost of the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) but what I did was go out to "Ask Jeeves" and found the US GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was about 11.75 TRILLION dollars in 2004 ( http://www.ask.com/web?q=What+is+th...src=0&o=0&l=dir ). I then asked about the cost of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and a chart was shown indicating that as of this point in time, the war has cost (IN TOTAL) about $450 BILLION. If my math is right, that's about 4% of the year 2004's GDP. (USA Today reports that by 2010, it could reach $600 BILLION ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...raq-costs_x.htm) which would be about 5% of the 2004 GDP for the US.

As far as people profiting from the war, I have no doubt many in Washington (and other places) have. People from both parties. In fact, anyone who has investments in any products or services that go to supporting the effort there, but I really don't know how much any of them have directly realized from the war or any knowledge whether any decisions or positions they have on the war are a result of any financial dealings. I honestly don't know where you'd find that information. If anyone does, please let me know ... for Cheney and the top leadership of both parties. Might be interesting.