Obama the Lawless

[JoeB131]

Wow, the fallacies keep building.
First, everyone profits from a gov't contract. Like the one for the Healthcare.gov website, given without bid to Michelle's old pals in Canada.
Second, Cheney didnt personally profit from the contracts.
Third, Halliburton provided valuable services. What do welfare recipients provide, other than more welfare recipients?

I'm sorry, was that "valualbe" service the $20.00 hamburger,


or the faulty electricity that killed soldiers?

U.S. Troops Still Dodging Deadly Showers - CBS News

Or maybe it was the water that was contaminated with feces.

Workers Allege Halliburton Knew Their Water Was Foul

Red herring. Stick to the topic or STFU.

I'll take that as an admission of defeat...

 

[rdean]

Regardless how Republicans try to characterize Obama, the fact is they met to organize his destruction even before he was sworn into office. Since Obama has been president, Republicans have released partial transcripts, altered emails, held the American people hostage, repeatedly lied, practiced voter suppression and all the time screaming "we aren't racist". I truly believe the current GOP has been the filthiest party in US history and the most destructive. And we all know we can certainly prove it.

 

[Seawytch]

Cite the dishonesty in the post coward.

It's already been done by others.
But I'll add there was no EO of "The New Deal". The New Deal was a carried out by a series of laws and measures passed, like the NRA, Agricultural Adjustment Act and others.
Comparing desegregating the armed forces, which was not subject to any law, to Obama arbitrarilty suspending, amending or deleting sections of black letter law is totally dishonest. Or ignorant. Perhaps both.

From Wiki:

They involved laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Parts of the New Deal were passed by EO you dishonorable troll.

Where'd ya go Rabbi? I thought my post would at least get a response if not a rep of some kind. Of course, it should be a positive rep since you negged me for "lying"...which I did not. So how 'bout it Rabbi, do I get some love?

 

[Geaux4it]

Regardless how Republicans try to characterize Obama, the fact is they met to organize his destruction even before he was sworn into office. Since Obama has been president, Republicans have released partial transcripts, altered emails, held the American people hostage, repeatedly lied, practiced voter suppression and all the time screaming "we aren't racist". I truly believe the current GOP has been the filthiest party in US history and the most destructive. And we all know we can certainly prove it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Regardless how Republicans try to characterize Obama, the fact is they met to organize his destruction even before he was sworn into office. Since Obama has been president, Republicans have released partial transcripts, altered emails, held the American people hostage, repeatedly lied, practiced voter suppression and all the time screaming "we aren't racist". I truly believe the current GOP has been the filthiest party in US history and the most destructive. And we all know we can certainly prove it.

Stopping Obama would have stopped him from destroying things.

We don't act like Democrats who try to "destroy" the opposition simply to prevent them from doing good and taking credit for it. That's not how most of us think.

 

[zeke]

Haliburton still does the same work for the government today.

That's a typical strawman argument.

yeah, but no one in the government is personally profiting from it like Cheney did.

hilarious that you guys whine all day about some poor kid getting a food stamp, but man, Haliburton raking in the Corporate Welfare is just soooo okay with you.

Wow, the fallacies keep building.
First, everyone profits from a gov't contract. Like the one for the Healthcare.gov website, given without bid to Michelle's old pals in Canada.
Second, Cheney didnt personally profit from the contracts.
Third, Halliburton provided valuable services. What do welfare recipients provide, other than more welfare recipients?

Chris Matthews says Cheney got $34 million payday from Halliburton
True
Share this story:


The oil-services and infrastructure giant Halliburton is a favorite target for critics of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who used to be the company's CEO. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the company's Iraq War-related contracts attracted wide attention. Now, the company's role in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has brought Halliburton back into the headlines.

During a May 20, 2010, appearance with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, MSNBC host and political commentator Chris Matthews revived the Cheney-Halliburton connection while discussing the spill.

At one point in the interview, Leno said, "All right, a lot going on in politics with this BP thing. This is the one-month anniversary. Where are we? Who’s the lying scum here?"

Matthews responded, "Yeah, it’s the scariest thing I’ve ever seen, and, you know, I don’t know where to start. I mean, Halliburton. Sound familiar? Cheney. Cheney was head of Halliburton. When he got to be vice president, when he was signed for vice president, the oil company gave him a $34 million signing bonus to become vice president of the United States."

We'll grant Matthews some artistic license with his comment. We know he doesn't mean that Cheney literally got a signing bonus for becoming the vice presidential candidate, as a newly signed free agent would in baseball. But we thought it was worth checking whether Cheney did in fact end up with a $34 million payout when he stepped down as CEO to join Bush on the ticket in 2000.

We looked at a personal financial disclosure form that Cheney signed on Sept. 1, 2000. This is the filing made once someone joins a national presidential ticket. It represents the candidate's holdings and income as of August. In the portion addressing Cheney's compensation from Halliburtion, the file lists the following categories and dollar amounts as of that date:

• Salary/bonus (gross): $4,721, 947
• Deferred salary: $1,042, 441
• Senior executive deferred compensation contributions: $654,804

Meanwhile, on May 15, 2001, Cheney also signed a second disclosure form that is supposed to update the August 2000 filing so that it covers the full year. In this filing, Cheney disclosed the following Halliburton income:

• Salary/bonus (gross): $821,896
• Elective deferred salary: $403,166
• Stock equivalent unit bonus: $396,213
• Senior executive deferred compensation contributions: $53,692
• Elective deferred salary lump sum payout: $1,140,160
• Restricted stock imputed income: $7,560,000
• Nonqualified stock option income: $21,964,254
• Senior executive deferred compensation payout: $2,797,128

However, we were unclear about whether the totals from the May 2001 filing, which amount to $35.1 million, should be added to those from the August 2000 filing, which amount to $6.4 million, or whether the amounts in the two filings overlap somewhat. Experts we spoke to expressed uncertainty on this question as well. So we decided to take the most cautious approach and only use the numbers from the second filing, which covers the whole year.

That still leaves a total of $35.1 million earned from Halliburtion reported on the May 2001 filing. Of that total, just over $800,000 represents salary and bonus, which Cheney would have earned regardless of whether he joined the ticket or not. Many of the other categories were subject to some calculation and/or negotiation, as would happen in the case of any CEO who left a position early, so it seems fair to call the rest of the income he received an exit package.

So, if you subtract the salary and bonus from the larger amount, voila -- you get $34 million and change. So Matthews is right.

A footnote: Cheney's timing was impeccable. As the disclosure forms indicate, he held a large number of stock options, which means he had been given the right to purchase shares of the company for an old (and, hopefully for the holder of the options) lower price than the current market value. When the holder chooses to exercise those options, they can buy the shares at the low price and then sell them at the market price, pocketing the difference.

It's not clear when Cheney sold his stock options, but it likely was within weeks of his being named to the ticket -- a period when Halliburtion shares hit their 2000 peak, in the low-to-mid $50 range. By November 30, 2000, the stock had fallen to $33 a share. If he'd waited until then to sell, his payday would have been one-third lower, or roughly $14 million rather than $22 million.

But Cheney does appear to have had timing on his side, so we find Matthews' statement -- that Cheney had a payday of $34 million -- to be accurate. If anything, it may have been a bit low. Either way, we give it a rating of True.


Rabbit let google be your friend. Even when it tells you stuff you don't want to believe.

Cheney didn't have to wait for the war to be able to profit. Halliburton was willing to give him his share UP FRONT. Cause they knew what was coming. Iraq.

 

[mudwhistle]

$34 million, one time. Spread that out over the rest of his life.

Michael Jordan made that in one year.

 

[mudwhistle]

Halliburton is still a major contractor for the government, and has been since Vietnam.

Obama puts his friends and campaign donors in important positions. Half the time they don't know what they're doing. At least Cheney had experience.

 

[gipper]

The lawless POTUS that is Big Ears, will continue unabated. Why? Because most of the media will not expose the truth and will even distort the truth for BO's benefit. And many of the Rs see nothing wrong with BO's actions...after all, they are statists like him...plus many Rs are afraid of being called racists.

When W was in office, the media was on him like flies on shit. He was constrained by the media and rabid dog Ds. These constraints on power do not exist for BO and he knows it.

One would think most Americans would be appalled at BO's actions, but apparently many are just fine with it.

HaHa, talking point moron.

Not nice Sarah G-string....your response only proves you incapable of debate. You see on this forum the basis of it, is to debate. Now if you can dispute my post in a intelligent fashion, please do so. If not, so be it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Emancipation Proclamation - Executive order
Desegregation of the Armed Forces - Executive order
The New Deal - EO
Japanese-American Internment - EO
Indian Reservations - EO

Obama the "lawless".

Neg rep for dishonesty and ignorance.

Cite the dishonesty in the post coward.

I believe I proved you wrong with post #67.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yeah, but no one in the government is personally profiting from it like Cheney did.

hilarious that you guys whine all day about some poor kid getting a food stamp, but man, Haliburton raking in the Corporate Welfare is just soooo okay with you.

Wow, the fallacies keep building.
First, everyone profits from a gov't contract. Like the one for the Healthcare.gov website, given without bid to Michelle's old pals in Canada.
Second, Cheney didnt personally profit from the contracts.
Third, Halliburton provided valuable services. What do welfare recipients provide, other than more welfare recipients?

Chris Matthews says Cheney got $34 million payday from Halliburton
True
Share this story:


The oil-services and infrastructure giant Halliburton is a favorite target for critics of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who used to be the company's CEO. During the presidency of George W. Bush, the company's Iraq War-related contracts attracted wide attention. Now, the company's role in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has brought Halliburton back into the headlines.

During a May 20, 2010, appearance with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show, MSNBC host and political commentator Chris Matthews revived the Cheney-Halliburton connection while discussing the spill.

At one point in the interview, Leno said, "All right, a lot going on in politics with this BP thing. This is the one-month anniversary. Where are we? Who’s the lying scum here?"

Matthews responded, "Yeah, it’s the scariest thing I’ve ever seen, and, you know, I don’t know where to start. I mean, Halliburton. Sound familiar? Cheney. Cheney was head of Halliburton. When he got to be vice president, when he was signed for vice president, the oil company gave him a $34 million signing bonus to become vice president of the United States."

We'll grant Matthews some artistic license with his comment. We know he doesn't mean that Cheney literally got a signing bonus for becoming the vice presidential candidate, as a newly signed free agent would in baseball. But we thought it was worth checking whether Cheney did in fact end up with a $34 million payout when he stepped down as CEO to join Bush on the ticket in 2000.

We looked at a personal financial disclosure form that Cheney signed on Sept. 1, 2000. This is the filing made once someone joins a national presidential ticket. It represents the candidate's holdings and income as of August. In the portion addressing Cheney's compensation from Halliburtion, the file lists the following categories and dollar amounts as of that date:

• Salary/bonus (gross): $4,721, 947
• Deferred salary: $1,042, 441
• Senior executive deferred compensation contributions: $654,804

Meanwhile, on May 15, 2001, Cheney also signed a second disclosure form that is supposed to update the August 2000 filing so that it covers the full year. In this filing, Cheney disclosed the following Halliburton income:

• Salary/bonus (gross): $821,896
• Elective deferred salary: $403,166
• Stock equivalent unit bonus: $396,213
• Senior executive deferred compensation contributions: $53,692
• Elective deferred salary lump sum payout: $1,140,160
• Restricted stock imputed income: $7,560,000
• Nonqualified stock option income: $21,964,254
• Senior executive deferred compensation payout: $2,797,128

However, we were unclear about whether the totals from the May 2001 filing, which amount to $35.1 million, should be added to those from the August 2000 filing, which amount to $6.4 million, or whether the amounts in the two filings overlap somewhat. Experts we spoke to expressed uncertainty on this question as well. So we decided to take the most cautious approach and only use the numbers from the second filing, which covers the whole year.

That still leaves a total of $35.1 million earned from Halliburtion reported on the May 2001 filing. Of that total, just over $800,000 represents salary and bonus, which Cheney would have earned regardless of whether he joined the ticket or not. Many of the other categories were subject to some calculation and/or negotiation, as would happen in the case of any CEO who left a position early, so it seems fair to call the rest of the income he received an exit package.

So, if you subtract the salary and bonus from the larger amount, voila -- you get $34 million and change. So Matthews is right.

A footnote: Cheney's timing was impeccable. As the disclosure forms indicate, he held a large number of stock options, which means he had been given the right to purchase shares of the company for an old (and, hopefully for the holder of the options) lower price than the current market value. When the holder chooses to exercise those options, they can buy the shares at the low price and then sell them at the market price, pocketing the difference.

It's not clear when Cheney sold his stock options, but it likely was within weeks of his being named to the ticket -- a period when Halliburtion shares hit their 2000 peak, in the low-to-mid $50 range. By November 30, 2000, the stock had fallen to $33 a share. If he'd waited until then to sell, his payday would have been one-third lower, or roughly $14 million rather than $22 million.

But Cheney does appear to have had timing on his side, so we find Matthews' statement -- that Cheney had a payday of $34 million -- to be accurate. If anything, it may have been a bit low. Either way, we give it a rating of True.


Rabbit let google be your friend. Even when it tells you stuff you don't want to believe.

Cheney didn't have to wait for the war to be able to profit. Halliburton was willing to give him his share UP FRONT. Cause they knew what was coming. Iraq.

An L.A. Times op-ed of April 22 said, "Halliburton Received No-Bid Contracts During Clinton Administration For Work In Bosnia And Kosovo." An October 2003 article in the (Raleigh, NC) News & Observer quoted Bill Clinton's Undersecretary Of Commerce William Reinsch as saying "'Halliburton has a distinguished track record,' he said. 'They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they're doing in a difficult business. It's a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you.'"
FrontPage Magazine - The Facts on Halliburton

 

[Seawytch]

Emancipation Proclamation - Executive order

Desegregation of the Armed Forces - Executive order

The New Deal - EO

Japanese-American Internment - EO

Indian Reservations - EO



Obama the "lawless".

Would you explain which laws the above contradicted and/or eviscerated?







The "lawless" term applies to re-writing laws from the executive branch.

Surely you see that.







Case in point:



"...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).



On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.



The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.



“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”



....Obama’s strategy of expanding his political base by widening the dependency on government handouts."

Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill

Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

 

[JoeB131]

$34 million, one time. Spread that out over the rest of his life.

Michael Jordan made that in one year.

Michael Jordan didn't start a war that killed 5000 Americans and a Million Iraqis to get that payout.

 

[JoeB131]

Halliburton is still a major contractor for the government, and has been since Vietnam.

Obama puts his friends and campaign donors in important positions. Half the time they don't know what they're doing. At least Cheney had experience.

Um, yeah, that Iraq War was a smashing success...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Emancipation Proclamation - Executive order

Desegregation of the Armed Forces - Executive order

The New Deal - EO

Japanese-American Internment - EO

Indian Reservations - EO



Obama the "lawless".

Would you explain which laws the above contradicted and/or eviscerated?







The "lawless" term applies to re-writing laws from the executive branch.

Surely you see that.







Case in point:



"...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).



On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.



The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.



“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”



....Obama’s strategy of expanding his political base by widening the dependency on government handouts."

Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill

Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

Really?

You're going to pretend you 'misunderstood' my evisceration of your fraudulent attempt to defend the Obama-criminal?

He has no constitutional right to re-write or change laws passed by the legislature.


Be more honest in the future.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Emancipation Proclamation - Executive order

Desegregation of the Armed Forces - Executive order

The New Deal - EO

Japanese-American Internment - EO

Indian Reservations - EO



Obama the "lawless".

Would you explain which laws the above contradicted and/or eviscerated?







The "lawless" term applies to re-writing laws from the executive branch.

Surely you see that.







Case in point:



"...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).



On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.



The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.



“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”



....Obama’s strategy of expanding his political base by widening the dependency on government handouts."

Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill

Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

Really?

You're going to pretend you 'misunderstood' my evisceration of your fraudulent attempt to defend the Obama-criminal?

He has no constitutional right to re-write or change laws passed by the legislature.


Be more honest in the future.

 

[Seawytch]

Would you explain which laws the above contradicted and/or eviscerated?















The "lawless" term applies to re-writing laws from the executive branch.



Surely you see that.















Case in point:







"...Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).







On Thursday of last week, HHS issued regulations that modified — gutted — the work requirement. Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that “vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs” “count as well” in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.







The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.







“Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”







....Obama’s strategy of expanding his political base by widening the dependency on government handouts."



Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill



Follow us: [MENTION=27326]The[/MENTION]hill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

Really?



You're going to pretend you 'misunderstood' my evisceration of your fraudulent attempt to defend the Obama-criminal?



He has no constitutional right to re-write or change laws passed by the legislature.





Be more honest in the future.

No I'm being intentionally flippant about a ridiculous premise.

Neither you or Rabbi proved my post a "lie" regardless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

Really?



You're going to pretend you 'misunderstood' my evisceration of your fraudulent attempt to defend the Obama-criminal?



He has no constitutional right to re-write or change laws passed by the legislature.





Be more honest in the future.

No I'm being intentionally flippant about a ridiculous premise.

Neither you or Rabbi proved my post a "lie" regardless.

I didn't say your original post was a lie, I said it was incorrect.

But...this latest post.....you knew that I wasn't asking for a President to write laws via EOs.

You knew, didn't you.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cite the dishonesty in the post coward.

It's already been done by others.
But I'll add there was no EO of "The New Deal". The New Deal was a carried out by a series of laws and measures passed, like the NRA, Agricultural Adjustment Act and others.
Comparing desegregating the armed forces, which was not subject to any law, to Obama arbitrarilty suspending, amending or deleting sections of black letter law is totally dishonest. Or ignorant. Perhaps both.

From Wiki:

They involved laws passed by Congress as well as presidential executive orders during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Parts of the New Deal were passed by EO you dishonorable troll.

You prove my point and call me dishonest. Nice.
You might be the msot discredited poster here since RDean.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, so EOs creating new laws is what he should be doing to not get the "lawless" label? Interesting angle.

Really?



You're going to pretend you 'misunderstood' my evisceration of your fraudulent attempt to defend the Obama-criminal?



He has no constitutional right to re-write or change laws passed by the legislature.





Be more honest in the future.

No I'm being intentionally flippant about a ridiculous premise.

Neither you or Rabbi proved my post a "lie" regardless.

"Obama Rewrites ObamaCare

....the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law's employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever."
Obama Rewrites ObamaCare - WSJ.com



So.....would you care to defend Obama's actions?


And....be certain you are able to do so based on the Constitution, article two.