If you donate too much, you are EVIL

http://brainster.blogspot.com/2006_04_16_brainster_archive.html#114548448065601840
from JoeUser Forums

In what can only be described as a satire of putrid hate, the loons on the far left have gone off the deepend again.  As some may know, Dick Cheney took advantage of the elimination of the charity ceiling that congress passed in the wake of Katrina.  Prior to last fall, you were limited to deducting 50% of your income in charitable donations.  But since the ceiling was removed, you could bet the farm and donate as much as you wanted.

Dick Cheney did.  he donated 77% of his income to charity.  What a great guy, right?  Or at least a noble deed, right?  hardly!  Look at what some of the loony loopy luddite left had to say about Dick Cheney's generosity:

 

Why is this man not in jail?

How does this guy sleep at night? This administration makes me sick to my stomach. They are sooooo corrupt.

This administration has no shame.
They are "do as I say, not as I do" people

REPREHENSIBLE, totally devoid of any moral values, ...a true, dyed-in-the-wool Robber Baron.

We need a perp-walk, and we need it now.

I wonder how much each of these twerps donated last year.  I bet is was about a buck 50 each.

politics
23,478 views 85 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
So he's bad cause he donated 77% of his income to charity? Did I miss something here?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, upon reading the different links to press releases it seems that Cheney made a huge donation to charity but people are feeling like he misused the Katrina change since he didn't donate to Katrina helping charities. As long as the charities are legitimate I'm not going to criticize who he gives HIS money to. JMO

AD
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

So he's bad cause he donated 77% of his income to charity? Did I miss something here?

Yep!  Apparently so.  He took advantage of a tax law change, not to enrich himself, but to donate, and now they want to hang him.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, upon reading the different links to press releases it seems that Cheney made a huge donation to charity but people are feeling like he misused the Katrina change since he didn't donate to Katrina helping charities. As long as the charities are legitimate I'm not going to criticize who he gives HIS money to. JMO


Remember, the point is to criticize, regardless of why. Anything to make anyone look bad, even if it's a 1 milimeter stain on a white shirt of your opponent.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, upon reading the different links to press releases it seems that Cheney made a huge donation to charity but people are feeling like he misused the Katrina change since he didn't donate to Katrina helping charities. As long as the charities are legitimate I'm not going to criticize who he gives HIS money to. JMO

Exactly!  There is really only so many dollars for charity (we all have to decide each year where ours go).  That he gave to one charity means that probably more go to others.  I cannot give to everyone who calls.  I have to pick and chose, and know that most people will, and in the end it will all even out.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Remember, the point is to criticize, regardless of why. Anything to make anyone look bad, even if it's a 1 milimeter stain on a white shirt of your opponent.

But criticizing for criticizing sake is just stupid.  If they were smart, they would have just ignored this news and kept pounding on the evil rich people thing.  But this clearly shows that rich people are not evil, just small minded maggots that infest the extreme left.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know the details but I know one of my former bosses gave huge sums to charity not to be helpful but to reduce his tax debt. He came out ahead donating to charity instead of paying taxes so that's why he did it.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: LocamamaPosted: Friday, April 21, 2006I don't know the details but I know one of my former bosses gave huge sums to charity not to be helpful but to reduce his tax debt. He came out ahead donating to charity instead of paying taxes so that's why he did it.


does it really matter what his personal motives are? his donation was huge and it should be respected not trashed.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
He came out ahead donating to charity instead of paying taxes so that's why he did it.


But charity benefits where the church has failed is how I see it.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't know the details but I know one of my former bosses gave huge sums to charity not to be helpful but to reduce his tax debt. He came out ahead donating to charity instead of paying taxes so that's why he did it.

No, you never do. Donations are deductions.  Which means you save between 15 and 33% of the donation in taxes (not including state).  SO if he donated a lot, he still paid a lot. At least 67% of that donation was not saved by taxes.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

does it really matter what his personal motives are? his donation was huge and it should be respected not trashed.

Exactly!  He could just as well stashed it into a tax shelter.  He did not.  He gave it to those in need.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

But charity benefits where the church has failed is how I see it.

Charity (the legit ones) are more economical than any government program as more gets to the people and less is used for the slush fund called overhead.  it matters not why, or where he gave, just that he did give.  As the article notes, he gave the Max before the law was changed, then he gave another 2.3 million.  That indicates he was already giving and did not care to do a carry over.  Which is also legal.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That indicates he was already giving and did not care to do a carry over. Which is also legal.


It irks me that people would criticize this very fact. I think I need some cheese.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Taxes show the Cheneys made $8.8M "

Source: Link

"The overwhelming bulk of the income listed by Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne, resulted from exercising stock options in order to make charitable contributions. That money came from a fund Cheney set up in 2001 to distance him from income produced by stock options he accumulated as chief executive officer of Halliburton Co."

So, Vice President Dick Cheney liquidated some of the stock that he put aside when he took office. Most of that stock was in Haliburton.

And how has Haliburton done in the past eight years?

On April 20th, 2001 the stock was trading at $37.03 per share. Five years later it is trading at $82.80. A modest increase of 224%. Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-stocklookup&t=HistQuote

Vice President Cheney sure is lucky! I mean, how lucky can you get that the stock that you own as Vice President just happens to more than double during the time that you are in office! What are the odds?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
On April 20th, 2001 the stock was trading at $37.03 per share. Five years later it is trading at $82.80. A modest increase of 224%. Source: Link

Vice President Cheney sure is lucky! I mean, how lucky can you get that the stock that you own as Vice President just happens to more than double during the time that you are in office! What are the odds?


and.....? so? Do you have a problem with another's fortune? Would it be better for you if he lost money?

Our stock went up as well. He invested wisely. That tells me he's got a good head on his shoulders. GOOD FOR HIM.

I would agree with the CPA's in my office.....GOOD FOR CHENEY. At least he's not mooching off the government rolls. Come to think of it, the money he gets from us, the little people, is pennies really for the job he, as well as his boss, is doing. I have much greater issues with my local ya hoos that are snoozing and collecting their paychecks when they wake up.

But charity benefits where the church has failed is how I see it.


well from what I see the government took over the church's role with their government programs. Now much of our money that we would want to give the government takes and chooses how to spend for us.

I have a client that makes a million dollars a year. He said he used to give to Charity but no more. He said (I'm not saying I agree with him) that the government takes so much of his money (a huge chunk) that he figures he is giving to Charity.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes Cheney is profiting on his stocks. Would you want our second in command of the country to be a poor investor and poor control of his investments? I wouldn't even want that for the corp. I work for. But maybe that's just me.

AD
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Double post please delete thanks.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I might not be remembering correctly, but I thought it was a condition of Cheney wiggling out of the coflict of interest thing that he had to give away all the money his iffy investments produced from the time he became vice president.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
might not be remembering correctly, but I thought it was a condition of Cheney wiggling out of the coflict of interest thing that he had to give away all the money his iffy investments produced from the time he became vice president.


I'm sorry but the VP "wiggled" out of nothing. No conflict of interest was ever proven. Iffy investments? Those were "not" investments sir. They were stock options. And those kind of options are given to most of upper management who retire. Those "stock options" were part of his retirement package.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, there is certainly a conflict of interest, which is why the VP made the arrangements he made:

"Dick Cheney ties

In recent years the company has become the center of many controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to US Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $20 million. His deferred compensation from Halliburton, which appeared on his 2001 financial disclosure statement, generated an income between $50,000 and $100,000. Cheney also retains 433,000 share-equivalent unexercised stock options at Halliburton.

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.[1] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[1]

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. However, giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizeable donation to the chosen charities.[1]" (Link)


You don't have to "prove" conflict of interest when the VP is also a big part of a huge company that relies on government contracts. The conflict of interest was obvious even to him, thus he made efforts to separate himself from that conflict. That's a good thing.

Much of his charitable donations, though, are part of the scheduled plan for him NOT to benefit from anything Haliburton benefits from in terms of Iraq, etc. Charity it is, mind you, and charity is good, but there's also no reason to assume that had he not gotten VP that the money would still be going there.

I use the word 'iffy' because most presidents would have seen the haliburton thing coming and chosen to avoid it by picking someone else. It has caused no end of grief. That assumes, though, that the President picked the VP, and not the other way around LOL .
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
apparently there are donations and donations.

t. boone pickens (oil gazillionaire and unscathed cheney hunting buddy--unscathed to date, anyway) is clearly playin this katrina thing for all it's worth.

according to wikipedia:

Pickens and employees of his BP Capital LLC donated $5 million to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

On December 30, 2005, Pickens made a controversial $165 million gift to Oklahoma State University. According to the New York Times, "the money spent less than an hour on Dec. 30 in the account of the university's charity, O.S.U. Cowboy Golf Inc., before it was invested in a hedge fund controlled by Mr. Pickens, BP Capital Management."[1] Pickens earned a massive tax deduction, taking advantage of laws passed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina allowing charitable gifts equal to 100 percent of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income, twice the usual limit of 50 percent. Pickens, who is on the board of the O.S.U. Cowboy Golf, retains the ability to use the funds for buyout deals and leverage operations to benefit his personal interests. The gift is intended to help fund an upgrade of the football stadium and construction of an athletic village, but sparked controversy because OSU planned to use eminent domain to acquire residental property for the projects. [2] The donation comes after a $70 million gift from Pickens to OSU in 2003, which was similarly structured using O.S.U. Cowboy Golf, Inc. [3]

evil? he ain't vlad the impaler or dr mengele.

far as i'm concerned, no matter how much money he has he aint worth shit.Link
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
That assumes, though, that the President picked the VP, and not the other way around LOL .
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

On April 20th, 2001 the stock was trading at $37.03 per share. Five years later it is trading at $82.80. A modest increase of 224%. Source: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-stocklookup&t=HistQuote

Vice President Cheney sure is lucky! I mean, how lucky can you get that the stock that you own as Vice President just happens to more than double during the time that you are in office! What are the odds?

And what has happened to the stock market since then?  It is not luck.  Picking a low point arbitrarily is not luck.  ANd he did not keep it.  He donated it.  Luck?  Right.  Dont forget to check those teeth on that gift horse as you look into his mouth.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Our stock went up as well. He invested wisely. That tells me he's got a good head on his shoulders. GOOD FOR HIM.

But your name is not Dick Cheney, so no one will castigate you foir profiting from a rising stock market.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes Cheney is profiting on his stocks.

And donating all of it to charity.  But yet that is supposed to be Evil!