digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Cheney Betting on US Economic Collapse

counterpunch.org — Well, as it turns out, Kiplinger Magazine ran an article based on Cheney's financial disclosure statement and, sure enough, found out that the VP is lying to the American people for the umpteenth time. Deficits do matter and Cheney has invested his money accordingly.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ukcz, on 10/12/2007, -27/+34And the date of the article? July 5, 2006.
    (I thought I'd read this before.)
    • iching, on 10/12/2007, -23/+111Gee, Halliburton, investments in short term notes.


      Good, it is old, let the people see what it is and update it
      let him go before Congress and in front of people.
      He never served and but he would like you to sign up for Iraq.

      He has investments in W the country (you know the ones that they wanted to control our ports) and your american vice- president is investing not in the future of this nation but on the new world order..........Vice is a good word to describe him

      These people don't care about the US government, the troops, border control or their citizens.
      They grease their pockets on the blood of the troops, the citizens of the US and let you believe
      that they are patriotic by giving the tax breaks to the rich but ask the middle class to support their agenda
      while destroying them at the same time.


    • spinchange, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34If you're calling it a dupe ukcz, that's one thing, but to put things in context, Personal Financial Statements are usually only updated once -or- twice a year unless there have been major changes to ones portfolio situation. I'd imagine Cheney's bets, er investments, are still pretty much the same. We'd probably be wise to do the same thing with our money, sadly. Good Digg, littlebylittle.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15That was 8 months ago. People weren't paying as close attention then.
    • airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24The more deficits we put up, the more programs we'll have to cut in the future when we come to our senses, and thus the more we'll have to get along without the government. Then we'll all be happy as clams when we find out how much better life is and we'll be singing songs and laughing all day long.

      That's a theory that has stuck in my mind over how the current deficit meshes with the conservative ideal of less government. Scary how they bet the country's future that way, isn't it?
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+54Im betting on a Cheney heart attack in the next 6 months, this is assuming that the real Cheney was not killed by a heart attack long ago and replaced by a robot.
    • Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28
      We need more moderate, unbiased, articles like this one. Articles that just give us the facts and allow us to draw our own conclusions. Sometimes I feel that articles might be shading the facts a bit to try to get us to reach one particular conclusion, but at least this one doesn't go down this road.

    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3iching
      its clearly the evil bankers that transcend every single government. blame it on the rothschilds.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -16/+20"We need more moderate, unbiased, articles like this one."

      I detect Sarcasm.

      We'll have more moderate articles when we have more moderate leadership.
    • Intangir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@stonewaljacksn
      a fake one? so he can 'disappear?' like ken lay?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3http://duggmirror.com/politics/Cheney_Betting_on_US_Economic_Collapse/
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"this is assuming that the real Cheney was not killed by a heart attack long ago and replaced by a robot."

      Maybe we should work our way into the inner circle and whisper "klaatu, barada, nickto" in his ear.

      Honestly, my investments bet against the US economy in 2006 and I still have most of my money in overseas investments.

      That's no magic insight on my behalf. I'm merely weighing the willingness of the current administration to sell out their own people.

      I'm not sure what's more sickening: Their behavior or the people still supporting them. There may not be an amicable settlement to our differences.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3"We'll have more moderate articles when we have more moderate leadership."

      It's not possible. Leaders either do what's good for America's long term (my side)... or they do what will make you happy at this moment (your side)... or they do nothing. There is no alternative.
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Haven’t you people picked on poor Dick enough? Leave the cardiologically challenged crusty old codger alone already. Can’t you see that senility has set in for the old guy? One too many blood flow interruptions to the brain.
    • honemasterT, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7How old is the dude now? Of course you move your money into more 'safe' investments as you get older/near retirement. Welcome back from the planet DUH!? Of course (if you're awash in dough/wampum/dinero/moola/dollarini's) you're gonna stick them in tax free munis. Have you looked at the dollar versus the euro lately? Again.. no suprise there.

      Dont get me wrong.. Dick is a *DICK* (an arrogant one at that) Congressmen insomuch as told him to piss off the other day when he came whining about cutting funding and giving the enemy an advantage.. Hey dipsh**T the enemy was in afghanistan.. what a mess and waste of billions of dollars that could have been better spent furthering so many other causes to better mankind.

      Dick wants to keep his dollars, so he's gonna do what any other savvy investor would do.

      The article is no diggworthy.. move along citizens.. nothing to see here other than the obvious.

    • blimpmaster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It doesn't really matter how old the article is, I am sure "Tricky Dick" has invested even more heavily in inflation protected funds. He and Bush are pissed they lost a ton of money when Clinton was president and gas was $1 a gallon. I think they have more than made up their losses in the past eight years at the expense of the American people.

      Chicken-***** congress won't do anything about it. If there was ever two human beings that needed to be impeached, those are the two.
    • laplacian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13while this article sounds good, it really is a bunch of BS. here are the investments this article calls out as suspect:
      short-term municipal bonds.
      tax-exempt money market fund.
      inflation-protected securities fund.
      European bond fund.

      These are all completely normal investments for anyone nearing retirement. They offer low-risk and low volatility.
    • Jeeum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6laplacian, I agree with you totally except for the article sounding good. It's obviously rubbish.
    • bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Hey, I don't want to sound like a Cheney supporter, I am absolutely not, but isn't he required to turn all his investments over to a blind trust while in office?
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cheney is a war profiteer? You call this new info? Hardly. Cheney was worth about 1 million at the end of his appointment as Defense Secretary for the first Bush. He used his term to push giving private contractors work the military used to do. After leaving office he becomes CEO of Halliburton (one of those private contractors he set up to benefit from the new contracts) and became a very wealthy man. The revolving door is what made Cheney his Wealth. He increased his wealth from a million to 80 million. That he increased his wealth even more by betting against the dollar's decline against the Euro after saying deficits don't matter is par for the course. Of course deficits don't matter when you make sure your investments aren't in USDs!!!!
  • goodegg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Mike Whitney has a good article over at Information Clearing House, which is related (more doom and gloom for the little guy).
    Small-time investors should educate themselves, before they are left behind by the elites (once again).
    • jessecrouch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6He's got some good material, but I think most relevant to this being on digg - Whitney is Mr. Doomsday. Many of his articles lead to the worst-case-possible scenario and that's just how his stuff goes. Now I don't completely disagree with this article, but Diggers should know that this isn't regular reporting or even regular editorial reporting.
    • TheKidd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cheney is a ***** criminal
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ohhhh...I wouldn't bet against doom and gloom if you are an American. The only citizens of the world that have anything to look forward to are Indians and Chinese. The US is going down.
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This actually makes a lot of sense. Was this really the plan?
    • Premonition, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:9f10.gif

      Cheney is the guy on the left, that beautiful piece of machinery in the background is his economic and foreign policies. From what he tells me it glides as softly as a cloud.

      Edit: Oh and guess who the moron driving it is.
    • foamweapons, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe bankrupting America has always been the plan. If America is bankrupted, funding for all social programs can be cut completely or handed over to private companies. Private companies want control over health care. Private companies want control over our energy and communication infrastructure. They want control writing laws for the EPA and FDA. They want control over the legal system, so they get non-deferred prosecution agreements instead of convictions when they steal from average Americans.

      If there is no money to fund any government agencies or programs, and everything goes to contractors and other Bush friends, then corporations have more control over America. Of course when all the power goes to large Multi-national corporations they will cut costs by moving jobs off-shore and not paying America taxes. A side-effect is that the future stagflation mentioned in the article will destroy the middle-class. So far it hasn't been too bad, but that's only because Bush is holding back the storm until he leaves office. Then neo-cons can blame it on someone else of course.
  • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -53/+19When this administration is gone, there will be a lot of depressed liberals. I mean, apparently the sole focus of their life is an obsession with Cheney, Bush, Haliburton, and Iraq. Grow up, people. Go spend some time in the Big Room.
    • kevin45, on 10/12/2007, -21/+24How can you live with yourself with undying blind support?
    • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3my terrier lives very happily
    • Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29While jav1231's delivery is bad, there is an underlying point that people digging him down seem to miss. A lot of democrats have been skating for a while on "we're not the republicans!" and little else. Spend a little more time telling me what you're going to do for me and how you're going to change what's wrong and less time reminding us how much the current administration sucks.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23"When this administration is gone, there will be a lot of depressed liberals."

      No, we're depressed right now. I can't wait to get my country back from those bastards.
    • ninti, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Spend a little more time telling me what you're going to do for me and how you're going to change what's wrong and less time reminding us how much the current administration sucks."

      Really, I think that undoing the damage this administration has done will keep us quite busy for a while.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Yeah, because if the liberals dont like it YOU LOVE IT...Even if it is a anal raping. At least it aint from the Commie Liberal isnt that right Comrade.

      F'in Idiot
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Ub3rg33k

      I dugg him down because he is playing into the my team/your team dichotomy that is partisan politics. If people could stop limiting themselves with these idiot ***** labels, maybe we can accomplish something. Ever notice that people like to declare their side of the spectrum right off the bat. I noticed that O'reilly, in particular, draws that line in every interview. This lets his audience know what side to cheer for. Otherwise, they might just agree with their 'enemy'.

      The split that divides this nation is sad.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I know. The Peace and Prosperity of the Clinton years were about as depressing as you can get. I don't understand why Jeb isn't running. I want more of this *****.
  • TherealObadiah, on 10/12/2007, -29/+11Dugg down for lame blog spam. Cheney's portfolio is in a blind trust, get over it liberal wack-jobs.
  • Xanadude, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7Funny how people seem to portray Cheney as some kind of evil genius puppetmaster Sith Lord. Evil, maybe, puppetmaster, apparently, but his plans for Iraq have turned to crap. And it's widely known that the only reason he headed Halliburton is for his goverment connections, not because he's some kind of business genius (he isn't). At this point, his party is critically wounded, and he is in no small amount of legal danger. Quite frankly, I'm willing to bet *against* nearly anything Cheney bets on.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14He bet on Halliburton. It's done quite well.
    • kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9@littlebylittle and anyone else that thinks Cheney makes money from Halliburton doing well...

      You're all a bunch of brainwashed idiots! Cheney doesn't make ANY money from Halliburton other than a deferred salary that is set in stone and doesn't change. All stock that Cheney had in Halliburton goes to charity. He hasn't "bet" anything on Halliburton because even if Halliburton stock went up 10,000x Cheney still wouldn't make a damn penny on it.

      Can't you get of the Halliburton battle cry? It's unbelievable how moronic people are when it comes to Cheney & Halliburton. There's so much more to criticize him on, but it always seems to come back to Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton Halliburton. Give it up already!
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I wouldn't say his plan for Iraq turned to crap. Did they not say this was going to be a war of ages? It was not going to be a 'short war', but it could last 30, 50, even 100 years? I think it's going pretty much according to plan.

      I think the next step is blaming someone for how long we've had to be over there, and for all our troop losses. I think we all know where that blame will be placed.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4@ littlebylittle

      Cheney will never see the money from his Halliburton stock, he came to an agreement to donate all of it to charity.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Kuwan, do you have any links? The only sources I've ever heard talking about the money going to charity were sources from within Cheney's camp, after it came out that he still had large amounts of stock in Haliburton which many believed constituted a conflict of interests.
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I can't speak for little, but Cheney has a record of doing whatever the hell he wants. Agreements mean nothing to him. He can just renege on that deal and take the money if he wants to, which is likely what he will do, as soon as he gets to Dubai.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can he not write off what he donates to charity?

      I know the company I work for 'donates' all the time. At the end of the year, they make out better than they would have if they just destroyed the product.
    • chili555, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Xanadude-
      You'd bet against anything Cheney is for? I suggest you _not_ be against:
      short-term municipal bonds.
      tax-exempt money market fund.
      inflation-protected securities fund.
      European bond fund.
    • kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@geoken

      http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

      From the article:

      "That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity...

      The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office 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 states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later."

      PDF link to the "Gift Trust Agreement":

      http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Cheney%20Gift%20Trust%20Agreement.pdf

      Of course what good are facts to those that are already convinced that Cheney is profiting massively from Halliburton?
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Helllloooooooo....blockheads!
      Cheney made his tens of millions through Halliburton. He was worth One million after leaving his post as Def. Sec. and became CEO of Halliburton because he set up contracts for them as Def. Sec. This is the real crime. Cheney made his wealth through the revolving door of politics.
  • alpinestarless, on 10/12/2007, -23/+7You get what you vote for lol.
    • machinegunopera, on 10/12/2007, -14/+52As I recall, it was Al Gore won the 2000 election not Bush
    • FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27Funny.. I didn't.
    • rhnaccounts, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8@machine: You have a pretty bad memory. Maybe you forgot 2004, too.
    • felchdonkey, on 11/07/2007, -6/+49You get who Diebold says you voted for.
    • starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@machinegunopera
      Ya Gore won the popular vote. But we have this whole electoral college thing...
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Electoral college? Is that some new leet term for 'vote machine hacking'?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As I recall it was the Supreme Court that put Bush in office.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Voting is a token gesture, at best.
  • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8look, i know cheney is a bad guy and all, but why be jealous? if he is making all this cash and getting fat off of these investments, why dont you go invest in the European bond fund also? i know it sounds like "if you cant beat him, join him" but its better than just sitting in front of a comp complaining. if the money feels dirty, then go give it to charity.
    • grandpajesus, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7seriously!
      Do not hate on cheney for getting rich.
      Everyone sounds like a bunch of bitter poor losers.
      Go cheney! get that money!
    • WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25Uh, Scrappy- I don't think it's that we're jealous of Cheney and the money he's going to make on those investments... it's that the Vice President of the United States is basically betting against the US. With those investments, it's in his best interests to make sure that the economy tanks. In other words, he's actively screwing the rest of us over so he can make a buck.

      THAT'S what's wrong with this.
    • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3ok, when we are all poor i will say you are right. as long as bush has been in office my salary has gone up $40,000. have you made money or lost money since 2000? money isnt everything, by a long shot. but thats the only thing you cant complain about with this admin.
    • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2am i the only one that made money? is everyone else is reading digg.com from a public library? right...
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5psst...I'll let you in on a little secret: ALL the rich people are doing this. It's called hedging and investing. You don't think they got rich by being stupid with their money do you? The average joe on the other hand with their must-have plasma TVs...
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"That Money" isnt the issue its telling the public including you not to worry while hes preparing his family for the very thing he doesnt tell your family. And you still cheer for him...From what I can tell the only reason you cheer is because libs are booing. Your "team" is winning while ***** on you and your family.

    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, that and they create laws that help further their financial agendas.



      @closed Dugg for understanding team mentality.........
    • WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@scrappy: "ok, when we are all poor i will say you are right. as long as bush has been in office my salary has gone up $40,000."

      Since Bush has been in office, my salary's gone up over $60k. Unlike you, though, I'm pretty sure it was due to my hard work and talent.
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ClosedCaption

      Who says anything about cheering? It's the public's fault for being so gullible and eating up the crap spouted by officials. It's really simple, all you have to do is look around to see things aren't right. For the record, I don't believe a word they say about the economy. I only care about where the money is going. We had a speculative stock bubble, that went bust and took a lot of stupid people down with it. Now we have a speculative housing bubble. It's going bust and will hurt a lot more stupid people than the stock bubble. Many will still argue that everything honky-dory in real estate, just like back in 2000. They're about get the shakedown of a lifetime. People just don't learn. They lose money by making unwise purchases and investments. Whether they took advise from their financial advisor, realtor, or the POTUS doesn't matter. Ultimately they signed on the dotted line of their own free will with their own money on the line. If they got poorer as a result, that's their own damn fault. Personal responsibility still mean something in this day and age. If you want to hang Cheney, that's fine, but people stupidly believing the dog-and-pony show deserves at least half of the blame.
    • dboylon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I mentioned several times before in this blog. Cheney did not make his money off smart investing. He made it throught the revolving door of politics. He set up Halliburton to profit off of defense contracts. And left his post at the end of his term as Def. Sec. to become CEO and get his payback.
  • Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -21/+28Cheney eats souls for breakfast.

    These guys are the most corrupt individuals to ever occupy the White House. They make Nixon look like Thomas Jefferson.

    9/11 was an inside job.
    Osama Bin Laden = Dick Cheney and PNAC gang.
    War on Terrorism = Smoke and mirrors to hide real terrorists and real agenda.
    • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16cheney eats souls for breakfast, i had cheerios for breakfast and you had mushrooms for breakfast. im pretty sure those guys who drove the planes into the buildings werent from baltimore.
    • dk911, on 10/12/2007, -9/+119/11 was an inside job? There's more PROOF out there that it wasn't than you could ever find. Don't point me to loose change since those guys are a bunch of tin foil hat wearin' idiots. And I really don't care about the other conspiracy sites, either. I read this somewhere and it fits all you conspiracists:

      "Some people are open to any possibility, and honestly examine all evidence in a rational manner to come to a conclusion, followed by a moral evaluation. Others start with a desire for a specific moral evaluation, and then work backwards assembling any fact that supports them, and dismissing any fact that does not."

      In case you didn't get it, conspiracy theorists are the latter and everyone else is the former.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I had coffee.
    • Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2do you take cream and/or sugar? im the only one in my office that drinks it black. sometimes ill try the "milky way" brand coffee, but i generally like it strong and bitter. my office hooks us up with the good black stuff.
    • bigjimslade, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6"9/11 was an inside job" - that statement requires a special kind of *****.

    • Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8@dk911

      I don't have to refer you to any "conspiracy" sites or videos. I'd refer you to your own ***** brain but that appears to be pointless.

      The Official Conspiracy Theory is filled with more holes than there are assholes on this planet.

      -19 Camel Jockeys were able to bypass a multi-billion dollar defense and intelligence infrastructure - all orchestrated in a cave in Afghanistan.

      -Do it on the same day that NORAD "coincidentally" were doing terrorist drills/war games that eerily resembled the actual attacks. If I was a terrorist like, say, Dick Cheney, I'd carry out these attacks on a day like this to keep hot shot fighter pilots from actually preventing the attacks.

      -Massive put options on United Airline stocks a few days prior to 9/11.

      -The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that all defied the laws of physics. They fell faster than free fall and instead of chunks of concrete, we got very fine powder; signatures of controlled demolition.

      -Look at the explosions on the right side of WTC 7 just prior to its free fall style collapse. http://youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY If this doesn't raise a red flag to any reasonable and sane person, nothing will. The way this building came down is completely inconsistent to the official conspiracy theory.

      -WTC was never hit by a plane and it was the farthest WTC building away from the Towers in the WTC Plaza. WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 were brought down by controlled demolition weeks later because they still stood despite being severally damaged. WTC 7 came down hours after the Towers due to "fire". Would be first building in history to just collapse due to fire. It housed the CIA, FBI, Giuliani’s emergency bunker and others.

      -Government won't prove that an airliner hit the Pentagon. There is no reason why it can't. There were many cameras pointing at the site of impact. Still won't show clear footage of airliner crashing into the side of the building.

      Look at all that's happened in the 5 years after 9/11. Ask yourself, "Who benefits?"

      What you're forgetting or won't accept is this one simple fact: The Government has never proven without a shadow of a doubt their Conspiracy Theory. It's still a Conspiracy Theory that would not hold up in an actual court of law. The logic is too flawed. The evidence is not present.

      9/11 was an inside job, my friend. Can't accept this fact? You're either in denial or retarded. Or both.




    • inphu510n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You might want to actually read something VERY IMPORTANT this time around.

      "It was that month that I began writing "Loose Change," a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that September 11th was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government."

      A direct quote from the director Dylan Avery on the Loose Change website.

      A major hollywood release is scheduled to come out this year based on the "documentary". It is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS this film is for the director's pockets and attempts at fame. Just because something is filmed like a documentary doesn't mean it's true people.
    • dk911, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ok @run4ny, apparently you're an idiot so I have to describe this in small words for your tiny brain to comprehend. I don't deny that conspiracy theories are wrong, I *know* they are wrong. The only questionable thing that you mention is the put options, but that is not something I've researched. For the rest of your points, here is a breakdown:

      -19 Camel Jockeys were able to... Yes, believe it or not, they were able to do it. Our infrastructure for validating passengers on flights was minimal at best. Checks were done for bombs in baggage, and knives were allowed on planes if they were small enough. They studied our aviation procedures very carefully, taking many flights to watch how cabin attendants operated. Some also took flight training. None ever learned how to take off or land a plane, according to the instructors who taught them.

      -Do it on the same day that NORAD "coincidentally"... NORAD wasn't conducting any training for missions to attack the towers that day. NORAD was monitoring the skies over the Atlantic and the Pacific. Before 9/11 NORAD looked outward, away from our borders. Now they realize that was a mistake, and they've changed it.

      -The collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that all defied... They didn't defy any laws of physics. They fell the way they did because their inner structures were compromised. The fires in the buildings were enough to weaken steel. No steel melted while the towers stood, but it certainly lost a LOT of structural strength due to the fires. The design of WTC 1 and 2 enabled the towers to fall the way they did. Their tubular box outer columns bowed inwards as the floor support trusses pulled on them. The inner support columns were damaged, or destroyed, by the impacts and the way WTC was built it distributed the stresses around as best it could. The weight was transferred to the core structure, up through the hat trusses, and out to the box columns. When the buildings fell, it was because the outer box columns weren't meant to support the weight of the floors. When the planes drove a gash in the side of the building, they removed a number of those box columns, causing the weight to shift to other neighboring columns. The increased load allowed the heated columns to bend and finally fail. The buildings toppled the way they did because gravity pulled them down. Their falls (WTC1 & 2) weren't perfectly straight down. Instead, if you review the videos, the tops leaned and fell into the lower structure. There was a wide swath of debris from each tower. WTC7 later fell due to the ENORMOUS GASH in the side of it due to the collapse of the other towers. Yes, fires raged in WTC7, but the structural integrity of the building was heavily compromised. The fires only served to weaken the structure more. The command was given to "pull" the firefighters from the building to save from more loss of life, and later in the day the building collapsed. Controlled Demolitions (a company which brought down the Hudson's building in Detroit) said it would be impossible to pull out the bottom of the building and make it collapse. In fact, some tried to do the same thing to WTC 5 and 6 (smaller buildings) and they couldn't achieve any results. The first video is of WTC1 collapsing, look near the end of the collapse, to the right of the dust cloud. Hrmm, debris that is falling in a non-controlled fashion -- weird that it doesn't support your theory. The second video is the still standing CORE of WTC1. Why would demolitions experts leave it alone? Hrmmmm.... The third is for effect, there were no sounds of demolitions in the buildings (which are easy to hear when you're that close) just the sound of the rumbling collapse.
      http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_01.mpg
      http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc1_coll_N_03.avi
      http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/wtc2_coll_SW_01.mpg


      -Look at the explosions on the right side of WTC 7... Yeah, the building was collapsing. Just like the explosions on the side of WTC1 & 2, I suppose? They weren't explosions, they were ejection of debris and structural failing. The "puffs" you see are due to the concrete and glass exterior crushing and splintering because the building was attempting to shift stresses to non-supporting structures.
      http://www.wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_16_cropped.jpg

      -WTC was never hit by a plane and it was the... I assume you mean WTC7? Your right it wasn't hit by a plane. But it was hit with thousands of tons of debris from WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing hours before it collapsed. It wasn't isolated, it was right next to one of the two buildings in the plaza. You should really check your facts on its position.
      http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg

      -Government won't prove that an airliner hit the Pentagon... Why do they have to? People SAW a jetliner hit the Pentagon from the highway that passes just a few hundred yards away. The video footage the Pentagon DID release is from a camera that takes one frame every second. For a plane that was travelling at close to 750 feet per second, all you'd see is a blur. Other videos are free to request, now that the Moussaoui case is over. Go get your FOIA petition signed and see for yourself. The hole in the side of the Pentagon doesn't look like it was made by a jetliner, since it's so small. But physics simulations done by Purdue university show that the plane became "fluid" when it entered the building. The landing gear was found around ring C (one of the inner rings).
      http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html


      What you're forgetting or won't accept... No, I accept it when it's backed by thousands of people working for NIST, FEMA, Popular Science, Purdue University, and the list goes on of REPUTABLE sources. So, where's your proof? Should I go look at Loose Change now, dick?
  • jbouklas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7It's a shame good information like this is posted on a deranged man's website. It advertises such books as "The Case Against Israel," "Imperial Crusades" (referring to the US), "The Politics of Anti-Semitism" (yes, the book itself is Anti-Israel (Anti-Jew)), and best of all, "The Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis."

    This is a good case of how a degenerate can dilute a very good article (namely, that Cheney is a bastard) by the very fact that he is a degenerate. The messenger is the message.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7clearly this whole "anti-jew" thing is wrong, but you should educate yourself about the few jewish families who run the few banks thats control the world. families like the rothschilds are responsible for causing the Great Depression in america because they control our money. there are a few jews at the top manipulating the world that make guys like this maniac hate every jew only by association.

      "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the International Bankers was the Prime reason for the Revolutionary War. " - Benjamin Franklin
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Excellent quote jackson, and nice name as well.
    • Bthypin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I am Jewish, and you are a fool. There is a big difference between anti zionism and anti semitism. Alot of members of my faith let their faith cloud their judgement and are quick to call anyone who crticizes Isreal an Anti-Semite. I thought critique and discoure (and free speech) was part of democracy (which israel and the US claims to be). Free speech for all, unless you criticize the state. And that quote below about jews and banks is ridiculous too. and so is the comment about investing abroad being unamerican. Investing is about making money, not neo nationalism or politics.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Bthypin
      ur ***** blind.

      ok...
      "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant
      on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

      "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
      Bauer Rothschild
      "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)
      "From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A.
      Lindbergh Sr. , 1913
      "The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." -- Congressman
      Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941
      "We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
      we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous;
      if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important
      subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present
      civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
      --Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank
      "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to
      maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance". -- James Madison

      How do you like them apples buddy?...
    • jbouklas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Case in point- degenerates also feel the need to openly publish their opinions on topics they know next to nothing about. Like how Jews control the world, started World War II, took down the Twin Towers, and invented AIDS. Degenerates.
  • machinegunopera, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I think Hollywood should halt production on all the horror movies it is currently working on, and start production on a series of REAL scary movies on all the scandals surrounding the Bush/Cheney administration. Those are horror movies I'd like to see.
    • snewsome, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Yeah a work of fiction by looney hollywood left about the Bush administration is what we all need. Oh wait didn't fat boy Micheal(I can eat my weight in cupcakes) Moore already give us that.
    • geoken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Wow, you totally convinced me. Nothing says 'I have a logical argument' like trying to discredit someone based on their weight.
  • rhnaccounts, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Ironically, from the same site:

    Alexander Cockburn on What's wrong with the U.S. left. They're sitting in darkened rooms weaving conspiracy fantasies about 9/11; they're blogging; they're confusing a medium with a movement; they're not doing enough to stop the war in Iraq.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10That draft dodging bald-headed pussy won't be around long enough to enjoy his millions. The way his health is going, he's working on a stroke as well as the magnum opus of heart attacks. Go ***** yourself Mr Cheney!
  • JOjimBO, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I think the problem with investing in European bonds is that it is UN-AMERICAN for starters.

    As the second highest political figure in our country, we should expect more from the damn office, its no different then when the ENRON folks stated "everything is going great" all the time offloading all stocks and assets from the company, leaving the poor fools that believe in their leadership to rot and suffer.

    This is not a small thing, this is a proof positive sign that our leaders don't give a *****, and worse, they are actively deceiving us to profit off of the ***** situation they have led us... Thats more along the lines of Super-Villain material there, too bad its not a ***** comic book we live in.

    Who Changes the Cheney?

    • drake546, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5i don't know about you. . . but i don't base my investments off my political leanings. i base them off what i think will make me money.

      currency has no politics.
    • JOjimBO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@drake546: Investments off of politics? No. Investments upon ethics? Yes, I do and I expect and believe its fair to expect our elected LEADERS to do so as well.

      We put these arrogant folks in power hoping they provide strong and positive leadership and have our best interests at heart, we expect them to have a plan to make our country better for us and our children. Indeed it is hard to trust one that seems to be playing three card Monte' with our country.

      The leaders of our state are not there to profit off of our ruin, especially if they are the ones that hold our hands and walk us down that dark road, only to jump in a black hawk helicopter and stroke there white kitty as they are flown off to undisclosed locations chuckling.
  • machinegunopera, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2INTERNET KILLED THE REVOLUTION
  • trer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Dick Cheney - A True American Patriot!

    P.S. and also a Turd McNugget
  • cbjohn1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+8cracks me up. all the nut jobs post their retarded conspiracy theories with more holes than swiss cheese that get digged and anyone who disagrees gets buried. Is everyone on the internet crazy or just 95%?

  • mikeyrock, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1If someone on digg that has a history of liberal comments can accurately define "Deficit" I will never defend this administration again.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21A deficit is when you spend more money than you make. What's so confusing about that?
    • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The government is spending more money than it takes in.

      ?
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Not to be confused with the 9.x Trillion Dollar National Debt we have. Whole bigger ball of wax there.
    • mikeyrock, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Sorry, I meant to say if they can say what a deficit is and say why it is bad. I fail to see why debt is bad. Someone please explain it to me.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Sorry, it's not my job to teach you about economics and finance. I paid good money to learn about it myself. It took a good span of years too. Not something you can explain in a Digg comment.
    • mikeyrock, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5If you actually took finance courses and studied global economics you wouldn't be telling me that debt is a bad thing. The point I was trying to make in my apologetically coy posts was that people comment about this subject while in reality they have no idea what is going on.
    • starcrunchfx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@mikey
      It's good at least in relation to China. China is heavilty invested in us. This makes them less likely to go against our interests. Invade taiwan for example.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9mikeyrock -

      There's a difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit. There are obviously good and bad points to each, but I think you're talking about the budget deficit.

      Carrying a budget deficit is bad for the same reason that you don't want to run your household into debt. You end up spending your money servicing the debt instead of using it for things you really need.


      Of course, sometimes it is necessary to go into deficit, but sound fiscal policy should keep this from being a long-term condition. Keeping the federal budget out of the red is part of our national security. Just like an individual or a corporation, a government should carry a surplus if it wants to be strong.

      The main Republican opposition to paying down the debt seems to be based on the idea of creating an artificial crisis that will require government budgets to be slashed, leading to a federal government that is "small enough to drown in the tub." I'd be happy to discuss the relative merits of small government vs. big government, but I disagree with the idea of using circuitous measures, like running deficits, to achieve those ends.
    • MalachiConstant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@mikeyrock

      Alright, when did your economics prof say deficits were inherently good? Because, my econ degree told me that leveraging against the future was unfair to the progress of future generations. Debt is only to be taken in during times of war, which...

      oh, right.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@mikeyrock

      Our government is building an ever increasing debt burden that is threatening the economic collapse of our nation and you think this is a good thing? Where the ***** are you taking your economics courses?
    • Keach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here you go Mike. I think an animated cartoon might help get you started in some of the basics. We can move on to the Big Stuff later.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1057391195915718366&q=Conspiracy+Theory+Funhouse&hl=en
    • davisong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3(Sigh) "Deficits don't matter" adherents.

      In the reality-based community, annual deficits (budget and balance of trade) and long-term government debt actually do matter. If the whole "government is spending more money than it takes in" argument is too abstract for you, then here's a couple of practical examples.

      First, the US is dependent on other countries (primarily China and Japan) to purchase US government bonds and equities, effectively financing the American war and its trade deficit. Thus, without this massive --and on-going-- purchasing from the Central Banks of China, Japan, and other countries, the value of the US dollar would drop like a stone, and likely cause a massive sell-off in US equity markets, and --by extension-- the US economy as a whole. I wouldn't think it's a very comforting thought for Americans that the course of US monetary policy is highly-dependent on what several other countries' central banks do, some of whom don't get along too well with the US politically. Indeed, several countries have already mused openly about decreasing their USD holdings and increasing their holdings of other currencies, like the Yuan, Yen, and Euro.

      The other good reason not to accrue massive yearly deficits and accumulated debt is because the carrying costs of servicing the accumulated debt will eventually overwhelm the ability of the government to fund programs. Paying off the debt (or even the interest on all that debt) cuts into spending, which means less money to go around for everything else. With an aging population and ever-increasing annual cost increases for things like education, health, and --of course-- the military, this is a legitimate concern (again, in the reality-based community).
    • mikeyrock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@davis, your response was definately the best and you clearly know what you are talking about. However, I disagree with you on one point. I can't envision said countries no longer paying us for our debt.

      @daves, No. Debt does not cause economic collapse, and the phrase economic collapse really doesn't mean anything in the first place. Define economic collapse.

      @Malachi, actually my economics professors seemed to be pretty much against the national debt, although I could never see why. My finance professors explained it best, but I have nowhere near the intelligence of them to be able to recreate an explanation.
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A deficit is a _tax_ that is spent, but not _yet_ collected.

      You are spending the future generations money now, leaving them with fewer resources in which to solve their own problems and with which to protect the country.

      If you don't have a problem with that, then you are a selfish ass.

      Oh, and I am an actual conservative republican that is for a conservative fiscal spending policy. The neocons are worse than the liberals when it comes to big government.

      Borrowing against future taxes and spending is looney tunes moon bat right wing nut insane.
    • MalachiConstant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mikey

      There's your problem. A finance prof is educated in ways of maximizing profit for their firm. An economics prof is educated in maximizing utility (ie public good) for all involved.

      The business students and the econ students never really did quite get along. It wasn't a left vs right thing... it was more of a malevolence vs benevolence thing.

      But the fact still stands. If I spend more than I make, I incur debt. If I'm in no rush to pay back the debt, then I'm just passing it off on my kids and grandkids. Case in point, the debt that I was born into here in Canada. The war was quite a long time ago, we've had booms since... but yet we're still in debt and paying high taxes. Why? Because the baby boomers spent a little too much. Not sure how that deficit helped us... but I'm pretty certain that the deficit in the US isn't helping you either.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@mikeyrock

      Wow, I sincerely hope you're getting a ***** lot a tang where you attend college, because you're tossing money into the wind if you, attending economics classes, need a perfect stranger to define economic collapse for you, oh well, here goes.

      Definition: Economic
      Economic
      Adjective
      1. Of or relating to an economy, the system of production and management of material wealth; "economic growth"; "aspects of social, political, and economical life".

      2. Of or relating to the science of economics; "economic theory".

      3. Concerned with worldly necessities of life (especially money); "he wrote the book primarily for economic reasons"; "gave up the large house for economic reasons"; "in economic terms they are very privileged".

      4. Financially rewarding; "it was no longer economic to keep the factory open"; "have to keep prices high enough to make it economic to continue the service".

      5. Using the minimum of time or resources necessary for effectiveness; "an economic use of home heating oil"; "a modern economical heating system"; "an economical use of her time".

      Definition: Collapse
      Collapse
      Noun
      1. An abrupt failure of function or health.

      2. A mishap caused by something suddenly falling down or caving in.

      3. The act of throwing yourself down; "he landed on the bed with a great flop".

      4. A sudden large decline of business or the prices of stocks (especially one that causes additional failures).

      Verb
      1. Break down, literally or metaphorically; "The wall collapsed"; "The business collapsed"; "The dam broke"; "The roof collapsed"; "The wall gave in"; "The roof finally gave under the weight of the ice".

      2. Collapse due to fatigue, an illness, or a sudden attack.

      3. Fold or close up, as of an umbrella or a music stand.

      4. Fall apart; also used metaphorically: "Negotiations broke down".

      5. Cause to burst; "The ice broke the pipe".

      6. Suffer a nervous breakdown.

      7. Lose significance, effectiveness, or value; "The school system is collapsing"; "The stock market collapsed".


      Now, I know this is going to be a monumental stretch for your feeble little mind, but but the two words together and what you see is an economic collapse.

      Stocks have gone through several dramatic declines over the last six years, and the value of the dollar continues to fall.

      Maybe your problem is you're getting too much tang, or masturbating too much, either way you're rotting your brain out, transfer to a better school.
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1$10,000 (post collapse $5.00) says Cheney will collapse before the economy.
    • D00DF00D, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well your post probably wasn't intended this way, but I think that's the driving phenomenon behind his investment strategy. He knows full well that he won't live long in his health condition. He's not investing for the long term. He just needs to keep his money while he's alive. So downturn or no downturn, he's only interested in keeping what he's got. His heirs and heiresses, however they may choose to identify themselves, are going to inherit that cash before Big Dick can spend it all, so why would he put it at risk at all, no matter what the economy is going to do? He can't spend it before he croaks anyway. In my mind, this whole article is just a bunch of radical sensationalism. I don't like anything about Big Dick or the administration he works for, but this article is really stretching what is true, and perhaps more importantly, what is even probable.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Rich people LOVE economic collapse. There isn't any less money now than there was in the mid-90's or any other time of prosperity. The health of the market has everything to do with who has the money. When there is economic downturn, middle and lower-class people have less money. That cash has to go somewhere, and the only place in can go is the pocket-lining of the rich.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Hence the widening divide between rich and poor that's squeezing out the middle class. It's very simple as you described. When you see more people in poverty that means fewer people have a larger share of the wealth.

      Like the saying goes, wealth is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes hands.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4do you think the average joe shmoe struggling from paycheck to paycheck knows what a 'European bond' is? They will only figure it out when interest rates rise and they try to declare bankruptcy. But good luck doing that now. Meanwhile guys like Cheney have leveraged themselves against a recession/interest rate hike. That's sound financial sense but if I were at the bottom I would question things a bit more and wakeup from the NASCAR fog and jingoism they are sold.
    • catbeller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bottom line for us with any money left: what *precisely* is Cheney holding? I want me that list. Suckers bought real estate and stocks. The bastards who looted the country have their money somewhere else. Let's put it there too.
  • reb42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2http://www.duggmirror.com
  • rhnaccounts, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It is also worth noting that the Average Joe American investor probably has 10-20% of their portfolio in international investments and 10-20% in inflation-hedging investments. They aren't un-American or "betting" on an economic collapse, they are simply investing wisely.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And the average "Joe Blow" is not privy to the same information as Mr. Cheney, either. I know it's a blind trust, but he could easily call those running his blind trust and ask them to shift his investments, and I'm sure they would.
    • smujesse, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"It is also worth noting that the Average Joe American investor probably has 10-20% of their portfolio in international investments and 10-20% in inflation-hedging investments. They aren't un-American or "betting" on an economic collapse, they are simply investing wisely."

      EXACTLY. Cheney made more than 25 million in one year! 25 million is pocket change! He's not betting on anything with 25 million! You liberals are always looking for conspiracy! Who are the real traitors?!

      "The Cheneys' best year, financially speaking, was 2000, when they earned $36,086,635 (that's eight figures, not including the cents), mostly from Cheney's Halliburton stock." http://ask.yahoo.com/20060126.html



    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@davesbrain
      So Cheney is guilty of things you imagine he could do? Could you offer any credible evidence to support your point?
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And I'm sure those no-bid contracts, that I'm sure Dicky had absolutely nothing to do with, managed to help the Halliburton stock out just a smidgen. And who stood to profit from that stock increase? All you neocons love to lock step with your leaders and protect them to the end.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@KDX200rider

      No-bid contracts granted to Halliburton, for which Cheney is a paid retained consultant. Contracts that increased the value of Halliburton stock that Cheney also holds interest in. And we'll never have proof because he will never be investigated, and isn't that just a tad convenient for all of you?
    • kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@davesbrain

      As noted in my above posts, you're a brainwashed idiot! See here:

      http://digg.com/politics/Cheney_Betting_on_US_Economic_Collapse#c5672759

      And here:

      http://digg.com/politics/Cheney_Betting_on_US_Economic_Collapse#c5677051

      Cheney has no financial interest in Halliburton and hasn't had any since he took office. There's plenty more to criticize him on, you and everyone else just sound like idiots when you can't get away from Halliburton.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@kuwan

      And you're a ridiculous ***** for brains conservative moron. Your alleged proof only states that all "future profits" will go to unnamed and undisclosed charities, a wonderful conservative trait that allows them to profess saintly acts while maintaining demonic acts of subterfuge. And where, do tell, are the current profits going? Where have past profits gone? Where will the face value of the stock go, because one can separate the profit from the actual value of said stock? Are these charities that Cheney is giving to organizations run by family members like Mr. billionaire Warren B.?

      Go on, jackass, nominate Cheney for fundamentalist christian sainthood and ignore the simple fact he's a ***** crook.

      You know what really makes me laugh about you republican loving morons?

      They're ***** the ***** out of you and not even alluding that they'll pleasure you with a gratuitous reach-around, and you love them for the activity. Look at what they've done, where the tax breaks went, how they've attacked all social spending, and tell me they're good for our country. If you can, then you, sir, are no mere mortal moron, you are a colossal, no, God among morons. I nominate you as the patron saint of morons throughout the universe.
    • kuwan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@davesbrain

      "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

      Sigh... Why do I even bother?

      #1 You obviously didn't read the article nor the PDF that I linked to otherwise you'd know that the charities are named:

      "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 , a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools."

      #2 Cheney owns no stock in Halliburton and hasn't since before he became Vice President. As such there are no current profits, any past profits were made before he took office. The issue here is stock options which have no value unless the stock rises above the option price. And if you'd try to educate yourself a little with some facts then you'd learn that Cheney no longer has any control over the options and will not ever see any money from them.

      #3 You label me as a conservative based solely on the fact that I'm trying to get brainwashed idiots like you to get off the Halliburton-Cheney-gets-rich lie. I don't much like Cheney myself and there are plenty more things to criticize him on rather than some made-up non-story that you've been spoon-fed by people playing to your overdeveloped emotional response and underdeveloped logic.

      Of course what good are facts to those that have already made up their minds?

  • ryclarkeus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Dick Cheney is my hero.
    • MeanGeno, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's time for him to have a 9th heart attack.
  • llvllatrix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Can a politician be tried for insider trading?
  • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3When/if the economy tanks, all of these Conservatives are going to be saying Cheney doing this doesn't demonstrate advanced knowledge or insider information.
  • openglfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is from 2006, right? I see this article and a whole bunch of blogs about it, but I've googled around and can't find the financial statements in question. Can anybody find a good source for his (and other politicians') financial disclosure statements?
  • Popperian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I don't know why people are surprised. Bush Sr. did exactly this same crap with the S&L scandal.

    That cost taxpayers $500 Billion, and we still haven't even started paying for that yet.

    All that Cheney and Jr. did was invent a serious war and add a 0 to the theft amount.

    When the neanderthals in this country start waving their crosses, stars of david, and flags again ... and elect Jeb Bush, he will invent an even bigger scam. He will tell us all exactly what we want to hear (probably things about alternative energy) to get elected ... and then on Day 1 of being elected, he will use start whatever scam he thought of before running to steal $50T from us.

    This is what the Bush family does.

    This is their "family business".
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8It all started with Grandpa Prescott Bush. Look him up if you want to see some Bush greatness.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Yes the Bush family has been a cabal of greed and damage, but Jeb Bush isn't running, and wtf do "stars of David" have to do with anything?
  • weister42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And I bet Cheney won't be the vice president ever again.
  • MeanGeno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Heart Attack Cheney is a fat ***** who is as bad, if not worst than W. He looks and feels evil. Time for another heart attack Dick.
  • Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Since he's doing his best to cause the economy to collapse, couldn't this be considered insider trading?
  • kirstpo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The whole executive branch is ruining the country. I just can't believe congress supported the administration for so long and still refuses to take action against them. Right now the country and media are focusing on the next presidential race, but by the time the Bush administration leaves office, we'll have dug ourselves a hole we can't get out of.
  • Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I know this comment will cause a lot of stir but in the future i reckon i'll be able to point back to this post.

    I believe that it is the economic collapse of America which will bring in martial law+dictatorship. Sound crazy? Look around.
    No wonder he's betting on it.
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@Stonekeeper

      Well I think you are right about one thing, that does sound crazy.
  • Babykitkat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html

    Look at what Norm Mineta had to say about DIck Cheney
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
  • mmarvin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't read these political posts that often. Its funny how almost all conservative statements are dugg down and shown as below my viewing threshold and the liberal positions are dugg to the top. On a side not I think It would be cool if there was an option for politcal orientation in the profile maker.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, good idea. Lets further the idiotic dichotomy a little bit more. Our nation isn't divided enough.
  • smujesse, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Liberals take so much pride in their 'open-mindness', yet they digg down opposing viewpoints. OMGWTFBBQLOLFAQTTYL CONSPIRACY!!!!!!


    (DIGG ME DOWN I DARE YOU)
    • KDX200rider, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@smujesse

      Liberals are only open minded with regards to opinions they agree with, all others must be shouted down.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Yeah, and no conservative goes around digging down opposing views either.
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So Cheney is betting against us. What should we do? Some ideas to consider:

    1. Get out of debt
    2. Get fixed-interest 2nd mortgages or other loans that can keep you afloat
    3. Put your monies in Euros, gold, silver or other safe investments (as Cheney has done)
    4. Prepare for your own imminent financial collapse or worst-case scenario
    5. Get a food and water supply (The Mormons are right about that)





    • smujesse, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Cheney isn't betting against us. Get over it.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@smujesse

      You're correct, but he is protecting his investments by withdrawing from American interests, and what does that tell you?
    • smujesse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You honestly believe that this 25 million set aside in these "anti-American" (safe) investment funds is the ONLY money Cheney has invested? You've got to be kidding. Cheney is an extremely wealthy man. He is an ex-CEO of a Fortune 500 company. This is a classic example of a Liberal journalist taking statistics out of context to further their own political agenda. Gore would be proud.
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@smujesse

      Yes, Cheney is an extremely wealthy man, and he could be using his extreme wealth to assist American companies and American workers, couldn't he?
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@davesbrain:

      Michael Moore, Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Douglas, Rosie O'Donald, Jane Fonda, George Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Rob Reiner are all extremely wealthy people, and they could be using their extreme wealth to assist American companies and American workers, couldn't they?
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@DaveV

      Prove to me they aren't.
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@davesbrain:

      Prove to me Cheney isn't. At least with Cheney, one has a chance to look it up.

      How about we start with Streisand draconian behavior towards her servants and low pay of same?
      How about Moore telling two production assistants that if they joined the union he would have to let one of them go, because he could not afford to pay them both? Or, the fact that he underpays all his staff?

      When was the last time you heard of one of them giving a million dollars to charity? Or one hundred or even ten thousand dollars to charity? That is chump change to most of them. Yet, one never hears of them donating significant amounts money. Why is that?
    • davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@DaveV

      Oh, see, I can't prove anything about Cheney, it's all in a blind trust and if any goes to American companies, he has no say in that actioin. I mean, isn't that the argument you guys have been using to defend him? So if your argument is correct, then any investment in America is not through the action of Mr. Cheney, not that we'll be able to find out, you know, blind trust and all.

      Well lucky for Mr. Dick that we get to pay for his servants now, so we know they're well compensated. But, tell me, what did he compensate his servants prior to being placed upon the public free-lunch?

      And I almost hate to do this as I despise conservative debate tactics, but I've dealt with too many of you conservative ass-wipes lately so here I go: the onus is upon you to prove you contentions about celebrities. Knock yourself out.
  • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7OMG TEH DARTH CHENEY HAS TEH EURO INVENSTMENT!!!

    Guys, please. If any of you knew jack about investing you would realize it makes sense to diversify your investments. Cheney has plenty invested in the US. He also has stuff that will profit if there is or isn't inflation.

    More over, economists like Alan Greenspan have been warning you for years now that the economy was going to face a major slowdown in the next 4-6 years.

    http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?1c849205-cc10-4b3d-9086-54dcc7d1b500

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/greenspan_socia.html

    I guess it's easier to turn Cheney into some type of Darth Vader like figure and pretend he is the eventual cause of the financial calamity that is coming rather than face the fact that the new deal and socialism is a failure.

    • nagaisu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5OMG!! Not only did I not know that Socialism had failed in the US, I didn't even know I lived in a Socialist country! Thanks for the education. Now I'm as stupid as you.
  • akatherder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This would be the beginning of the "slump" period associated with globalization.
  • flink405, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7Dumbest thing of the day!

    Cheney has a blind trust (put it there when he became VP) - he has no basically input on what is done with his money.

    To sum up: The author of the article is an uninformed Bush/Cheney hater. How can one be objective when one hates someone? And, dude, Bush and Cheney are no longer running for office. Quit wasting your time on them.
  • p51d007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Once again, it will be nice to see who the dingbats will bitch about starting Jan 2009, when Bush leaves office.
    Maybe they can start bitching about President Fred Thompson?
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6 Just to add my 2cents... Here is how it works, or rather how it was allowed to happen..

    First, you start by telling a guy he is awesome. He is great, a hero even. Then you reinforce that beleif with pictures, movies, and if you have to rewrite a bit of history then all the better. Just conveince him he is awesome.

    Then do something horrible in his name.

    When other people ask him why this thing was done, he'll never beleive it was done - why? Because he is awesome.

    Something happened to America and Americans. Fed a steady diet of super-fantastic and when some truly bad people started to do some truly bad things, the majority just sat there on their hands. Why? Because America wouldn't do that!

    Even today, after nearly a decade of this tripe there are still some Americans that can't come to grips with what has happened, even those that can are dumbfounded on what to do about it. America is awesome, America is the best. It is the home of the free and land of the brave, and most still beleive it is so, despite the tons of information showing you otherwise.

    Americans will no doubt dislike this post because it calls into question their character - which ultimately only underlines my point..

    The "right" was right about one thing - democracy does come from the point of a gun, they just tricked you guys on who was holding the gun. The good news is you can take it back, but you better learn who your real enemy is.
    • craka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I sentence you to learn what the phrase "correlation without causation" means.
  • dchiuten, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5I hate Cheney as much as the next person, but all this blog post is describing is a basic, diversified investment strategy that minimizes risk and hedges against fluctuating currencies and interest rates.
  • fastawdtsi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1What a Dick.
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Wrong topic. This is opinion, not news. At best, this is an editorial.

    How can I tell?

    "...Darth Cheney will be enhancing his wealth in "Old Europe"."
    "... of the thieves at the Federal Reserve"

    It would have been better to post a link to the Kiplinger article than this trash.
  • maskott, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The Vice President of the United States of America probably has more time to post comments on Digg than he does to review where his investment capital is placed. How many of you who have over (I'll be generous) $ 20 million net worth know exactly where your investments are right now...
  • Mausen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1From TFA "while working class Americans are loosing ground" What? Are they digging up the earth, loosening it? Clearly, spelling is "losing" alongside the dollar.
    • runbmd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thank you. I'm no fan of Cheney, but I stopped reading the article right after "loosing".
    • FRANKeB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digging this one down. The word is "lose", not "loose". If anything is destroying America, it's bad grammar, not just ***** Cheney!!

      Bad spellers of the world, UNTIE!!
  • expatriot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm an American, and let me speak for all Americans: We love Bush, we love Cheney, and we support our troops by making them die for lies.
  • drmobutu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Whoa yeah! First the blood clot, now this...that Dick Cheney voodoo doll I bought off ebay must have some juju, after all!
  • tsotha, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I'll never understand the moonbat fascination for Cheney. This article is practically self-debunking. It's what we've come to expect from Counterpunch, but come on, at least they could put some effort into it.

    It's a criticism of they guy's attempt to diversify his portfolio. Without knowing what percentage this money represents of all his investments it's meaningless. Besides, the idea you'd invest in European bonds as a haven against US economic collapse is laughable. If the US economy goes down the tubes the European economies will quickly follow. If he were really planning for economic hard times he'd be in cash and gold.

    Besides which, Cheney probably doesn't make his own investment decisions. He has the money to pay other people to do that.

    And lastly, the article's from last year, before everybody who pays attention to such things realized the deficit would be gone before the next presidential election.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.