Bush sr. won his stole his vice presidency with the Iran contra scandal.
Bush jr stole the presidency from Gore with the help of Fl republicans.
As for his down fall, I thought this topic was about his stupid red neck ass almost choking to death on a preztel.
Also, watch for Erongate-there is now 8 different gov't investigations going on, and the Anderson law firm for shredding all their paper work. Don't really see a connection with Bush, but I bad for the workers that lost their life savings and retirement plans.
<strong>And please. I understand politics. Perhaps you do to, though since I'm not a moderate I may seem way off base to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think you're off base. I just object to your idea that if people don't vote for a third party, THEY don't understand politics. I believe there are lots of legitimate reasons for voting for Democrats or Republicans:
1. Republicans and Democrats are more different than you suggest, IMO.
2. Having lots of different political parties in our system may not be all it's cracked up to be.
3. Many of the 3rd parties have even less of a real ideology than Dems and Repubs, like Perot's Reform party, which has been by far the most popular third party in recent years.
I'm not at all saying that you're wrong to vote for a 3rd party, just that it's not so stupid for other people to vote for one of the two majors as you imply. What you're really saying is that you'd be dishonest if you voted Republican because you're really a Libertarian at heart. That's wonderful that you've found your calling, but not all of us are Libertarians.
[quote]Ask yourself why young folks aren't interested in governmental issues. It's because no mainline politician in the past 15 years has had the courage to go against the grain and start interesting discussion.<hr></blockquote>
I agree that politicians are pretty conservative by trade, but I don't buy this idea that it's the politicians' fault that people don't like politics. Being interested in your world is not something that others do to you, it's something you need to do yourself. Why are you interested, and why are so many people here on AppleOutsider? It's because they did a little work on their own, instead of just sitting on their butts watching must-see-TV, hoping some politician would come along and excite them.
Also just a note : Enron has proven the efficacy of rampant anti-regulation.
Balance people....!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it hasn't. Enron is in trouble because they ignored the warning sings and didn't listen to their own people. They rigged the books and kept their head in the sand. There's existing laws and rules to deal with that. The new one suggested that deals with CPAs sounds like a good idea but would have had no impact on this case short of getting the CPAs to speak up sooner and louder.
There's nothing to suggest that "rampant anti-regulation" would have helped or hurt in this case. A poorly run company goes under. Happens everyday in this country.
Enron kept the books away from the existing regulations in part because they had the full support of anti-regulation players such as those close to, and including Gramm. They didn't comply with the regulations, which would have stalled this rich-get-rich-and-shaft-their-workers, typical scenerio, because it was along their ideological lines for them to have the 'freedom' to do it their way. A way of thinking which is almost explicitly touted everyday on every corporate business show and by every conservative businessman.
<strong>Enron kept the books away from the existing regulations in part because they had the full support of anti-regulation players such as those close to, and including Gramm. They didn't comply with the regulations, which would have stalled this rich-get-rich-and-shaft-their-workers, typical scenerio, because it was along their ideological lines for them to have the 'freedom' to do it their way. A way of thinking which is almost explicitly touted everyday on every corporate business show and by every conservative businessman.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a good thing that at least some people are starting to realize this is a business scandal and not a political one. Enron is a serious matter and the more we can keep politics out of it (an impossible hope, I know) the better. Pfflam, you bring a helluva a lot to these discussions and I rarely fail to click on a thread when I see you've made a post but your cartoon-like understanding of the business world is not your strong suit. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001748"; target="_blank">Here's</a> a better capsule description of the Enron scandal:
[quote]The details of Enron's now famous off-balance-sheet partnerships remain murky. But it's clear they were an attempt to disguise losses from bad investments. The partnerships, backed by Enron shares, moved risky businesses off its own balance sheet. If these businesses worked, Enron booked the profits, which helped pump up its share price. But when the businesses flopped, Enron covered the losses by issuing more of its shares; this worked for as long as Enron's stock price stayed high but it became a kind of Ponzi scheme once its shares began to fall.
This was at the very least deceptive accounting. Adding to their sleazy appearance the partnerships paid fees to Enron officials who were also principals in the partnerships. Former CFO Andrew Fastow earned more than $30 million from this sweet arrangement. Enron can say all of this was reported in its 10-Qs, but the company made its filings as obscure as possible. Financial pros couldn't figure them out, much less employees with their life savings in Enron stock. The point of accounting is transparency, which means writing in something other than hieroglyphics.
Yes, we know, Arthur Andersen was supposed to blow the whistle on all of this as Enron's outside auditor. But as any junior market reporter knows, auditors almost never discover these schemes. Shredding documents is a more serious matter, but auditors can't sit at every CFO's shoulder like a guilty conscience. Even internal auditors rarely discover scams and audit committees of the boards of directors even less often.
We're all for a big debate over corporate governance. But somehow we doubt the early proposals for a new layer of auditors to watch over the old ones is an improvement. As our Holman Jenkins wrote Wednesday, a better idea might be to drop the federal mandate for an annual audit, which has become a phony good housekeeping seal of approval. Let CEOs take responsibility for their own numbers and make a credible audit something of competitive value.
We'd say it's also impossible to understand Enron outside of the moral climate in which it flourished. Those were the roaring '90s, when all of America reveled in the economic boom... (Everybody) wanted to believe in Enron's promises, which helps explain why 16 of 17 Wall Street analysts rated Enron a "buy" as recently as last October.
Enron's failure reveals the underside of that boom. Human nature being what it is--and capitalists being human--some will lose their moral bearings, others will make mistakes and try to cover them up. Had Enron merely admitted its bad investments and taken a $20 billion write-off the way most companies do, it might still be around. Its managers would no longer be feted as geniuses of the new economy, but that's a better fate than they face now.
The burden on the political and financial system now is to clean up Enron, and learn from its failures, without doing further damage. In the Washington tradition, this may mean burning some people or companies at the stake, but maybe in this case they deserve it. We are sure going to find out...<hr></blockquote>
[quote] a better idea might be to drop the federal mandate for an annual audit, which has become a phony good housekeeping seal of approval. Let CEOs take responsibility for their own numbers and make a credible audit something of competitive value. <hr></blockquote>
You say my understanding is cartoon like... maybe . . . but to offer this pretzal twisting as an answer is merely reinforcing exactly what I was saying. I maen, who is to know if nobody is looking? And who can look if they aren't paid to look?
. .I fear that the only thing that is not standard practice here, with corporations like Enron that are married to conservative politics, is that for them it din't work ..
<strong> I maen, who is to know if nobody is looking? And who can look if they aren't paid to look? </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not what's being suggested here. What is being suggested is that the federally mandated annual audit has no real value other than to give investors a false sense of confidence. What's needed is more transperancy (a financial buzzword, I know, but a good one) so that investors can know what they are investing in. If I invest in Walmart I know what business they are in and I know whether or not they are doing a good job. Ditto for a company like Apple. I'll bet there weren't that many who truly understood what business Enron was in.
If you don't understand the business, you shouldn't be investing in it. If this became part of the financial picture for all companies you'd see a corresponding adjustment in share prices and pressure on CEO's and CFO's to have their books wide open and their business easily understandable. In other words, if a company has an audit it should mean something to investors.
. .I fear that the only thing that is not standard practice here, with corporations like Enron that are married to conservative politics, is that for them it din't work ..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like Hillary Clinton? Yes that "conservative" took Enron money.
<strong>It is a good thing that at least some people are starting to realize this is a business scandal and not a political one. </strong><hr></blockquote>So would you say that Whitewater was a political scandal?
How is Enron connected to President Bush? The corporation and it's top official contributed heavily to Bush's various political campaigns. Not surprising. Enron is a Texas company and Bush is from Texas. Also - when the financial cave in began at Enron some Enron officials had meetings with Bush's Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary seeking help. They didn't get any.
Let's compare Bush/Enron with Clinton/Madison Guaranty and the Whitewater scandal:
[quote]Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that George W. Bush or anyone working for George W. Bush did anything to help Enron hide its financial misdeeds?
Can you name one Bush family member who received money from Enron for professional services - as an attorney, for instance?
Were there any loans to George W. Bush or any of his family members from Enron or from any of Enron's principals?
Did George W. Bush invested in Enron and that that investment was subsequently protected by Enron officials when the financial picture started to fall apart?
Can you provide me with any evidence that any administration official, from Bush's years as Governor of Texas or since he became president, has taken any action whatsoever to prevent, stall or impede an investigation by any government regulatory agency, either state or federal, into the financial affairs of Enron?
Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of any sexual relations between George W. Bush and any officer or the wife of any officer of Enron?
Can you produce evidence that either Enron or any Enron official ever made payments on any promissory obligation of George W. Bush or any member of his family?
Can you introduce any evidence that George W. Bush, or any member of his immediate family, ever participated in the preparation of any legal documents drawn for the sole purpose of defrauding the federal government?
Can you show that either George W. Bush or any member of his administration or his immediate family has lied, whether under oath or not, about any aspect of his relationship with Enron or any Enron officials?
Can you provide me the name of any Enron official who is presently serving time in jail for contempt of court for his or her refusal to answer questions under oath about the role of George W. Bush or any member of his family or administration in dealings with Enron?
Can you show me that any pertinent documents relating to Enron, which documents were once in the possession of George W. Bush, any member of his immediately family or any administration official has been destroyed, lost, shredded or otherwise disposed of?
Explain just why there is so much criticism of George W. Bush over the Enron debacle while Enron is being represented in Washington by Bill Clinton's former attorney.
But, you say, Enron talked to Bush officials when they knew they were in trouble? So? Didn't airline representatives talk to both Republican and Democratic officials in Washington when they found themselves in trouble? Didn't Chrysler make a trip to Washington decades ago when it hit some rough roads? It's pretty much standard practice for huge corporation to go to Washington when the going gets rough. Sometimes you see a bail-out as you did with the airlines and Chrysler. Sometimes the corporate officials learn that they are going to have to go it on their own.
Democrats and Clinton-lovers are just salivating on this one. They are trying to convince the myrmidons that Enron is Bush's Whitewater. As you can see from the list above, this is a tough play to run. It doesn't matter, though, because the vast majority of people in this country - including most Democratic voters - don't have the intellectual curiosity to delve into the situation. They'll believe what their favorite politician says - or what they hear from their favorite news anchors - and that will pretty much be it.
If there's any fraud, criminal conduct or ethical violations here... show me the proof. I'll be right there with you demanding appropriate action.<hr></blockquote>
Its a potential Whiterwater if it leads to no related illigalities, because, as Clinton lied about a love affair, Bush has allready lied twice to the people.
Once when saying that he didn't know of Lay till 96 . . . when it has been shown that they have had deelings since 92, and, when he said that he did not take an money when in fact Lay contributed half a million$.
In Enron (so far) and in Whitewater two lies that didn't need to be made . . . the only difference beeing that a Billion Dollar collapse with lots of people left broke is a bit more obviouse and serious then a real blow job and non-existent bad land deal.
Enron employees aren't blameless for the bath they took.
BY JAMES K. GLASSMAN
Saturday, January 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
When shares of Enron plunged from $84 last year to practically zero, thousands of the company's employees lost not just their jobs but also most of the value of their 401(k) retirement accounts. For the average employee, Enron stock represented three-fifths of 401(k) assets, and the energy company's meltdown--after revelations of misleading, probably fraudulent, accounting practices--was a personal calamity.
Now politicians, including Democratic senators Barbara Boxer of California and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, are rushing in to protect other Americans from similar disasters. And President Bush has ordered "a policy review to protect people's pensions." But government intervention would only introduce a dangerous idea: that investors shouldn't bear the burden of their own decisions.
Let's be clear: Enron executives and outside auditors who lied to investors--including their own 21,000 employees--bear an enormous responsibility, moral and legal. But the employees also bear some responsibility. Most of them had far too large a proportion of their retirement assets tied up in their own company. They took a risk.
Enron offered a typical 401(k): Employees could invest up to 6% of their base pay in a wide range of instruments, including stock mutual funds like Fidelity Magellan, bonds, money-market funds and a self-directed Schwab account that could buy practically anything. They could also choose Enron stock, purchased at the regular market price. Whatever employees contributed with their own money, the company matched, up to 50% (that is, 3% of base pay), with Enron stock.
In other words, free Enron stock--$1,800 worth a year for an employee making $60,000 in base pay--was part of the compensation package. Workers knew it, and they presumably liked it. Workers also knew that their 401(k) had a rule, also common to such plans, that they had to keep the company stock given to them by Enron until they were at least 50 years old. Any Enron stock they bought themselves, of course, they could transfer at will.
Enron stock soared in value--but this turned out to be a blessing and a curse. Imagine the case of an employee who joined the company in 1997, when the stock was worth (after adjusting for splits) about $20 a share. If the employee bought other assets which grew at 10% a year, by the end of 2000 those assets had grown by about one-third while the Enron stock had more than quadrupled. His 401(k) account became lopsided, with far more Enron stock than anything else.
That was a predicament common to many Enron employees when their company stock crashed. The wise move, as Enron climbed, would have been to buy other assets for a separate, taxable plan to balance the company stock. How many employees did that? Probably not many--presumably for some because they didn't have the money. If Social Security had been reformed, they could have directed part of their payroll taxes into broad indexes of stocks and bonds, offsetting their Enron holdings. But that's a subject for another day.
Warren Buffett, the best investor of the last century, is fond of quoting Mae West as saying, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." But for most investors, picking the good thing isn't easy. The most important rule, by far, for successful investors is, "Diversify, diversify, diversify."
As late as October, even the independent Value Line Investment Survey was giving Enron an "A" rating for financial strength and saying the stock had "above-average appreciation potential." If Enron had represented 5% of your portfolio--the maximum for any stock, as far as I'm concerned--then its bankruptcy would have put only a small dent in your retirement account. Instead, a study released in November by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Investment Company Institute found that company stock represents nearly one-third of the total assets in the 401(k) plans of employees of firms that offer their own stock as an investment option.
That's far, far too much. Right this second, the 37 million Americans with 401(k) plans should be reviewing them to be sure they're diversified.
Instead, they're being told by politicians: Don't worry, the government will fix everything so you can play the stock market with no downside risk. Ms. Boxer and Mr. Corzine want a law that would prohibit any one stock from representing more than 20% of a 401(k) plan's assets. But all this does is reduce investor choice and responsibility while stepping ever closer toward some kind of federally mandated retirement system.
The big problem is that too few Americans understand what prudent portfolios are. Current laws don't help. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the guiding federal pension statute, overseen by the Labor Department, companies are held liable for investment advice offered to their employees, even if it is given by independent professionals they hire. So most 401(k) participants get no advice at all. They're forced to choose among assets they don't understand. A recent study by John Hancock Financial Services found that many investors wrongly believe that a diversified stock fund is more risky than their company's stock, and that a bond fund is risk-free.
Last month, the Labor Department issued an opinion at the request of SunAmerica that lightened some of the legal burden and let the investment advisor help employees allocate their assets. More important is the Retirement Security Advice Act, introduced by Rep. John Boehner (R.,Â*Ohio), which removes unreasonable employer liability. It's backed by the administration and has passed the House. A similar bill is sponsored in the Senate by Jeff Bingaman (D.,Â*N.M.).
That pension rules are complicated is no excuse for the inaccuracies in the media coverage of Enron's retirement plan--especially the claim that rich managers could sell their stock while lowly workers were "locked in." All plan members, including top executives, were prevented from moving any of their 401(k) assets between Oct. 29 and Nov. 13--a temporary shutdown, announced on Oct. 4, supposedly to allow for a transition to a new outside plan administrator. By then Enron's stock had already fallen to $13.81 (it declined another $3.83 during the 10 trading days of the freeze).
The timing of the changeover does sound a little fishy, and investigators should examine it carefully. But such shutdowns are common, and there's no need to ban them. One small change in the law that might be worthwhile is for companies to be prevented from issuing restricted stock to plan members. Other investors aren't barred from selling stock before they're 50; employees shouldn't be either.
But let's not lose sight of the main lesson of the Enron disaster: Bad things happen to good investors, and diversification is the only protection. Companies should design plans that make diversification easier, but ultimately, the responsibility for wise investing must lie with the investor. Politicians who say it doesn't are only encouraging risky behavior.
Mr. Glassman is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, host of TechCentralStation.com, financial columnist for the Washington Post and author of "The Secret Code of the Superior Investor," published this month by Crown.
This is not a Republican/Democrat thing. It is a government/big-business thing. Deregulation, kickbacks and rampant book cooking are endemic to the well-being of the rest of Americans. They don't care.
blaming the workers for bad investment strategies is one thing. But trying to say that and somehow use it to cover up the total shafting they got from the big wigs in the company/government is just plain stupid . . . even if it is done in numerous verbose paragraphs.
And I agree with buonoroti.... its a government/big business thing . . . it just so happens that it is more due to the deregulate at all costs mentality that this kind of thing happened.
This is for those of you who think Enrongate is not a political scandal, but purely about private business.
All this comes from articles I found on the web, mostly various reports from the New York Times, but also the Center for Public Integrity for campaign finance info, and other places. Apologies for the length, but I tried to put it all together:
1. Bush and his administration have unusually strong ties to Enron,
2. the Bush admin gave favorable treatment to Enron,
3. they knew of the imminent collapse of Enron but did nothing, and
4. Bush and his people are lying about it now and stonewalling investigations.
---
1. Ties between Bush and Enron:
1. Enron was not just any Bush contributor, it was Bush's largest contributor. They gave Bush $750,000, not including other money Enron gave to the RNC and Congress.
2. They lent Bush the Enron corporate jet 14 times during the presidential campaign.
3. Yes, they gave money to Dems, too. $13,000 to Gore, less than 2% of what they gave to Bush. And as Scott_H points out, Enron even gave to Hillary - a grand total of $950.
4. Bush and Lay (Enron's chief) went to Texas Ranger's games together in the Enron box - where do the Texas Rangers play baseball? It's called Enron Field, after a deal between Lay and Bush when he was Gov of Texas. Bush is the former owner of the Texas Rangers.
5. Bush even had Lay sleep over at the White House. Not sure if it was the Lincoln bedroom, though.
6. Mark Racicot, Bush's point-man on the Florida post-election and now Bush's chair of the Republican Party, was a registered lobbyist for Enron. He has an arrangement where the RNC pays him $1 in salary for being RNC chair, but he gets his "real" salary from the lobbying firm, even though his RNC job is full time.
7. Just this week, even after the scandal became public, a former Enron president hosted a fund raiser for Jeb Bush in Florida.
8. Arthur Andersen is the accounting firm that was supposedly keeping watch over Enron's books, but instead were shredding Enron documents. The Arthur Andersen exec who was in charge of the Enron account? He was a Bush "Pioneer," meaning he was in the top category of Bush campaign fund-raisers, raising and personally giving at least $100,000 to Bush.
9. Fourteen top-tier Bush admin appointees were shareholders and recent employees of Enron. Did they all lose money like the workers and other investors in Enron, or did they profit like Enron's execs? We don't know, but we do know that at least some knew of the company's financial troubles in advance (see below).
---
2. Bush gave favorable treatment to Enron.
Bush defenders say that Enron went bankrupt, so that proves there was no quid-pro-quo between Bush and Enron. But does Enron's bankruptcy really prove the Bush admin didn't do anything for Enron? No, it could just mean that Enron was so incompetently run that even favorable treatment from the White House couldn't help them. A few examples:
1. Curtis Herbert, the chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was criticized by Lay, and shortly afterward Bush replaced that chair with Lay's choice, Pat Wood from Texas. The FERC has primary oversight over Enron, an energy trading firm.
2. During California's energy crisis, the Bush admin received a request from California for federal intervention. Enron, which had played a large role in California energy before and during the crisis, would have lost money, and opposed the plan. The day after Lay met with Cheney to form energy policy - the Bush admin refuses to release information about the meeting - Bush came out and opposed federal intervention. Pat Wood (see above) in particular was publicly strongly opposed to California's request.
3. Enron people met with Cheney's secret energy group at least six times to shape Bush's energy policy.
4. Enron - despite being one of the largest companies in the world, has paid zero income taxes for years because of tax sheltering - would have gotten a check of over $250,000,000 under Bush's economic stimulus plan. The stimulus plan never passed, but probably would have before Dems took control of the Senate.
5. Bush personally got Enron into Pennsylvania's energy business when Ridge, who is now Bush's Terrorism Czar, was gov there.
6. The Clinton admin's crackdown on overseas tax havens, the same ones Enron used to hide under, was very publicly abandoned by the Bush admin right after they got into office.
7. Cheney personally talked to gov't officials in India about repaying money India owed Enron.
---
3. The Bush admin knew of the imminent collapse of Enron but did nothing.
The Bush admin has proudly said that Lay asked for a financial bailout, but was refused. And Lindsey, the former Enron employee and top economic advisor to Bush, wrote a study about Enron's financial troubles. So they knew of Enron's financial difficulties before the rest of us.
So why didn't they initiate an investigation at that time? Or at least tell the public what they knew? And why didn't they do something about Enron execs' false public statements about their financial health? And why didn't they do something about Enron execs raiding pensions, preventing their employees from selling stock, and secretly selling their own stock?
Now, the Bush admin wants a criminal investigation of Enron. But if what Enron did was so bad, as they now say it was, how come they didn't do anything until after the rest of the country found out about it too?
---
4. Bush et al. are now lying about and covering up the scandal.
1. Ari Fleischer said "I'm not aware of anybody in the White House who discussed Enron's financial situation." We now know that Lay asked the White House for a financial bailout. The administration brags about that now, in order to prove that they refused to help them.
2. The Bush admin said they didn't know Enron was about to go under, but it's now known that Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's top economic advisor and yet another former Enron employee, wrote an internal administration study of Enron's financial difficulties a month before it collapsed.
3. Bush says Lay supported Richards, his opponent in 1994, and didn't know him until after he became governor. But Lay himself says he supported Bush over Richards, and public records support that: he gave $150,000 to Bush vs. $12,000 to Richards during that election. And Lay also says he was a personal friend of GW's before he became governor. Why is Bush lying about his relationship with Lay?
4. Bush refuses to release details of Enron's energy-policy meetings.
5. Bush has invoked executive privilege on other matters in order to avoid revealing information.
6. Attorney General Ashcroft had to recuse himself from investigating Enron because he received so much money from them (BTW, why didn't he stay out of the MS anti-trust suit for the same reason?). So he handed the investigation to Larry Thompson, a Deputy AG. The problem is, Thompson himself was a partner in Enron's law firm before joining the Bush admin. It seems like you can't go anywhere in the Bush administration without running into Enron. So why not have an independent investigator? The Bush admin refuses.
<strong>4. Bush and Lay (Enron's chief) went to Texas Ranger's games together in the Enron box - where do the Texas Rangers play baseball? It's called Enron Field, after a deal between Lay and Bush when he was Gov of Texas. Bush is the former owner of the Texas Rangers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have your facts wrong on this one. Enron Field is the home of the Houston Astros. The Rangers (of which Bush was a co-owner) play at The Ballpark in Arlington, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
The above book, soon to be published, affirms that the Bush administration had secret deals with the Taliban right after the new administration took office. The goals of these talks was to acquire permission to build an oil pipeline through Afganistan. A quote says, "Give us the carpet of gold [oil] or we give you a carpet of bombs."
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Well, given my political stance I am almost required to reply to this one.
To imply that that the Bush administration was soft on terror or perhaps contributed to these attacks happening in some way is insane.
These accusations go way beyond simple political differences. They border on treason. You can disagree with Bush and his polices, but to actually suggest this, or even point out the people that do based on your own idiotic political hatred is just wrong.
I can't stand Daschle, McCauliffe, Gore and Clinton. I also think Clinton may have seriously damaged the national security of the US by selling out our nation to China and others.....but, I would never go so far as to make the allegations you have and this book does.
This is a war in which our very way of life is under attack. I have no tolerance for this bunk. It is just plain wrong.
Oh, and by the way, I agree with 90% or more of Bush's iniatives so far. I got a $50/week raise from the last tax cut....with much more to come. His school reforms are promising, and I say that as a teacher. Under his administration, we are reversing the horribly midguided policy of cutting our military budget by a full 30% like in the Clinton years.
The current recession was also not caused by Bush at all. It is historically impossible. In economics, there is something called the
lag theory. This means that any major economic change takes approximately 2-3 years to become fully implemented. The timetable is a bit quicker with interest rates. The poor economy was caused quite simply by:
1. Raising rates too quickly
2. High energy prices for 18 months or more
3. The highest taxes since WWII.
4. Overvalued tech stocks with no real assets behind them.
And, the Democrats are now saying the Bush has caused the recession. I have to hand it to them, the Democrats have pulled off the biggest revision of history ever. They have somehow convinced some folks that tax cuts cause deficits and recession. That is insane. Anybody with an actual brain knows that when taxes are cut, revenue goes up. Reagan proved this by drastically lowering taxes and literally saving the country from not just a recession but an eventual DEPRESSION. The eighties were the biggest boom this country has ever seen.
Also, please don't give me any of that BS about deficts in the eighties. Those deficits were caused by unrestrained spending by the Democratic congress in the 1980's. The only reason we had balanced budgets for the 90's was MASSIVE tax increases, by as much as 10% (if looking at actual rate) or 30% (if looking at percentage of the rate). When Bush 41 left office the top personal income tax bracket in this nation was approximately 28%....when Clinton left it was 39.9%. Middle income Americans also got screwed with tax increases.
Liberals often forget one thing. It isn't the government's money! If the budget isn't balanced, we must reduce spending....not increase taxes. As I have posted in many other threads, byt the time you get done, a middle income American today pays up to 60% of his or her income to a government agency in one form or another. I am not going to do the math again....but when we see that federal income tax, state income tax and social security tax acocunt for over 40% of one's gross income, the road to 60% using all of the other forms of taxation becomes unobstructed.
Oh, and I thank God himself that Gore isn't President. Amen. Really, AMEN. Also, Lord, my sincere thanks on not giving the starter of this thread any power in our nation.
Comments
...
Bush jr stole the presidency from Gore with the help of Fl republicans.
As for his down fall, I thought this topic was about his stupid red neck ass almost choking to death on a preztel.
Also, watch for Erongate-there is now 8 different gov't investigations going on, and the Anderson law firm for shredding all their paper work. Don't really see a connection with Bush, but I bad for the workers that lost their life savings and retirement plans.
<strong>And please. I understand politics. Perhaps you do to, though since I'm not a moderate I may seem way off base to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't think you're off base. I just object to your idea that if people don't vote for a third party, THEY don't understand politics. I believe there are lots of legitimate reasons for voting for Democrats or Republicans:
1. Republicans and Democrats are more different than you suggest, IMO.
2. Having lots of different political parties in our system may not be all it's cracked up to be.
3. Many of the 3rd parties have even less of a real ideology than Dems and Repubs, like Perot's Reform party, which has been by far the most popular third party in recent years.
I'm not at all saying that you're wrong to vote for a 3rd party, just that it's not so stupid for other people to vote for one of the two majors as you imply. What you're really saying is that you'd be dishonest if you voted Republican because you're really a Libertarian at heart. That's wonderful that you've found your calling, but not all of us are Libertarians.
[quote]Ask yourself why young folks aren't interested in governmental issues. It's because no mainline politician in the past 15 years has had the courage to go against the grain and start interesting discussion.<hr></blockquote>
I agree that politicians are pretty conservative by trade, but I don't buy this idea that it's the politicians' fault that people don't like politics. Being interested in your world is not something that others do to you, it's something you need to do yourself. Why are you interested, and why are so many people here on AppleOutsider? It's because they did a little work on their own, instead of just sitting on their butts watching must-see-TV, hoping some politician would come along and excite them.
--don't you mean 'the fall down of Bush'
Also just a note : Enron has proven the efficacy of rampant anti-regulation.
Balance people....!!!
<strong>
Also just a note : Enron has proven the efficacy of rampant anti-regulation.
Balance people....!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
No it hasn't. Enron is in trouble because they ignored the warning sings and didn't listen to their own people. They rigged the books and kept their head in the sand. There's existing laws and rules to deal with that. The new one suggested that deals with CPAs sounds like a good idea but would have had no impact on this case short of getting the CPAs to speak up sooner and louder.
There's nothing to suggest that "rampant anti-regulation" would have helped or hurt in this case. A poorly run company goes under. Happens everyday in this country.
<strong>Enron kept the books away from the existing regulations in part because they had the full support of anti-regulation players such as those close to, and including Gramm. They didn't comply with the regulations, which would have stalled this rich-get-rich-and-shaft-their-workers, typical scenerio, because it was along their ideological lines for them to have the 'freedom' to do it their way. A way of thinking which is almost explicitly touted everyday on every corporate business show and by every conservative businessman.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a good thing that at least some people are starting to realize this is a business scandal and not a political one. Enron is a serious matter and the more we can keep politics out of it (an impossible hope, I know) the better. Pfflam, you bring a helluva a lot to these discussions and I rarely fail to click on a thread when I see you've made a post but your cartoon-like understanding of the business world is not your strong suit. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001748"; target="_blank">Here's</a> a better capsule description of the Enron scandal:
[quote]The details of Enron's now famous off-balance-sheet partnerships remain murky. But it's clear they were an attempt to disguise losses from bad investments. The partnerships, backed by Enron shares, moved risky businesses off its own balance sheet. If these businesses worked, Enron booked the profits, which helped pump up its share price. But when the businesses flopped, Enron covered the losses by issuing more of its shares; this worked for as long as Enron's stock price stayed high but it became a kind of Ponzi scheme once its shares began to fall.
This was at the very least deceptive accounting. Adding to their sleazy appearance the partnerships paid fees to Enron officials who were also principals in the partnerships. Former CFO Andrew Fastow earned more than $30 million from this sweet arrangement. Enron can say all of this was reported in its 10-Qs, but the company made its filings as obscure as possible. Financial pros couldn't figure them out, much less employees with their life savings in Enron stock. The point of accounting is transparency, which means writing in something other than hieroglyphics.
Yes, we know, Arthur Andersen was supposed to blow the whistle on all of this as Enron's outside auditor. But as any junior market reporter knows, auditors almost never discover these schemes. Shredding documents is a more serious matter, but auditors can't sit at every CFO's shoulder like a guilty conscience. Even internal auditors rarely discover scams and audit committees of the boards of directors even less often.
We're all for a big debate over corporate governance. But somehow we doubt the early proposals for a new layer of auditors to watch over the old ones is an improvement. As our Holman Jenkins wrote Wednesday, a better idea might be to drop the federal mandate for an annual audit, which has become a phony good housekeeping seal of approval. Let CEOs take responsibility for their own numbers and make a credible audit something of competitive value.
We'd say it's also impossible to understand Enron outside of the moral climate in which it flourished. Those were the roaring '90s, when all of America reveled in the economic boom... (Everybody) wanted to believe in Enron's promises, which helps explain why 16 of 17 Wall Street analysts rated Enron a "buy" as recently as last October.
Enron's failure reveals the underside of that boom. Human nature being what it is--and capitalists being human--some will lose their moral bearings, others will make mistakes and try to cover them up. Had Enron merely admitted its bad investments and taken a $20 billion write-off the way most companies do, it might still be around. Its managers would no longer be feted as geniuses of the new economy, but that's a better fate than they face now.
The burden on the political and financial system now is to clean up Enron, and learn from its failures, without doing further damage. In the Washington tradition, this may mean burning some people or companies at the stake, but maybe in this case they deserve it. We are sure going to find out...<hr></blockquote>
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
You say my understanding is cartoon like... maybe . . . but to offer this pretzal twisting as an answer is merely reinforcing exactly what I was saying. I maen, who is to know if nobody is looking? And who can look if they aren't paid to look?
. .I fear that the only thing that is not standard practice here, with corporations like Enron that are married to conservative politics, is that for them it din't work ..
<strong> I maen, who is to know if nobody is looking? And who can look if they aren't paid to look? </strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not what's being suggested here. What is being suggested is that the federally mandated annual audit has no real value other than to give investors a false sense of confidence. What's needed is more transperancy (a financial buzzword, I know, but a good one) so that investors can know what they are investing in. If I invest in Walmart I know what business they are in and I know whether or not they are doing a good job. Ditto for a company like Apple. I'll bet there weren't that many who truly understood what business Enron was in.
If you don't understand the business, you shouldn't be investing in it. If this became part of the financial picture for all companies you'd see a corresponding adjustment in share prices and pressure on CEO's and CFO's to have their books wide open and their business easily understandable. In other words, if a company has an audit it should mean something to investors.
[ 01-18-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
. .I fear that the only thing that is not standard practice here, with corporations like Enron that are married to conservative politics, is that for them it din't work ..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like Hillary Clinton? Yes that "conservative" took Enron money.
<strong>It is a good thing that at least some people are starting to realize this is a business scandal and not a political one. </strong><hr></blockquote>So would you say that Whitewater was a political scandal?
<strong>So would you say that Whitewater was a political scandal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know this is going to disappoint you, BRussell, but Enron is no Whitewater.
The following is mostly from the <a href="http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm"; target="_blank">Nealz Nuze</a> page of Neal Boortz' website.
How is Enron connected to President Bush? The corporation and it's top official contributed heavily to Bush's various political campaigns. Not surprising. Enron is a Texas company and Bush is from Texas. Also - when the financial cave in began at Enron some Enron officials had meetings with Bush's Treasury Secretary and Commerce Secretary seeking help. They didn't get any.
Let's compare Bush/Enron with Clinton/Madison Guaranty and the Whitewater scandal:
[quote]Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that George W. Bush or anyone working for George W. Bush did anything to help Enron hide its financial misdeeds?
Can you name one Bush family member who received money from Enron for professional services - as an attorney, for instance?
Were there any loans to George W. Bush or any of his family members from Enron or from any of Enron's principals?
Did George W. Bush invested in Enron and that that investment was subsequently protected by Enron officials when the financial picture started to fall apart?
Can you provide me with any evidence that any administration official, from Bush's years as Governor of Texas or since he became president, has taken any action whatsoever to prevent, stall or impede an investigation by any government regulatory agency, either state or federal, into the financial affairs of Enron?
Is there any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of any sexual relations between George W. Bush and any officer or the wife of any officer of Enron?
Can you produce evidence that either Enron or any Enron official ever made payments on any promissory obligation of George W. Bush or any member of his family?
Can you introduce any evidence that George W. Bush, or any member of his immediate family, ever participated in the preparation of any legal documents drawn for the sole purpose of defrauding the federal government?
Can you show that either George W. Bush or any member of his administration or his immediate family has lied, whether under oath or not, about any aspect of his relationship with Enron or any Enron officials?
Can you provide me the name of any Enron official who is presently serving time in jail for contempt of court for his or her refusal to answer questions under oath about the role of George W. Bush or any member of his family or administration in dealings with Enron?
Can you show me that any pertinent documents relating to Enron, which documents were once in the possession of George W. Bush, any member of his immediately family or any administration official has been destroyed, lost, shredded or otherwise disposed of?
Explain just why there is so much criticism of George W. Bush over the Enron debacle while Enron is being represented in Washington by Bill Clinton's former attorney.
But, you say, Enron talked to Bush officials when they knew they were in trouble? So? Didn't airline representatives talk to both Republican and Democratic officials in Washington when they found themselves in trouble? Didn't Chrysler make a trip to Washington decades ago when it hit some rough roads? It's pretty much standard practice for huge corporation to go to Washington when the going gets rough. Sometimes you see a bail-out as you did with the airlines and Chrysler. Sometimes the corporate officials learn that they are going to have to go it on their own.
Democrats and Clinton-lovers are just salivating on this one. They are trying to convince the myrmidons that Enron is Bush's Whitewater. As you can see from the list above, this is a tough play to run. It doesn't matter, though, because the vast majority of people in this country - including most Democratic voters - don't have the intellectual curiosity to delve into the situation. They'll believe what their favorite politician says - or what they hear from their favorite news anchors - and that will pretty much be it.
If there's any fraud, criminal conduct or ethical violations here... show me the proof. I'll be right there with you demanding appropriate action.<hr></blockquote>
As will I.
[ 01-19-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Once when saying that he didn't know of Lay till 96 . . . when it has been shown that they have had deelings since 92, and, when he said that he did not take an money when in fact Lay contributed half a million$.
In Enron (so far) and in Whitewater two lies that didn't need to be made . . . the only difference beeing that a Billion Dollar collapse with lots of people left broke is a bit more obviouse and serious then a real blow job and non-existent bad land deal.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001750"; target="_blank">Diversify, Diversify, Diversify</a>
Enron employees aren't blameless for the bath they took.
BY JAMES K. GLASSMAN
Saturday, January 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST
When shares of Enron plunged from $84 last year to practically zero, thousands of the company's employees lost not just their jobs but also most of the value of their 401(k) retirement accounts. For the average employee, Enron stock represented three-fifths of 401(k) assets, and the energy company's meltdown--after revelations of misleading, probably fraudulent, accounting practices--was a personal calamity.
Now politicians, including Democratic senators Barbara Boxer of California and Jon Corzine of New Jersey, are rushing in to protect other Americans from similar disasters. And President Bush has ordered "a policy review to protect people's pensions." But government intervention would only introduce a dangerous idea: that investors shouldn't bear the burden of their own decisions.
Let's be clear: Enron executives and outside auditors who lied to investors--including their own 21,000 employees--bear an enormous responsibility, moral and legal. But the employees also bear some responsibility. Most of them had far too large a proportion of their retirement assets tied up in their own company. They took a risk.
Enron offered a typical 401(k): Employees could invest up to 6% of their base pay in a wide range of instruments, including stock mutual funds like Fidelity Magellan, bonds, money-market funds and a self-directed Schwab account that could buy practically anything. They could also choose Enron stock, purchased at the regular market price. Whatever employees contributed with their own money, the company matched, up to 50% (that is, 3% of base pay), with Enron stock.
In other words, free Enron stock--$1,800 worth a year for an employee making $60,000 in base pay--was part of the compensation package. Workers knew it, and they presumably liked it. Workers also knew that their 401(k) had a rule, also common to such plans, that they had to keep the company stock given to them by Enron until they were at least 50 years old. Any Enron stock they bought themselves, of course, they could transfer at will.
Enron stock soared in value--but this turned out to be a blessing and a curse. Imagine the case of an employee who joined the company in 1997, when the stock was worth (after adjusting for splits) about $20 a share. If the employee bought other assets which grew at 10% a year, by the end of 2000 those assets had grown by about one-third while the Enron stock had more than quadrupled. His 401(k) account became lopsided, with far more Enron stock than anything else.
That was a predicament common to many Enron employees when their company stock crashed. The wise move, as Enron climbed, would have been to buy other assets for a separate, taxable plan to balance the company stock. How many employees did that? Probably not many--presumably for some because they didn't have the money. If Social Security had been reformed, they could have directed part of their payroll taxes into broad indexes of stocks and bonds, offsetting their Enron holdings. But that's a subject for another day.
Warren Buffett, the best investor of the last century, is fond of quoting Mae West as saying, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." But for most investors, picking the good thing isn't easy. The most important rule, by far, for successful investors is, "Diversify, diversify, diversify."
As late as October, even the independent Value Line Investment Survey was giving Enron an "A" rating for financial strength and saying the stock had "above-average appreciation potential." If Enron had represented 5% of your portfolio--the maximum for any stock, as far as I'm concerned--then its bankruptcy would have put only a small dent in your retirement account. Instead, a study released in November by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Investment Company Institute found that company stock represents nearly one-third of the total assets in the 401(k) plans of employees of firms that offer their own stock as an investment option.
That's far, far too much. Right this second, the 37 million Americans with 401(k) plans should be reviewing them to be sure they're diversified.
Instead, they're being told by politicians: Don't worry, the government will fix everything so you can play the stock market with no downside risk. Ms. Boxer and Mr. Corzine want a law that would prohibit any one stock from representing more than 20% of a 401(k) plan's assets. But all this does is reduce investor choice and responsibility while stepping ever closer toward some kind of federally mandated retirement system.
The big problem is that too few Americans understand what prudent portfolios are. Current laws don't help. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the guiding federal pension statute, overseen by the Labor Department, companies are held liable for investment advice offered to their employees, even if it is given by independent professionals they hire. So most 401(k) participants get no advice at all. They're forced to choose among assets they don't understand. A recent study by John Hancock Financial Services found that many investors wrongly believe that a diversified stock fund is more risky than their company's stock, and that a bond fund is risk-free.
Last month, the Labor Department issued an opinion at the request of SunAmerica that lightened some of the legal burden and let the investment advisor help employees allocate their assets. More important is the Retirement Security Advice Act, introduced by Rep. John Boehner (R.,Â*Ohio), which removes unreasonable employer liability. It's backed by the administration and has passed the House. A similar bill is sponsored in the Senate by Jeff Bingaman (D.,Â*N.M.).
That pension rules are complicated is no excuse for the inaccuracies in the media coverage of Enron's retirement plan--especially the claim that rich managers could sell their stock while lowly workers were "locked in." All plan members, including top executives, were prevented from moving any of their 401(k) assets between Oct. 29 and Nov. 13--a temporary shutdown, announced on Oct. 4, supposedly to allow for a transition to a new outside plan administrator. By then Enron's stock had already fallen to $13.81 (it declined another $3.83 during the 10 trading days of the freeze).
The timing of the changeover does sound a little fishy, and investigators should examine it carefully. But such shutdowns are common, and there's no need to ban them. One small change in the law that might be worthwhile is for companies to be prevented from issuing restricted stock to plan members. Other investors aren't barred from selling stock before they're 50; employees shouldn't be either.
But let's not lose sight of the main lesson of the Enron disaster: Bad things happen to good investors, and diversification is the only protection. Companies should design plans that make diversification easier, but ultimately, the responsibility for wise investing must lie with the investor. Politicians who say it doesn't are only encouraging risky behavior.
Mr. Glassman is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, host of TechCentralStation.com, financial columnist for the Washington Post and author of "The Secret Code of the Superior Investor," published this month by Crown.
And I agree with buonoroti.... its a government/big business thing . . . it just so happens that it is more due to the deregulate at all costs mentality that this kind of thing happened.
All this comes from articles I found on the web, mostly various reports from the New York Times, but also the Center for Public Integrity for campaign finance info, and other places. Apologies for the length, but I tried to put it all together:
1. Bush and his administration have unusually strong ties to Enron,
2. the Bush admin gave favorable treatment to Enron,
3. they knew of the imminent collapse of Enron but did nothing, and
4. Bush and his people are lying about it now and stonewalling investigations.
---
1. Ties between Bush and Enron:
1. Enron was not just any Bush contributor, it was Bush's largest contributor. They gave Bush $750,000, not including other money Enron gave to the RNC and Congress.
2. They lent Bush the Enron corporate jet 14 times during the presidential campaign.
3. Yes, they gave money to Dems, too. $13,000 to Gore, less than 2% of what they gave to Bush. And as Scott_H points out, Enron even gave to Hillary - a grand total of $950.
4. Bush and Lay (Enron's chief) went to Texas Ranger's games together in the Enron box - where do the Texas Rangers play baseball? It's called Enron Field, after a deal between Lay and Bush when he was Gov of Texas. Bush is the former owner of the Texas Rangers.
5. Bush even had Lay sleep over at the White House. Not sure if it was the Lincoln bedroom, though.
6. Mark Racicot, Bush's point-man on the Florida post-election and now Bush's chair of the Republican Party, was a registered lobbyist for Enron. He has an arrangement where the RNC pays him $1 in salary for being RNC chair, but he gets his "real" salary from the lobbying firm, even though his RNC job is full time.
7. Just this week, even after the scandal became public, a former Enron president hosted a fund raiser for Jeb Bush in Florida.
8. Arthur Andersen is the accounting firm that was supposedly keeping watch over Enron's books, but instead were shredding Enron documents. The Arthur Andersen exec who was in charge of the Enron account? He was a Bush "Pioneer," meaning he was in the top category of Bush campaign fund-raisers, raising and personally giving at least $100,000 to Bush.
9. Fourteen top-tier Bush admin appointees were shareholders and recent employees of Enron. Did they all lose money like the workers and other investors in Enron, or did they profit like Enron's execs? We don't know, but we do know that at least some knew of the company's financial troubles in advance (see below).
---
2. Bush gave favorable treatment to Enron.
Bush defenders say that Enron went bankrupt, so that proves there was no quid-pro-quo between Bush and Enron. But does Enron's bankruptcy really prove the Bush admin didn't do anything for Enron? No, it could just mean that Enron was so incompetently run that even favorable treatment from the White House couldn't help them. A few examples:
1. Curtis Herbert, the chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was criticized by Lay, and shortly afterward Bush replaced that chair with Lay's choice, Pat Wood from Texas. The FERC has primary oversight over Enron, an energy trading firm.
2. During California's energy crisis, the Bush admin received a request from California for federal intervention. Enron, which had played a large role in California energy before and during the crisis, would have lost money, and opposed the plan. The day after Lay met with Cheney to form energy policy - the Bush admin refuses to release information about the meeting - Bush came out and opposed federal intervention. Pat Wood (see above) in particular was publicly strongly opposed to California's request.
3. Enron people met with Cheney's secret energy group at least six times to shape Bush's energy policy.
4. Enron - despite being one of the largest companies in the world, has paid zero income taxes for years because of tax sheltering - would have gotten a check of over $250,000,000 under Bush's economic stimulus plan. The stimulus plan never passed, but probably would have before Dems took control of the Senate.
5. Bush personally got Enron into Pennsylvania's energy business when Ridge, who is now Bush's Terrorism Czar, was gov there.
6. The Clinton admin's crackdown on overseas tax havens, the same ones Enron used to hide under, was very publicly abandoned by the Bush admin right after they got into office.
7. Cheney personally talked to gov't officials in India about repaying money India owed Enron.
---
3. The Bush admin knew of the imminent collapse of Enron but did nothing.
The Bush admin has proudly said that Lay asked for a financial bailout, but was refused. And Lindsey, the former Enron employee and top economic advisor to Bush, wrote a study about Enron's financial troubles. So they knew of Enron's financial difficulties before the rest of us.
So why didn't they initiate an investigation at that time? Or at least tell the public what they knew? And why didn't they do something about Enron execs' false public statements about their financial health? And why didn't they do something about Enron execs raiding pensions, preventing their employees from selling stock, and secretly selling their own stock?
Now, the Bush admin wants a criminal investigation of Enron. But if what Enron did was so bad, as they now say it was, how come they didn't do anything until after the rest of the country found out about it too?
---
4. Bush et al. are now lying about and covering up the scandal.
1. Ari Fleischer said "I'm not aware of anybody in the White House who discussed Enron's financial situation." We now know that Lay asked the White House for a financial bailout. The administration brags about that now, in order to prove that they refused to help them.
2. The Bush admin said they didn't know Enron was about to go under, but it's now known that Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's top economic advisor and yet another former Enron employee, wrote an internal administration study of Enron's financial difficulties a month before it collapsed.
3. Bush says Lay supported Richards, his opponent in 1994, and didn't know him until after he became governor. But Lay himself says he supported Bush over Richards, and public records support that: he gave $150,000 to Bush vs. $12,000 to Richards during that election. And Lay also says he was a personal friend of GW's before he became governor. Why is Bush lying about his relationship with Lay?
4. Bush refuses to release details of Enron's energy-policy meetings.
5. Bush has invoked executive privilege on other matters in order to avoid revealing information.
6. Attorney General Ashcroft had to recuse himself from investigating Enron because he received so much money from them (BTW, why didn't he stay out of the MS anti-trust suit for the same reason?). So he handed the investigation to Larry Thompson, a Deputy AG. The problem is, Thompson himself was a partner in Enron's law firm before joining the Bush admin. It seems like you can't go anywhere in the Bush administration without running into Enron. So why not have an independent investigator? The Bush admin refuses.
<strong>4. Bush and Lay (Enron's chief) went to Texas Ranger's games together in the Enron box - where do the Texas Rangers play baseball? It's called Enron Field, after a deal between Lay and Bush when he was Gov of Texas. Bush is the former owner of the Texas Rangers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have your facts wrong on this one. Enron Field is the home of the Houston Astros. The Rangers (of which Bush was a co-owner) play at The Ballpark in Arlington, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
The above book, soon to be published, affirms that the Bush administration had secret deals with the Taliban right after the new administration took office. The goals of these talks was to acquire permission to build an oil pipeline through Afganistan. A quote says, "Give us the carpet of gold [oil] or we give you a carpet of bombs."
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Well, given my political stance I am almost required to reply to this one.
To imply that that the Bush administration was soft on terror or perhaps contributed to these attacks happening in some way is insane.
These accusations go way beyond simple political differences. They border on treason. You can disagree with Bush and his polices, but to actually suggest this, or even point out the people that do based on your own idiotic political hatred is just wrong.
I can't stand Daschle, McCauliffe, Gore and Clinton. I also think Clinton may have seriously damaged the national security of the US by selling out our nation to China and others.....but, I would never go so far as to make the allegations you have and this book does.
This is a war in which our very way of life is under attack. I have no tolerance for this bunk. It is just plain wrong.
Oh, and by the way, I agree with 90% or more of Bush's iniatives so far. I got a $50/week raise from the last tax cut....with much more to come. His school reforms are promising, and I say that as a teacher. Under his administration, we are reversing the horribly midguided policy of cutting our military budget by a full 30% like in the Clinton years.
The current recession was also not caused by Bush at all. It is historically impossible. In economics, there is something called the
lag theory. This means that any major economic change takes approximately 2-3 years to become fully implemented. The timetable is a bit quicker with interest rates. The poor economy was caused quite simply by:
1. Raising rates too quickly
2. High energy prices for 18 months or more
3. The highest taxes since WWII.
4. Overvalued tech stocks with no real assets behind them.
And, the Democrats are now saying the Bush has caused the recession. I have to hand it to them, the Democrats have pulled off the biggest revision of history ever. They have somehow convinced some folks that tax cuts cause deficits and recession. That is insane. Anybody with an actual brain knows that when taxes are cut, revenue goes up. Reagan proved this by drastically lowering taxes and literally saving the country from not just a recession but an eventual DEPRESSION. The eighties were the biggest boom this country has ever seen.
Also, please don't give me any of that BS about deficts in the eighties. Those deficits were caused by unrestrained spending by the Democratic congress in the 1980's. The only reason we had balanced budgets for the 90's was MASSIVE tax increases, by as much as 10% (if looking at actual rate) or 30% (if looking at percentage of the rate). When Bush 41 left office the top personal income tax bracket in this nation was approximately 28%....when Clinton left it was 39.9%. Middle income Americans also got screwed with tax increases.
Liberals often forget one thing. It isn't the government's money! If the budget isn't balanced, we must reduce spending....not increase taxes. As I have posted in many other threads, byt the time you get done, a middle income American today pays up to 60% of his or her income to a government agency in one form or another. I am not going to do the math again....but when we see that federal income tax, state income tax and social security tax acocunt for over 40% of one's gross income, the road to 60% using all of the other forms of taxation becomes unobstructed.
Oh, and I thank God himself that Gore isn't President. Amen. Really, AMEN. Also, Lord, my sincere thanks on not giving the starter of this thread any power in our nation.