|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:21 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by blanddad
Enron fell because they had developed shell companies as customers. Sarbanes Oxley is a direct result of Enron and it is not because everybody sold
off their stocks.
Enron was a huge company with thousands of employees, they got in over their head---what were they suppose to do go to the media and spill the beans,
that would have started the panic sooner. ---all companies get into trouble those that survive are the ones that can keep the cash flowing until they
get over the hump.
But with Enron once the media got a whiff of trouble the party was over, people panicked sold their stock making it worthless and everyone lost their
pensions.
If the company fell because of people selling their stocks, then why are the Executives in court and in jail?
The mob demanded heads to be chopped off and the politicians had to appease the mob because it was getting ugly.
Someone always has to take the fall. If mother Theresa had been a CEO of Enron she too would have been dragged to the guillotine.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:27 PM by crgintx
|
Falling for the wholely false left/right political paradigm are we? 
Nancy and her Nancy Boys will do exactly what her major corporate campaign contributors tell her to do and nothing else. For all of her PRKalifornia
rhetoric of going after the "corporations", they are going to be every bit as do-nothing as the previous Congress. They're plenty of major
corporations in her district with major federal and military contracts that she's going to make a lot of noise but not make any changes that are
going to hurt her district or her chances of reelection.
It's going to take a full on libertarian revolution to dislodge the corporate stranglehold on politics in the US. T.he socialists are too weak
kneed to do anything and the so-called conservative movement has proven to be every bit as corrupt as the liberal/bureaucratic movement they were
supposed to supplant
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:29 PM by blanddad
|
Originally posted by shai hulud
I am thoroughly in Sleeper's corner with this one. It is not like we are going to find an alternative fuel solution overnight. I am pretty sure
that most people that are screaming at the big corporations( especially the oil giants) like Pelosi do not walk to work. It is kind of hard to take
the left( and it is the LEFT, not democrats as a whole) seriously when they scream about how horrible things are and how we need to kill the big
corp's, and then take off in their gas guzzling SUV's. If Pelosi wants to be serious, how about extending the amount of time it takes for a
congressman to get their pension. The last time I checked it takes 20 yaers for the average joe or jill to get a pension even in civil service or
putting your neck on the line in the armed forces. If memory serves, it takes 6 years for a person in congress that has been voted out to collect a
fat pension from the taxpayer. 
As far as the oil companies go, open up ANWR, drill in the gulf. We are almost completly at the mercy of the islamic world and pretty soon our old
Russian buddies because the left and moderate republicans do not want to upset a nematode somewhere. Drilling has gone way beyond the old days of the
strip mine mentality, and we do it quite cleaner than most of the world(check out the enviromental policies of other countries besides the US).
I hope that Pelosi can see for the time being that we as a nation (and most of the world as well) rely on the life blood that is oil. If not, enjoy
walking to work if you still have a job through downtown DC. You better be armed, but that is a whole 'nother thread.
Frankly, I see very little distinction between Republicans and Dems... they work very hard for a two party system, not multi-party. I have no stance
on drilling for oil, as long as it is conducted above board. Our sitting President and VP both have had interest in oil companies, so I see a major
conflict of interest if they are involved. Cheney thumbed his nose at the public when he did not reveal what was discussed with the energy companies
back in 2001... so why would we trust any decision that he makes?
Our Congress is flacid and will not make tough choices for the people. Where we need to focus our attention, is on all of the treaties that give away
our soverignty to organizations like WTO, NAFTA, IMF, et al.
Nancy Pelosi and the Dems have zero power except for heading up Committees... the Adminstration still has veto power and that is a very big stick.
Hopefully, there will be grid lock and very little will get passed. We are not going to run out of oil, that is nothing but a fear statement.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:30 PM by blanddad
|
Are you saying that Enron did nothing wrong?
Getting in over their heads and cooking the books were two separate events.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:34 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
Aside from the hilarious postings by the OP, you kill me! Really you do!
There are demonstrably quite a few arguments where a little learning in the art of Economics would be aptly applied.
Michael Eisner - Laid off 2500 people from Disney Animation for an estimated payroll savings of $125,000,000.00
(if each person made 50,000peryear)
He then received a Bonus of (now count carefully) $500,000,000.00
for an offset of -$375,000,000.00 ...
Now what contribution to the economy would 2500 employed people make versus 2500 Unemployed people?
What contribution has Mr. Eisner make, aside from divisiveness on the Disney Board.
One other thing, way back when only individuals owned Stock, they could have an affect on the operations by Effectively managing the Board of
Directors, now that we have Mutual Funds, the Board runs itself.
[edit on 27-12-2006 by 2stepsfromtop]
Last time I looked companies here in American can’t find enough people to fill the jobs they create.
If you find me hilarious you should take a closer look at the baloney you posted above. Now if you are a neo-Bolshevik then I can understand where you
are coming from---
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:46 PM by shai hulud
|
I could not agree more blandad with your statement about the two party system. Either one does very little except line their pockets on both sides
and use the Constitution for toilet paper. Their is a conflict of interest, but if I had to choose between a president that sticks his head in the
ground and looks for the next intern or freshest line from Columbia and one that pulls the trigger on the civilized world"s enemy (yeah I said it)
while lininig his pockets, the choice is simple to me. They are all corrupt in my opinion and the one's who are not are run out of office for
makoing waves( both "parties")
Congress is flacid when it comes to republican'ts, but rules usually do not apply to the left. Hell, Ted Kennedy has been running the senate for as
long as he has been their and these empty shells the right have put up as "leadership" are pathetic.
And I agree, we will not run out of oil, it's just how much more are we going to have to pay for it because of "fashionable ideas".
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:50 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by crgintx
Falling for the wholely false left/right political paradigm are we?
I like to call myself a moderate; I’m not really republican or democrat, or libertarian. I guess I’m a capitalist without the capital---
I don’t believe we need to sink the ship in order to save the passengers.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 05:55 PM by shai hulud
|
Nice Sleeper, I consider myself a Southern Constutionalist with very little Constitution left.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 06:04 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by blanddad
Are you saying that Enron did nothing wrong?
Getting in over their heads and cooking the books were two separate events.
Before the Enron debacle many companies cooked their books, it was almost a common practice to keep their stocks from plunging. They survived and so
did the pensions and jobs of millions of Americans.
If we are not concerned over little things like millions of jobs and the pensions of millions of people then by all means let’s scrutinize to the
nth degree every company out there and bring them down hard if their books are not squeaky clean.
Not many companies going to survive that, we will need lots of guillotines.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 07:49 PM by 2stepsfromtop
|
Originally posted by sleeper
[Last time I looked companies here in American can’t find enough people to fill the jobs they create.
If you find me hilarious you should take a closer look at the baloney you posted above. Now if you are a neo-Bolshevik then I can understand where you
are coming from---
Obviously the OP cannot understand facts and reality.
Now for a simple Observation -
The OP has adopted the position he has because he is on a Point Hunt!
The OP is not interested in discussion, only smarmy backtalk and uneducated comebacks in order to gain more points.
I suggest all persons STOP posting to this thread.
[edit on 27-12-2006 by 2stepsfromtop]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 08:01 PM by Hal9000
|
Well sleeper, you sure know how to draw a crowd.
Not that I have time to debate this with you, I thought a reality check might be in order. It's funny how you accuse Pelosi of stealing from our
pensions by making a very loose connection, but fail to mention the truth that rolling back the oil tax breaks that Pelosi and Co. are
suggesting will go toward developing alternative fuels.
Details of a renewable fuels fund have yet to be worked out. Nonetheless, it's one of the initiatives the House will take up during its first 100
hours in session in January, according to aides to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. At least some of the money - revenue gained by rolling back some tax
breaks - will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn.
"What we'll do is roll back the subsidies to Big Oil and use the resources to invest in a reserve for research in alternative energy,"
Pelosi, a California Democrat, recently told reporters.
www.truthout.org...
Originally posted by sleeper
Now that’s progress.
Yes it is. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 08:28 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by Hal9000
It's funny how you accuse Pelosi of stealing from our pensions by making a very loose connection, but fail to mention the truth that rolling back
the oil tax breaks that Pelosi and Co. are suggesting will go toward developing alternative fuels.
Now Hal, remember those social security taxes they take out of every paycheck and how that money only goes to social security?
Well social security is going bust in a few years, I wonder were all those trillions of dollars have gone?
Need I say more?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 08:46 PM by Shawnna
|
You have voted 2stepsfromtop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.
I agree - and with this post - I'm done playing in sleeper's dirty end of the sand box.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 08:52 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by shai hulud
Nice Sleeper, I consider myself a Southern Constutionalist with very little Constitution left.
Thanks shai,
Unfortunately much of the constitution is history, no pun intended. But as long as more people feel this country is worth keeping around then we have
a chance, if not the constitution will do us no good anyway.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 09:05 PM by Hal9000
|
Nice attempt at deflection, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. Even GB said we are addicted to oil and need to invest in alternative
fuels. The tax break rollbacks will be used as an investment in our future. We can modify our investment portfolios and buy stock in startup companies
developing alternative fuels instead of oil, which will probably drop because of the new technology. Any money you think will be lost will be gained
in other areas. If someone’s pension is locked and is only invested in oil, I suggest they start a separate IRA and diversify.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 09:21 PM by sleeper
|
Originally posted by Hal9000
Nice attempt at deflection, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. Even GB said we are addicted to oil and need to invest in alternative
fuels. The tax break rollbacks will be used as an investment in our future. We can modify our investment portfolios and buy stock in startup companies
developing alternative fuels instead of oil, which will probably drop because of the new technology. Any money you think will be lost will be gained
in other areas. If someone’s pension is locked and is only invested in oil, I suggest they start a separate IRA and diversify.
If you think that I’m against alternate fuels you are mistaken, I’m all for raising the tax at the pump for that purpose.
As long as gas remains cheap alternate fuels will not be worth the effort. If gas had remained high car companies would be rolling out electric
vehicles my now. And electric cars are not going to become powerful until there is demand for them.
True the oil companies could just pass on any increases of cost that the congress imposes on them and let them take the heat from the angry public but
why should they?
Pelosi should show backbone if she wants to play with the big boys and girls, and tell the American people like it is, but she is not going to, she
would rather play Robbing hoodlum, I mean Robin Hood, same difference, because that will garner her respect from her lefty constituents.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 11:39 PM by wingman77
|
There are certainly more poor people than there are wealthy in this nation. The power of change is and always has been in our hands. We need to
educate ourselves and understand where the world is heading. Read history and news from diverse sources and try to understand economics.
Corporations do not have the best interest of the people in mind because of the inherent manner in which they operate. A corporation is akin to a
authoritarian government, it's hegemonic structure perpetuates dishonest and uncaring leadership.
Watch a film called "The Corporation" and you'll see whats up.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 27-12-2006 @ 11:52 PM by djohnsto77
|
Originally posted by wingman77
Corporations do not have the best interest of the people in mind because of the inherent manner in which they operate. A corporation is akin to a
authoritarian government, it's hegemonic structure perpetuates dishonest and uncaring leadership.
Corporations aren't supposed to have "the best interest of the people" in mind, they're supposed to be out for themselves. History has shown the
best thing for the people as a whole is to have free enterprise where individuals who are bright and work hard can do the best for themselves.
If you want to look at governments that quashed free enterprise for the supposed "best interest of the people" such as the Soviet Union, they've
been disasters.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-12-2006 @ 12:01 AM by wingman77
|
Free enterprise is great; until it begins to breed war, pollution, and destitution. Is there a way to save capitalism? Maybe. Most economic systems
work great on paper. The problem lies in those who run those systems.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 28-12-2006 @ 02:46 AM by DayWatch
|
Let's see less free enterprise which means...less freedom...and more social control by idiots. Hmmm... sounds like a winner.
Free enterprise is by far the best system we have.
If you are against free enterprise then you are against freedom. Period.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
