Democrats to make corporate greed a campaign issue

Post #43,517 by marlowe 6/26/02 1:36:31 PM Reply	Democrats to make corporate greed a campaign issue [link\|http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200206\\POL20020626a.html\|Throwing stones from glass houses] Hey, I'm all for it. It's about time all those bastards were amde to pay. Now are they gonna go after Terry McAuliffe and Global Crossing? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #43,519 by bepatient 6/26/02 2:04:40 PM Reply	ROFLMAO ...wait till I catch my breath.... whoo... That was a good one. First clue...just ask Martha Stewart...Insider trading is >already< illegal. Stockholder fraud is >already< illegal. "protecting" stockholders by legislation is a dangerous game. Stocks are a risky investment. Reduce the risk and you reduce the return...and reducing the return means killing the stock market you're trying to protect. Don't mind stricter rules on accounting outfits...I think they are necessary. It'll be interesting to watch the first accountant go to jail for transposing a number ;-) Back to adding machines with tape...so you can have 3 levels of checking. Hey...look...its a jobs program!!! Companies will have to hire 3 times as many clerks to make sure there are no errors in the financials! (ok...the Worldcom thing is a bit much...but will >all< errors require jail time??? This is the age of zero tolerance) Ah... That was a good one. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,533 by bbronson 6/26/02 4:04:50 PM Reply	ROFLMAO, part II Daschle's quote: "I hope that government across the board - executive branch, the legislative branch, the regulatory branch..." Ummmmm, where does the Constitution authorize a regulatory branch? Is that why the typical tax and spend Democrat opposes reducing the size of government; because they think it's constitutionally required? Brian Bronson
Post #43,558 by jb4 6/26/02 8:25:45 PM Reply	I won't hold my breath (while you catch yours) Stockholder fraud is >already< illegal. I seem to have misplaced my program...when is it again, that Messrs. DeLay and Skilling are going to Leavenworth? jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #43,575 by bepatient 6/26/02 10:38:06 PM Reply	Don't confuse separate issues. You need evidence to convict. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,595 by Simon_Jester 6/27/02 2:17:49 AM Reply	Come on BP... Yes, you need evidence to convict, but there is more than enough evidence to bring charges - and none have been files against Enron or it's people. Yet - curiously enough, the SEC announced that it would bring fraud charges against Worldcom mere hours after Bush's speech. And, the issues are remarkable similar. WorldCom is being nailed (from what I see) for miscategorizing capital expenditures (which allowed it to overstate profits). Enron created pseudo-corporations to trade with to inflate the commodities they were trading in (and increase their profits).
Post #43,613 by bepatient 6/27/02 7:19:00 AM Reply	Yep. And Andersen will be out of business for destruction of the evidence that would have been needed to get convictions at Enron. There are loopholes that need to be closed in the way corps are allowed to do business. One is the language on reporting of subsidiary debt (Enron) and another is what you can qualify as reported revenue (Global Crossing). However...the Congresscritter didn't address those issues...only the ones that were already illegal. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,652 by Simon_Jester 6/27/02 1:38:03 PM Reply	Um...you do realize... And Andersen will be out of business for destruction of the evidence that would have been needed to get convictions at Enron. that Enron (itself) was...ahem...ALSO shredding documents. Lucky for the Bush administration, however, that the SEC has learned that they can press Fraud charges early on to prevent such destruction of documents.
Post #43,667 by bepatient 6/27/02 2:33:19 PM Reply	Yep again. I expect that at some point we'll see a conviction of someone from Enron. Probably on obstruction charges. Remember, though...that while crooked as hell...what Enron was doing was perfectly acceptable under the law (for the most part). What you would have to prosecute on would be the "reasonable assumption of risk" language that surrounds the reporting of investment income. With the right jury they might be able to get that to stick...maybe. Same with Global Crossing. They were selling and repurchasing the same product in different periods to up their (false) revenue figures. Legal...but not at all ethical. Those are the loopholes I mentioned that should be closed. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,680 by Simon_Jester 6/27/02 4:18:29 PM Reply	Yes and no.. Remember, though...that while crooked as hell...what Enron was doing was perfectly acceptable under the law (for the most part). What you would have to prosecute on would be the "reasonable assumption of risk" language that surrounds the reporting of investment income. Yes and no. The selling of resources to other pseudo-companies appears to be fairly legal, however the transfer of debt to other companies (that were basically extensions of Enron itself) and then not reporting same said debt (of held companies) seemed to questionable to a number of accountants/legal experts, iirc.
Post #43,681 by bepatient 6/27/02 4:29:25 PM Reply	The issue.. [link\|http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb97.htm\|url] The immediate accounting problem exposed by Enron's failure was the weak consolidation rule prescribed for highly leveraged "special purpose entities" (SPEs), or partnerships that were formed to carry out various projects whose assets and liabilities were not shown in Enron's balance sheet. Enron failed in part because of losses arising out of the many SPEs that it had created. The rule for some time has been that sponsors of an SPE need not consolidate it so long as outside investors contribute a majority of its capital and that investment constitutes at least 3 percent of the SPE's assets. Leaving aside the fact that Enron appears to have misled its auditor, Andersen, about the amount of outside investments in SPEs (thus wrongfully avoiding consolidation), it is now clear that the 3 percent test was much too weak. FASB has since rightly raised the threshold to 10 percent. Guess you're right in that there was a little bit of both going on. Still...there should be a full disclosure requirement, regardless of investement. The companies liability needs to be recognized and reported. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #43,619 by jb4 6/27/02 9:20:52 AM Reply	You also need [oil] an indictment And when do [oil] you suppose these charges will [oil] be brought? Breath not being held... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #43,531 by Brandioch 6/26/02 3:58:52 PM Reply	While possible, I think it is unlikely. I'm breaking this out to specific points. "I intend to offer the Omnibus Corporate Responsibility and Restoration Act that gets rid of insider trading, Already illegal. that provides us a firewall between accounting firms that consult and do accounting, Ummm, clarification? I could see between auditors and people doing the accounting. But I thought that was already in place. that protect the pension plans of this nation How? and protect employees who can be taken advantage of by a company filing bankruptcy," said Jackson-Lee. By the time the company files for bankruptcy, the employees have already been fucked. DeFazio advocates "real protection" for stockholders, employees and pension funds. The only "protection" possible is enforcing accouting practices.
Post #43,592 by orion 6/27/02 12:54:51 AM Reply	Uh yeah? But who is going to contibute to their campaign if they say they are against Corp Greed? Individuals do not donate enough cash to run a serious campaign but the Enrons, Imclones, Worldcoms, and etc all do. So will they bite the hand that feeds them, or will they end up being pimped into becoming political whores? *I am free now, to choose my own destiny.*
Post #43,859 by Ashton 6/28/02 9:19:34 PM Reply	Too tame: make the issue Lying. That will guarantee - an utterly silent period of electioneering. (But only IF... the penalty for one [proven] lie == Death) Ahh. Peace.
Post #43,872 by Silverlock 6/28/02 11:35:57 PM Reply	'Bout time somebody did. Sigs? We don' need no steenkin' sigs!
Post #44,258 by wharris2 7/2/02 2:03:21 PM Reply	Har As if Enron wasn't sucking up pretty hard to the Clinton administration long before Bush took office. If Daschle & company really tries to make it a Republican issue, it could really bite them in the butt. Famous last RPG quotes: "I'll just shoot this fireball down the dungeon passageway..."

Welcome to IWETHEY!