Subject:
|
Re: Newsbits: CA Recall and IMF-Argentina Negotiations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:17:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Not at all. Bush, as an appointed maker-of-policy, is directly positioned to
> engage in heavy-duty cronyism.
As is any elected governor or president, which proves nothing. I, as a male, am
directly positioned to commit rape. That doesn't mean that I do it.
> His intimate friendship with Lay directly paid
> off for Lay in the form of a key advisory position in closed-door policy
> meetings.
For this charge to stick it must be demonstrated that Lay's advisory position
was solely through his friendship with Bush, rather than his position within the
industry. Otherwise it's speculation.
> The fact that Lay's fraud came back to bite him is secondary; his
> close ties to the administration implicate both Lay and the administration,
> especially considering that Lay and Enron benefitted directly from Dubya's
> energy policies (eg, California, etc.).
But implication isn't sufficient to make your case (nor mine, for that matter).
It certainly wouldn't stand up in court, or else we'd be seeing both W and
McAuliffe on the witness stand.
> If you're trying to equate McAullife's role in Global Crossing with Bush's
> role in Enron
No, I'm showing that there are things that McAuliffe has to explain too before
he has the moral authority to question others' business dealings. After all, he
invested $100,000 in Global Crossing to have it turn into $18 million and got
out at precisely the right time for maximum profit. Martha Stewart's being
pilloried for far less (defending herself from charges of insider trading when
no charges were filed) right now!
> If the economy takes another downturn in the meantime (or simply continues to
> decline) will you go on record faulting Dubya's reward-the-rich-for-being-rich
> or will you cite other factors? If the latter, then you must admit to selective
> reasoning and a double standard; that is, you credit Bush for the good but do
> not hold him responsible for the bad.
Nothing's that simple in economics. I think Bush is doing the right thing, but
I think the economy's rebounding on its own, which isn't a credit or bad mark to
Bush. I just don't think the government (especially a first-term president) has
much to do with the performance of the economy, other than nudging it to do
better or slowing it down. Even poor Carter, who did nothing to improve
sky-high energy prices and double-digit inflation, didn't cause that bad
economy.
I firmly believe that tax cuts are correct. Taxation, after all, represents a
loss of freedom, both freedom to choose how we spend our money and the time that
is required to earn the money for taxes. Therefore, Bush is making the right
call on another front too.
Have a great weekend everybody!
Carl
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
41 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
