🚀 go-pugleaf

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:ukbh5417eqb953@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Robert S"
> > Not to say that corporate malfeasance never existed before Pitt and
Bush,
> > but it certainly exploded during their tenure.
>
> Coming to light and being corrected is functionally not the same as
> "exploded".....None of the corporate scandals involve some new behavior
> unique to the duration of the Bush administration.... in fact the cooked
> books all happened or began under the previous administration.

Yeah, when Bush was running for election.  When he started selling the white
house, they go busy.  When the Florida debacle happened, they (Crooked
Corporate Officers) needed Bush, so Bush had to win.  They were depending on
him winning, because they knew he would go soft on business law when it came
to his buddies.  Gore, on the other hand, was preaching populism at the
time, which those CCOs didn't like.

> You might find it helpful to grasp a basic understanding of corporate
> accounting rules, procedures and process.

I already understand those rules, procedures, and processes.

> >The Bush administration was
> > bought and paid for by corporations.
>
> And what has the Bush administration done that has been to detriment of
the
> "voter" but benefiting some corporation?

Well, the Florida debacle should never have happened, but it did.  The CCOs
sure benefitted.

> Roughly half of America works for a large corporation and of this work a
> wide assortment of goods and services are provided for our needs, wants
and
> well being. Somehow the idea that corporations are inherently some evil
> being sucking the very life blood out of the country has no basis. Hard to
> believe but often as not what is good for a corporation is both good for a
> consumer and for labor. .

Wrong, corporations are constantly seeking to weaken labor laws, because
they want to reduce labor expenses to increase investor profits.  Think of a
corporation like a nation.  Nations need a system of checks and balances.
Without those, they will eventually spin out of control to do damage to
themselves and others.  Corporations have a very weak system of checks and
balances in regards to the rest of society.  So the rest of society gets
shafted by these powerful trans-national corporations.

> >Bush refused to limit campaign
> > contributions, because he had an agenda of selling the white house to
the
> > highest bidders.
>
>  Didn't congress pass and Bush sign a campaign contribution bill on Mar
27,
> 2002? Although any such bill is actually a negative as it severely limits
> "free speech"... limiting access to the airwaves or print media
(expensive)
> of ideas does not do us any favors.

Bush signed it only because of very intense public pressure, otherwise he
would have vetoed as soon as it was on his desk.  The media itself has
become a powerful and influential force.  Even though I'm a liberal, I think
the media has some public responsibilities.  If it chooses not to uphold
such responsibilities to the public, then there should be a checks and
balances for such a powerful and influential force.

> What has Bush been sold to the highest bidder? Me thinks you speak many
> empty words.

There are too many to list, but Enron and Worldcom come to mind easily.
Yes, some democrats were bought out too.  That's why I don't hold either
party in high esteem.  I'd rather work with the grassroots efforts, but I do
understand the powerful influence of the two-party system.  So I have to
sometimes choose between the lesser of two evils, which means I will not
vote for a crooked Democrat like Traficant (sp).