Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (773)	7/10/1999 9:29:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bill, Good Morning. "Any retaliation by Bush was justified in that the entire process with Walsh had become contaminated with politics."...Cringe. Justifiable retaliation against an independent prosecutor! Cringe. ...In addition to the timing point of Walsh's indictment I would add that Walsh had asked Bush to testify before the election and Bush asked that it be delayed until after the election...to avoid impacting the election; Walsh agreed; after the election Walsh approached Bush to testify and Bush declined....A separate question on independent prosecutor political contamination...A think the record shows that Starr determined, prior to the election, that he could find no basis of prosecution with respect to the Filegate scandal though he didn't seem any need to mention that prior to the election...no political contamination here? [And yes, I'm quite aware of Starr's response to this question]... "And that doesn't even speak to the facts, which I believe could have easily cleared the Bush admin of any wrongdoing."....Picky point here... the charges/events were with respect to the Reagan Administration...not the Bush administration. Your statement of no wrongdoing has to be factually incorrect; at a minimum, Ollie North was guilty of perjury, under oath, in his testimony to Congress. In the larger sense, I don't see how anyone can say that the administration clearly would have been cleared; nor do I see how anyone could have said the administration clearly would have been found "guilty". The point is that the pardons precluded the ability to make that determination. Even if I were to accept that there are times where retaliation against the independent prosecutor is justified [which I do not] I would contend that the determination of guilt or innocence far outways in import that of retaliation. In principle, does one [executive] pardon individuals where no crime has been committed? Best Regards, Jim Regards, Jim

To: Bill who wrote (773)	7/10/1999 10:12:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Bill, Re: "(we both know you're a liberal)" Let's check that out on a couple of issues. <g> I'll give you my opinion and you put the label on. I would also be interested in your opinion on the issue and for that matter if you know what GW's position is (trying to be on topic). This one comes out of Congress, so I might think it is "conservative", but while Bennet (R) was chair, Dodson (D) was vice-chair. Issue 1 of 2 (two issues) Y2K Litigation: There is a proposed bill that came out of House/Senate Conference that deals with limiting corporate liability with respect to Y2K problems. {I assume you have Acrobat Reader available) senate.gov Some historical background for my opinion.... In the early 1800's the courts were "flooded" with civil suits and the government considered changing the system (A point that may be of interest is that on a per capita basis there were more civil suits in the 1800's then there were today). They considered a number of changes, anywhere from fixed fees for attorneys to the plantiff paying attorney fees of the defendant when the suit failed. The Congress at that time also took a little tour of Europe to examine the civil litigation systems there. In the end, the Congress (still pretty much the framers) decided to leave the system alone. The primary principle was that the system that was in place was the only system that allowed the citizen equal access to the courts; any change would, in practice, limit access to only the most wealthy. Further, there is a legal system in place to deal with liability issues that is in the Judicial Branch. The framers were interested in separate branches and certainly provided no particular provisions for modification of the processes of the court. The court/jury was designed to determine the liability not the Congress nor the Executive. So my opinion (pretty obvious by now) is that I believe that the legislation is ill-conceived, Congress has no business passing yet another law and I oppose it. The benefit or loss with respect to trial lawyers is of little to no concern to me, it is the judicial process that I wish to preserve. Looking forward to your thoughts on the subject and quite curious as to the label. Best Regards, Jim

To: Bill who wrote (773)	7/10/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769670

Issue 2 of 2, Same deal...my opinion, your opinion, GWs opinion if known and label. Marriage Tax "penalty" - Clearly a [compassionate] conservative sponsored initiative..... Point by illustration... Assuming equal deductions... 1. Married couple: each earning $30K; combined family income 60K. 2. Married couple: I sit at home (unemployed) watching ESPN; my wife waits table at the Hawk and Dove (a bar/restaurant in DC catering to the politicos) and makes $60K (I wonder if conservatives are bi 3. Single mother: Makes $60K day-trading in internet stocks. Seems like the bleeding heart liberal would say #3 should pay the least tax (poor working single mom...), #1 should pay a little more and #2 ought to pay the most. Side-bar....the conservative might say that #3 should pay NO taxes...because income in #3 is all capital gains and capital gains are already taxed (corporately). My opinion: Taxes are fees paid for services provided by the government, e.g., a national defense; while we might argue whether specific services are or are not necessary or whether those services provided are quality or even voluntary for that matter, it is pretty much fees for services. All parties mentioned above received exactly the same services. Seems, IMO, they have the same combined income and ought to be liable for the same taxes. I don't see why the government should be in the business, through taxes, of encouraging marriage or any other social behavior. Your opinion, GW's opinion (if known) and label? The label is an interesting question because trivially you could say that the proposal is a "conservative" one so I must be a liberal...though if you consider purely the rationale stated in the opinion, is it so clear? Best Regards, Jim