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: Raymond Duray who wrote (283865)	8/5/2002 1:08:30 PM
From: Arthur Radley	Respond to of 769670

Even the small business owner is beginning to get the "big" picture. And what was it just last week the REpubicans turned down.......drug benefits. Benefits that they get but don't think the citizens of this country deserve...Geez! The Christian fundamentalist are getting tired of Shrub, the people on pensions are getting tired, the elderly, the small business owners and the smart people are surely getting tired of him...What happened to this promise to bring us together. Hell! Even Kenny Boy is mad that he nevers calls...and Bernie the Crook would even give him a free phone service for Shrub to call Kenny Boy...OOPS! Forgot...Shrub ain't talking to Bernie either.. Guess he could get his boss Cheney to call, but seems nobody knows where he is hiding out....Crooks! " AM ET Aug. 5, 2002 SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- When it comes to regulations, small business owners tend to be a conservative lot -- after all, they often find red tape an onerous chore. But in light of recent big business transgressions, they see a need for greater regulation. A majority of small-business owners -- 66 percent -- support increased federal regulation of corporate accounting, according to a recent survey of 300 small-business owners in non-metropolitan areas. And 61 percent favor giving the Securities and Exchange Commission more money and authority to regulate the stock market. "It surprised us somewhat that small business people generally felt to be more conservative than other people were very much in favor of increased regulations," said Wayne Nelson, president of Communicating for Agriculture and the Self-Employed, the advocacy group that sponsored the study. "They're very concerned with the integrity of the total financial system and the ability for larger business to do things with accounting that might be harmful to the total economy," Nelson said. The power and energy sector got more slack from those surveyed, with only 39 percent seeing a need for more oversight of the industry, and 40.7 percent saying there's enough regulation. Like many Americans, small-business owners expressed fears about the stability of their retirement portfolios, with 58 percent calling for stronger regulation of pension plans. Nine out of ten owners liked the idea of giving individuals greater control over their retirement funds. The survey also found a concern over small businesses' ability to compete in the marketplace, with 67 percent wanting stronger antitrust oversight of the concentration in food and agriculture industries. One-fourth of those surveyed were farmers. Health-care costs worried a majority of the respondents, with 67 percent supporting stronger regulation of health insurance companies and insurance costs, and 61 percent backing more control over drug companies and drug prices. A strong majority -- 72 percent -- favored tax credits to allay health-care costs. There was less support -- 42 percent -- for a national health care plan because of the perception of higher costs and less choice associated with the idea, Nelson said. "They were very supportive of giving more freedom to choose what kinds of health insurance plans they want," Nelson said. Small-business owners "are very concerned about the increase in costs and the lack of choices that are available to them in terms of insurance companies offering them plans in their states," Nelson said. "Small group companies have pulled out of several states so there is less choice."

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (283865)	8/5/2002 1:16:45 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 769670

GET RUBIN By Paul Krugman (7/27/02) If you want to see the smear machine at work, this latest - apparently abortive - attempt to implicate Robert Rubin in the Enron affair is a classic. Here's what happened: we have learned that Citigroup helped Enron by structuring loans in a way that inflated reported revenue. This is not good, but also no surprise. For sure we will eventually learn that every major bank did something like that for some company. It was, alas, what was happening during the bubble years. But it took about 30 seconds for the right-wing scandal machine to pounce. Robert Rubin works for Citigroup! And he was a Clinton-era icon! So he's guilty! Off with his head! Republican operatives began sending thousands of faxes; talk radio made Rubin's sins topic # 1; and Andrew Sullivan dutifully attacked Rubin in his blog. And with amazing gullibility, the likes of Tim Noah at Slate jumped on board, without bothering to check even the most basic facts. The big joke is that the Enron deal took place months before Rubin joined Citigroup. Oh, well, maybe he had a time machine. (Reports suggest that Sullivan does - that rather than admit to a mistake he revised his post, a big no-no in the blogging world.) But even without the nonsense over the date, would this have made any sense? Rubin doesn't run Citigroup; his actual duties are vague, but probably involve a little bit of big-think and a lot of door-opening. Clearly he is not in the operational chain of command; the people structuring financial deals are very unlikely to run them through his office. It's sort of like blaming me for the Princeton web-snooping fracas - hey, I wonder why Sullivan hasn't tried that? To get a sense of what would justify a real presumption of guilt, consider the case of Thomas White. The Secretary of the Army was actually in charge of Enron Energy Services, which created $500 million in fictitious profits during his tenure - and that was all it accomplished, since it was actually bleeding cash. But he's still in his post, because, say his defenders, you can't prove that just because he was in operational charge of the division he had any idea what it was actually doing. This kind of thing gives double standards a bad name. wws.princeton.edu

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (283865)	8/5/2002 1:46:07 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I mentioned I have been clipping interesting news articles, and pundits opinions for the last 3 years....cc them and put them into my own email. Both sides of an issue if I can find them. The only way any of us are really going to learn is by actually trying to educate ourselves, and share with others, IF they are willing to hear. I am personally much more prone to at least listening to an argument if it is respectful. People who label other people, or call them names are NOT people whose opinions I can respect.