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: Neeka who wrote (291025)	8/27/2002 11:03:36 PM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

He can't, he is making it up as he goes...the democrats always make up "facts"! Richardson Sued by Investors Tuesday, August 27, 2002 SANTE FE, N.M. — Stockholders of a computer software company under investigation for its accounting practices have sued current and former board members, including Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill Richardson, for failing to oversee its financial affairs. Richardson resigned in June from Peregrine Systems Inc.'s board and has distanced himself from the financial problems of the company, which had been run by his brother-in-law. At least five lawsuits have been filed against Richardson and other board members of the San Diego company, which has said it may have overstated as much as $100 million in revenue and may have to restate three years of earnings. The former New Mexico congressman and energy secretary under President Clinton says he was unaware of the accounting irregularities, which have triggered investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a congressional committee. Peregrine's stock plummeted after the company's accounting troubles became public in the spring. It closed Monday at 49 cents, less than 2 percent of its 52-week high of $27.50. One lawsuit said the directors cost stockholders millions of dollars by allowing wrongful manipulation of earnings and inadequately supervising employees. The directors can be liable for any false or misleading statements the company made because they signed the registration statement filed with the SEC, said Theodore Hess-Mahan, a Boston lawyer in a class-action lawsuit involving Peregrine. Peregrine fired Arthur Andersen as its auditor in April and fired its replacement auditor, KPMG, in May. KPMG alleged possible fraud at the company in a letter it sent to the SEC. Richardson's brother-in-law, Steve Gardner, resigned as Peregrine's chairman and chief executive office May 6 when the irregularities were disclosed. Richardson became a board member in February 2001 and resigned after winning the Democratic nomination for governor in New Mexico's June 4 primary. He held no management positions, owned no stock and was paid $10,000 for attending eight board meetings, his campaign said. Dave Contarino, Richardson's campaign manager, said Richardson "feels he fulfilled his role'' as a Peregrine director and "had no role in the day-to-day operations or decision-making of that corporation.'' Contarino and Peregrine spokeswoman MeeLin Nakata said they could not comment on the pending litigation. Richardson's ties to Peregrine have not played prominently in the race for governor. He faces Republican nominee John Sanchez and Green Party candidate David Bacon in November. foxnews.com

To: Neeka who wrote (291025)	8/27/2002 11:58:10 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Re: "Those are pretty serious charges." >>> Actually, they are very easy to quantify, just look at the budget and deficit projections put forward each year by each President... and then look at the historical facts for what actually transpired to see how close they were to the projections. >>> Bush II only has 1 1/2 years - so far - of wildly inaccurate budget and federal deficit projections to examine, so to be fair we need to give him at least four years before drawing any conclusions... but to date, he is tracking right along with the eight years of Reagan/Bush, and the four years of Bush I - which years clearly showed over optimistic federal deficit projections each year vs. what the deficits actually turned out to be. >>> In contrast, the eight years of Clinton had budget/deficit projections in each annual report to Congress that were vastly closer to the actual numbers that developed. >>> Conclude what you will from that, but the annual economic projections and the real economic numbers are historical records now... easy to look up.

To: Neeka who wrote (291025)	8/28/2002 2:01:37 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

Actually the socialist static analysis lives on at CBO. If the left wing media ever allows their predictive record to be made public, they'll be a national laughing stock...

To: Neeka who wrote (291025)	8/28/2002 4:13:47 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Respond to of 769670

I've been over this territory before, so i'll try to be brief. One example is the tax cut. Bush was required by the budget he signed that his cut be 1.3 trillion dollars over 10 years. Instead of offering an honest fiscally responsible tax cut, he cheated. They pretended that after 9 years taxes would go back to 2000 levels. Had they counted the 10th year honestly (the 10th year being the most expensive of them all) the cut would've exploded the 1.3 trillion dollar limit. To prove their willful dishonesty, they immediately started working to make the cuts permanent, showing that the repeal was just an accounting gimmick. Furthermore they failed to address the AMT which we all know must be dealt with, and will cost us even more revenue. When offering his budget surplus estimates Bush used a particular estimate for projected gdp growth. When Bush offered a report on SS he used different, far more pessimistic estimates for gdp growth. Using different growth estimates over the same period of time to get the desired results (big budget surplus, small SS revenue) is about as dishonest as you can get. Also, ask yourself why every independent non-partisan analysis of the budget finds Bush's projections to be wildly optimistic. Even the Republican House's CBO finds Bush's numbers to be unrealistic. In fact, in a recent report offered by the White House which said 40% of the projected surplus reduction was due to Bush's tax cut, the summary page lied and said it was only 1%. They even lie about their own reports. I guess i wasn't very brief after all. There's plenty more if you actually care. Steve