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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (2283)	11/5/2002 2:35:27 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6901

Karen, Don't be such an asshole, if you want personal attacks I am sure there are plenty of people who could point out how myopic your posts has been. And don't assume I am a Republican - because I am not. But I am not a Democrat either. By Jan 2002, Enron was already a dead company, Justice Dept and Court dates not withstanding. They filed Chapter 11 in December 2001. They restated earnings in November, going back 5 years. Thats 60 months and its started under what administration? The one from 11 months earlier? Or the one when all the shenanigans started? Back in Jan-Mar of 2001 we all still thought these guys were honest. The SEC and other Govt agencies had certified their miraculous results 4 years in row. And that Stimilus package would have given about 1% to Enron - thats incidental not a design. If you thought that was enough to save them you must have learned math from Arthur Anderson. Given the date of your referenced article it doesn't mention Global Crossing. What was their proposed take? BTW Isn't Oregon the state that is trying to reduce its Health Care costs through euthenasia? John

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (2283)	11/5/2002 5:45:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6901

But he wanted to give our tax dollars to corporations for the wonderful work they do laying folks off...that is, when they are not out and out screwing the public touting their bogus stocks. Geez Karen... I'm having a hard time understanding how giving corporations tax breaks equates to giving them "our money"... Sounds to me like they are being permitted to keep more of THEIR money, which is something I would like to see them do more and more for individual tax payers.. After all, corporations are in the business of making a profit. And every tax dollar they pay Uncle Sam is a dollar they have to add to the price of their products and services which you and I purchase. That means they are taking more of OUR MONEY in order to pay the IRS. Now if we're giving money to them as subsidies, then you have a case. But decreasing taxes for corporations only makes sense as they will then have more reason to hire people as their profitability increases. And those people can be taxed... (but the efficacy of that is an entirely different discussion).. Which begs the question... Have you ever operated a business, or been involved in managing a company trying to make payroll?? The last thing you want to do is lay off people since you've spent all the time and money training them. Hawk