|
Post by ig on Jan 28, 2007 11:30:36 GMT -6
options...options ...options. the value of the options under the Clinton admin were higher. of course they were over-valued but they were higher.
that is why the difference is there.
Now that the options are more transparent you'll likely see those fall somewhat.
The Bush administration may have said they wanted reform under Sarbannes oaxley but it most cases they were against it. The claim is that it makes going public more expensive and attracts money to other foreign exchanges.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 12:35:27 GMT -6
Add "comrade" Newt Gingrich to that list, he is quoted in todays newspaper "If we can't stop criminals and drug dealers at our southern border, how are we to stop a terrorist We aren't. Ask the French about how successful their impregnable Maginot Line was. To try to defend against the terrorists is an act of futility. To win we must go on the offensive.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 12:39:03 GMT -6
The Bush administration may have said they wanted reform under Sarbannes oaxley but it most cases they were against it. The claim is that it makes going public more expensive and attracts money to other foreign exchanges. So am I, it was a stupid knee jerk reaction. I have been on the receiving end and see its utter futility. I have had to spend weeks of my time programming/testing instead of advancing our network system, just to add minor changes mandated by SO. Multiply that by the by the thousands and you have millions of wasted manhours. The fact is no law prevents people from breaking the law. All we need are laws to punish those who break the law, and then vigorously enforce them.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 28, 2007 13:57:13 GMT -6
All we need are laws to punish those who break the law, and then vigorously enforce them. Comrade Libslayer, Once again, I agree with you on something. We need to enforce the laws we currently have on the books, like those against hiring illegal aliens, like enforcing the cap on H1B visas (which is completely ignored by those granting such visas), like enforcing the law that requires American companies to actually try to find an American worker before they hire an H1B visa holder, like enforcing laws against back-dating stock options, and like enforcing the spirit and intent of anti-trust laws. Let's also enforce the laws on the high-income tax evaders, instead of targeting the low-end payers, like we currently do. The "return" on prosecution of high-income evaders is higher. I'd be happy to support a candidate who's central theme is simply to enforce current laws against the tremendous amount of Corporate crookery that takes place today. I still share the (now) archaic "conservative" notion that we should 1st start enforcing the laws we have, before we pass new ones (which won't be enforced either).
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 28, 2007 14:57:38 GMT -6
"Once again, I agree with you on something. We need to enforce the laws we currently have on the books, like those against hiring illegal aliens, like enforcing the cap on H1B visas "
I agree, but before we do we must have in place a system that easily allows the employer to verify that a person is legal or illegal without them being sued for racial descrimination.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 28, 2007 23:24:35 GMT -6
It is indeed a situation of politics making stange bedfellows - today is a time where true labor democrats (largely blue collar and socially conservative) have found common ground with the true conservatives on trade and border issues, fiscal responsibility, as well as national security begins at home and avoidance of foreign entanglements. On the other hand, in the bizarro world that is that of the neocons, the common ground is with the old school and ultra-liberals on open borders, globalization, drunken sailor government spending, nation building, privacy intrusion, and big government.... Blueneck, You hit the nail right on the head. The Neocons and pro-globalist liberals, like Tom Friedman, have formed a truly un-holy (ass-holy?) alliance. Exactly. That's why those positions are supported by Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, and Ron Paul. In fact, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter has voted against almost every free trade bill, as well as voting in favor of every bill to reduce illegal immigration.
|
|
|
Post by kk on Jan 29, 2007 11:11:17 GMT -6
The Bush administration may have said they wanted reform under Sarbannes oaxley but it most cases they were against it. The claim is that it makes going public more expensive and attracts money to other foreign exchanges. So am I, it was a stupid knee jerk reaction. I have been on the receiving end and see its utter futility. I have had to spend weeks of my time programming/testing instead of advancing our network system, just to add minor changes mandated by SO. Multiply that by the by the thousands and you have millions of wasted manhours. The fact is no law prevents people from breaking the law. All we need are laws to punish those who break the law, and then vigorously enforce them. On most of it I would tend to agree. I mean earnings manipulation is still going to happen. Even the best of auditors would have missed the "off balance sheet " transactions or loan guaruntees by enron. there was simply no way to vouch or trace them. I work for a public co. as an accountant and there is always pressure to "dance" for the board.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 29, 2007 18:24:07 GMT -6
The context of "comrade" Gingriches quote was that border security is lax in part due to the commitment of resources in Iraq, and lack of political will by the current administration, had nothing to do with the non sequitor that fighting in Iraq somehow makes us safer at home.
|
|