Here is to US imperlialism

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-23 07:50pm

So here's a effortless deconstruction of Falcon's strawmen

First of all, you apparently don't even know what a strawman is. I mearly pointed out parts of your text where I disagreed, and then stated why. I suggest you do the same, sounding smart isn't working

First off I never supported Bush's plans of corporate reform, I stated they weren't enough otherwise inadequate. Along with enforcement we need to enact new laws and acts that will deal with the issues which have escaped media and public scrutiny.

Laws don't stop actions, they only make those actions illegal.

These include, to:
Repeal the laws that shield lawyers, accountants and bankers from being sued for collusion in securities fraud and other corporate crimes.

Are the lawyers engaging or helping in an illegal activity? If so, fine, why were they shielded in the first place? Who put laws into place that shields wrongdoing by lawyers?

Enacting legislation to establish Financial Consumer Associations, state-chartered, nonprofit organizations with fulltime staffs that can help consumers band together to serve as watchdogs on financial issues, such as securities fraud.

That hardly helps when they are given incorrect information. Thats the problem, no one can know when something illegal is going on because the wrongdoers lie about it. How would your watchdog commission stop lies and fabrications?

Create a Federal Bureau of Audits, an independent agency responsible for overseeing and regulating the accounting industry. In addition, auditors should be forbidden from providing any non-audit services such as consulting to the same clients.

Yes, because the government has a stellar record of managing money and fraud. Did you know that the government looses billions of dollars every year from the budget. Money they cannot account for in any way shape matter or form. It just disappears. Maybe we should just punish accounting firms that lie and cheat, then fear of prosecution and jail would keep the bad apples in line.

Mandate strict separation between investment banking, insurance, and investment advice.

How would that stop fraud? They already play favorites and swap favors. Taking this action wouldn't prevent them from continuing to do so.

Close the revolving door between business and government

Whats that supposed to mean? Anyone who has been a businessman before can no longer serve in government? Thats not only stupid, its unconstitutional.

Eliminate the double standard for stock options, whereby companies can get a tax write-off for stock options without having to list it as an expense on their financial statements.

I already responded to this before. How are stock options a loss? (read up if you want my full quote on this issue)

Require day-of disclosure for all executive stock sales.

If I'm not mistaken we already have a disclosure period. What needs to happen is writing law so that individual stock holders won't be locked into their shares, al la Enron.

Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act that unfairly obstructs tens of millions of American workers in companies like Wal-Mart from organizing trade unions to bargain for living wages.

Unions suck anyways, the last thing we need is more unions. Don't you realize that higher wages = more inflation = higher living standards? Companies don't absorb higher wages, they pass them on to the consumer (the person getting a higher wage)

As with enforcing we need to:

Actively enforce the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which contains several securities fraud provisions, including prohibitions on insider trading and nondisclosure.

Give corporate criminals real jail time.

Revoke professional licenses for lawyers and accountants who aid in fraud.

Expand SEC disclosure standards to include environmental and social issues.

Double the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) present budget of about $467 million for 2003.

SO why arn't these things being done? Don't say Bush, most of the accounting frauds happened before he took office. It is government incompetance in general, and adding more laws will not change that.

Can you can the biggest growth of poverty since 1979 marginal. As with who is at fault of this. It goes directly back to the CEOs. They have the power to cut jobs and decide wages. Take a look at this statistic.

How much have taxes went up since 1979?

Is this justification?
The top job-cutters received an increase in salary and bonus of nearly 20% in 2000, compared to average raises in that year for U.S. wage workers of about 3% and for salaried employees of 4%. Overall CEO pay also rose in 2000 despite the 10% drop in the S&P 500.

Job cutters make companies profitable again. It is not in the interest of a company to hire personal that do not pay for themselves. Only the government does that. Whatever a business wants to pay a CEO is fine with me, its the companies money. If you don't like it, don't invest in said company. Very simple

Between 1996 and 1998, 41 large, profitable corporations used special tax breaks to reduce their corporate tax bill to less than zero, receiving outright federal tax rebate checks, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. (In contrast, the current rebates are paid only to people who paid income taxes.) As a group, the CEOs of these firms averaged pay hikes of 69% in the year of the rebate, far above the typical CEO raise of 38%. In six cases – Black & Decker, Praxair, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Enron, and McKesson – the CEO’s raise entirely consumed his company’s tax rebate for that year.

Was it illegal?

The increased wage inequity in 2000 continued a decade-long trend. If the minimum wage had grown at the same rate as CEO pay since 1990, 571%, it would now be $25.50 an hour, rather than $5.15 an hour

You see, people are paid what ever price the market will bare. Apparently these CEOs can command quite a price in the free market, and I applaud them for it.

What kind of question is this?!? Are you saying that the CEOs of Enron, Authur Anderson, ImClone, and WorldCom are not quilty. If you bothered to actually read the said scandals, they all deal with the crimes of CEOs gaining money by means of accounting fraud, insider trading and other illegal activities.

I wasn't talking about Enron CEOs silly boy. I was talking about the companies not currently under FCC investigation that had been involved in some kind of scandle. Scandle doesn't always = wrongdoing.

And this is why they have self enriched themselves. As for justification see chart above.

And I'm saying, what problem do you have with the owners of companies enriching themselves? As long as its done legally.

Exactly, they need to change the laws. To bad the CEO sold his sotcks before they took the plunge.

We need to change that law, not introduce a whole new layer of government red tape.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-23 08:16pm

still you talk much understand little.

As for Enron, most of the devaluation occurred before the stock lockdown. It was at $12 bucks down from 90 earlier that year. 2ndly, Enron employees knew, or had the chance to know what the executives were doing. it was reported very promiently on coporate inranet site when they excerised these options. a few people took the cue and sold while the price was high, most did not. Its pointless to have same day disclosure if noone is bothering to pay attention. which will not change under your system.

As for accountants, anyone who signed off one thier transactions will be blacklisted, fined, and have thier licenses revoked from the AICPA, in addtion to haveing criminal charges brought. So to say laws are not being enforced, is kinda moot. Its just rare for an accountant to do this kind of thing because for the most part CPA's are self policing, including outside audits of the audits we conduct.

Federal Beareu of Audits? You can't be serious? Do you know that there aren't enough accountants to go around, let alone station federal employees at every major firm? How many accountants graduating college are going to be willing to work for government pay? Not many. Accountants have to deal with government idiots all the time, I don't think they want to sign up on any national service. BTW, you clearly don't understand the pupose of an audit. its not to find criminal wrongdoing, but sorta to kick the tires and see how things are going. If people decide to cheat, there really isn't anything an accountant is going to find out about.

Mandate strict investment barriers? What would that accomplish? Nothing. Just fluff.

enforce the 1934 Securties Act? Have you ever even read the Act? obviously you haven't then you would realize how this doesnot apply to enron or the rest.

Revoking licenseing is something that is done quite routinely in the CPA proffession. There are fines and punishments in accounting for people who just look suspicous.

Double the SEC's budget? I assume thats going to make the SEC 2x as effective. I doubt it, they are are rather effective right now, but politions espeically fro mthe democratic side seem to keep interferring in the SEC's job.

Most of these polititions who claim to be on the side of secure investing, are responsible for the current state of the mess, like blocking expensing of stock options. In particualr it was Joe LIberman the man who ran on the VP position under Al Gore on the democratic ticket
threatened to override FASB, the accounting standards from making it part of GAAP (accounting law) 3 years ago.

I guess Liberman and all those pro-worker democrats were bought out by coporate interests. I think we should send him to jail as well.

As I would like to point out as to your chart, we were in a bubble economy at the time, and talent came at a big prememium. People were wiling to pay, and stocks were being irrationally valued. Something that was widely discussed in accounting ciricles. So were they justified, you would have to see. as for worker pay, allot of tech workers were given lots of money too, perhaps you should break it down to skilled labour and office labour as well, instead of including walmart employee salaries in the mix.

As for corporations using tax breaks, would you pass up one if one was availiable?

minimum wage at 22.50? well most working class people I know make about 25/hour. I don;t see how rasing minimum wage helps them out. though I do know allot of college kids that would be out of jobs if it were that hjigh, as well as inflation and depression sure to follow.

Oh btw, Anderson is a LLP, not a corp, it doesn't have a CEO, its has partners, and all partners approve of each others pay.

The partner at anderson who caused all this trouble, did it so he would get a promotion to a more senior level, in doing so, he destroyed the firm for all the honest partners as well.

You still have to make the point why CEO's should not make millions, if that is the wage to which they aggree?

Yah my attack was personal, but it was true, you are a hypocrit. And showing us biased data isn't going to change the fact you really don't know anything including basic supply vs demand

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-23 08:35pm

Commie your aurgments seem rather well put togther dare I ask it and ask if these are canned? IE you either already had the information/perfect memory or prehaps somthing else.

Second allow me to handle a few erronus statments your oopsition has slung at you.

Laws don't stop actions, they only make those actions illegal.

Strawnmen-He is talking about NEW Laws for things not covered and you counter with the fact laws only make things illegal, Laws DO stop actions, Why don't we see people kill the people ahead of them in line at the Movies? Because there is a LAW that says do that and you will be punished, If thier where no such law, Lines would be very short and popluation growth would not be a problem

Are the lawyers engaging or helping in an illegal activity? If so, fine, why were they shielded in the first place? Who put laws into place that shields wrongdoing by lawyers?

Why you even have to ask this I wonder.. They are shield BECAUSE the Lawyers either got themselves elected or did the old campain contribitions and got the laws put into place, Seriously don't you know how the basic structor of the REAL Congress and how things are done? Or did you stop at School House Rocks. "Im just a bill" in your level of education.

That hardly helps when they are given incorrect information. Thats the problem, no one can know when something illegal is going on because the wrongdoers lie about it. How would your watchdog commission stop lies and fabrications?

Idiotic-statment, No its not a logic flaw but this is pretty dumb- Geee Why do we have cops? They don't Stop murders and they lie about killing people so how could anyone find out?
Are you completly brain dead?

How would that stop fraud? They already play favorites and swap favors. Taking this action wouldn't prevent them from continuing to do so.

Because Falcon they Don't swap Favors and play favorites WHEN ITS THE SAME PERSON!
If I need insurance I can also get investment banking and invesment advise from the same company, Not that common but Investment adive and Banking are pracitualy the same industry today so many companys provided both! You seperate these industrys to prevent this from happing them put laws with strict penitlies in place to prevent them from playing favorites or any such thing.
Seriously where you thinking when you posted?
You see so eager to point out any little flaw in Commie's thinking you don't even bother to check your own thinking...

Whats that supposed to mean? Anyone who has been a businessman before can no longer serve in government? Thats not only stupid, its unconstitutional.

This is not only stupid its idoitic, Seriously and HOW is it unconstitutional? Where in the constitiution does it state that Joe Q Oil CAN'T be disallowed from leaving the board of Big Oil Co. To server as the Senater on the Power and Utltitles Commision?

Resident Commie is exaclty right this IS a big problmen and needs to stop.

Unions suck anyways

What twisted logic be this? Unions are always bad prehaps WHEN WE HAVE BEEN HARD PRESSED TO FIND A NON CORRUPT UNION IN THE PAST SIXTY YEARS MAYBE IF IT WHERE NOT SO CORRUPT IT WOULD BE BETTER
A prorperly run NON corrupt union is the best thing a Company and worker group can have

SO why arn't these things being done? Don't say Bush, most of the accounting frauds happened before he took office. It is government incompetance in general, and adding more laws will not change that.

So there is a problem which needs a solution before it spirals out of control and you advoce doing absoulty nothing because why now?

You think its just gonna go away or people are gonna stop doing it even though its still legal?
What planet are you from and what the heck do they teach you?

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-23 10:23pm

Strawnmen-He is talking about NEW Laws for things not covered and you counter with the fact laws only make things illegal, Laws DO stop actions, Why don't we see people kill the people ahead of them in line at the Movies? Because there is a LAW that says do that and you will be punished, If thier where no such law, Lines would be very short and popluation growth would not be a problem

Here is the point-------------------------------here is you

The things that were done by Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc.. were already illegal. The fact it was illegal didn't prevent this behavior. Putting more restrictions on behavior that isn't necessarily unethical will not prevent fraud. Having tougher enforcement of current laws are the answer, not the creation of a new level of government red tape.

Why you even have to ask this I wonder.. They are shield BECAUSE the Lawyers either got themselves elected or did the old campain contribitions and got the laws put into place, Seriously don't you know how the basic structor of the REAL Congress and how things are done? Or did you stop at School House Rocks. "Im just a bill" in your level of education.

Of course if there is something unethical that isn't illegal we should fix that, but so far I've yet to see any lawyer practices that need additional laws to fix. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear the first time.

Idiotic-statment, No its not a logic flaw but this is pretty dumb- Geee Why do we have cops? They don't Stop murders and they lie about killing people so how could anyone find out?
Are you completly brain dead?

My point was that we already have watchdog groups, they failed. What makes you think this new watchdog would succeed where the old one failed? If its run by the government then its still going to be accountable to elected members of the government, who take funding from, guess who, big business. I'm not saying we shouldn't catch and punish wrongdoers, I just don't think that new government red tape is whats needed.

Because Falcon they Don't swap Favors and play favorites WHEN ITS THE SAME PERSON!
If I need insurance I can also get investment banking and invesment advise from the same company, Not that common but Investment adive and Banking are pracitualy the same industry today so many companys provided both! You seperate these industrys to prevent this from happing them put laws with strict penitlies in place to prevent them from playing favorites or any such thing.
Seriously where you thinking when you posted?
You see so eager to point out any little flaw in Commie's thinking you don't even bother to check your own thinking...

You mean like seperating accounting firms and companies? Yeah, that worked great. You have no evidence to support your claim that these changes will solve anything.

This is not only stupid its idoitic, Seriously and HOW is it unconstitutional? Where in the constitiution does it state that Joe Q Oil CAN'T be disallowed from leaving the board of Big Oil Co. To server as the Senater on the Power and Utltitles Commision?

Resident Commie is exaclty right this IS a big problmen and needs to stop.

The requirements of running for senate are defined in the Constitution. Anything more or less is a violation of the Constitution.

What twisted logic be this? Unions are always bad prehaps WHEN WE HAVE BEEN HARD PRESSED TO FIND A NON CORRUPT UNION IN THE PAST SIXTY YEARS MAYBE IF IT WHERE NOT SO CORRUPT IT WOULD BE BETTER
A prorperly run NON corrupt union is the best thing a Company and worker group can have

Yeah, thats like the people who favor communism. If only it would work it would be great. Problem is, it doesn't work, as you freely admit.

So there is a problem which needs a solution before it spirals out of control and you advoce doing absoulty nothing because why now? You think its just gonna go away or people are gonna stop doing it even though its still legal?
What planet are you from and what the heck do they teach you?

Your planet obviously didn't teach you to follow points or read properly. You have done nothing but miss the picture the entire time...

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-23 11:17pm

The things that were done by Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc.. were already illegal. The fact it was illegal didn't prevent this behavior. Putting more restrictions on behavior that isn't necessarily unethical will not prevent fraud. Having tougher enforcement of current laws are the answer, not the creation of a new level of government red tape.

As you so kindly put this diagrame in I'll use it in kind because saddly it applys to you

Here is the point-------------------------------here is you

What the hell does Goverment Red tape have to do with me ask you why if an action was not right, and thier are no laws aginst it, why not make a law?

Either you go to bed at night with a strawman or you did not even read what I wrote, Thats EXACLTY what I said, I mentioned no red-tape I don't know where the hell your getting that from but you did nothing more than spew my questioning of your aurgment back at me without answearing the orgional question.

Of course if there is something unethical that isn't illegal we should fix that, but so far I've yet to see any lawyer practices that need additional laws to fix. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear the first time.

I can think of a few, Lawyers abusing Atirony/Client Privalges to commit illegle attacks, Filling Law-suits as nothing more than a delaying tatic, And all sorts of legal loop-holes that let a Lawyer drag you back into court day after day if he so chose

My point was that we already have watchdog groups, they failed. What makes you think this new watchdog would succeed where the old one failed? If its run by the government then its still going to be accountable to elected members of the government, who take funding from, guess who, big business. I'm not saying we shouldn't catch and punish wrongdoers, I just don't think that new government red tape is whats needed.

I see you don't understant how the problem sloving procces works, If somthing does not work fix it, If it still does not work scrap it and start anew
This is not the first cause of Fraud by CEO's its certantly the biggest but the fact is people on the street knew about this months before the pathiect exuse of a Watch-dog group did, The FCC did not clue to this untill after the stock had fallen,
People with access to no more than a personal computer and access to the internet knew somthing was wrong months before the Media did that much is clear and that is the Problem. And the new one has a better chance then somthing created when Standerd Oil was still publicy Traded..

You mean like seperating accounting firms and companies? Yeah, that worked great. You have no evidence to support your claim that these changes will solve anything.

Nice Straw-man, You could have also brought up the fact that When we Seperated MA Bell things did not work so well but you know what
THIS IS A DIFFRENT SITUATION, Just because it has somthing to do with the Ecnomey does not mean its the same thing
The fact that should be obvious to any brain dead six year old, Somthing that even User99 would acknowledge having a company that does Investing, along with other services and also provdies Investing advise could be kinda SLIGHT Biased towards companys that if thier stock price rose would help them?

The requirements of running for senate are defined in the Constitution. Anything more or less is a violation of the Constitution.

*This point on its unconstitutionality concided
Then it shall be changed becuase it must be changed

Yeah, thats like the people who favor communism. If only it would work it would be great. Problem is, it doesn't work, as you freely admit.

Look everyone a Hasty Generelzation, Unions are just like Communsim!
Look Falcon the fact that 50%(maybe more) of Union reps did not acutal represent the people they where elected to kinda hurt them a bit you think? A acutal Union is a group of workers who gather togther to make thier vocies more easily heard kinda like Representive Democracy
Problem is Union Reps could normaly easily be bribed and thier where alot of people around to bribe them at the time
Unions are a form of minture democracy and it falls on the workers to pick somone who won't get distracted by the shinny penny, If not its there own falt to bad you desrved it. And secondly I freely admit that it only works when the Union leader is not corrputed, Barring that its a simple and easy system to run,besides if you notice I said 60% of Unions meaning thier where 40% of unions that DID work

Your planet obviously didn't teach you to follow points or read properly. You have done nothing but miss the picture the entire time...

*Eeeeeeeh. I'm sorry but your supposed to acutal answering the question instead of needlessly yammering on

Thank you and goodnight
And try to acutal read what I write next time instead of going off into your own little world

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-23 11:56pm

As you so kindly put this diagrame in I'll use it in kind because saddly it applys to you

Can't be bothered to even respond now? Just make some inane comment, itll be alright...

What the hell does Goverment Red tape have to do with me ask you why if an action was not right, and thier are no laws aginst it, why not make a law?

Either you go to bed at night with a strawman or you did not even read what I wrote, Thats EXACLTY what I said, I mentioned no red-tape I don't know where the hell your getting that from but you did nothing more than spew my questioning of your aurgment back at me without answearing the orgional question.

Because so far all these new regulation commissions, watchdog groups, etc.. are just more red tape. No evidence has been put forth to support the idea that they would actually be effective. Calling my comments a 'strawman' is utterly unfounded. I'm not disagreeing that corporate fraud needs to be fixed, all I'm suggesting is that there is no evidence that more laws will solve the problem since existing laws were broken in the first place.

I can think of a few, Lawyers abusing Atirony/Client Privalges to commit illegle attacks, Filling Law-suits as nothing more than a delaying tatic, And all sorts of legal loop-holes that let a Lawyer drag you back into court day after day if he so chose

Think about what you just said for a second. Lawyers doing illegal things. Bingo, go out and punish these law breakers, don't just make more laws. Laws are meaningless without enforcement, and I will say again, existing laws were broken, there is no need for new laws, there is need for current laws to be enforced.

I see you don't understant how the problem sloving procces works, If somthing does not work fix it, If it still does not work scrap it and start anew

Exactly. We've tried passing a bunch of laws in the past. They got broken. If you pass new laws they'll just get broken too. Enforce the laws and they won't be broken\those who break them will be behind bars. Simple...

This is not the first cause of Fraud by CEO's its certantly the biggest but the fact is people on the street knew about this months before the pathiect exuse of a Watch-dog group did, The FCC did not clue to this untill after the stock had fallen,

Why is this? What happened to our law enforcement that they didn't know what was going on? Enforce the laws, don't just pass new ones. New laws are fine, if theres a need, but enforcing laws is the only way to stop\prevent crime.

People with access to no more than a personal computer and access to the internet knew somthing was wrong months before the Media did that much is clear and that is the Problem. And the new one has a better chance then somthing created when Standerd Oil was still publicy Traded..

So the FCC and the media cannot use a personal computer with a net connection to find out information? What good are they? These are the people you want safeguarding your investment trusts? Sounds to me like law enforcment broke down, not the laws...

Nice Straw-man, You could have also brought up the fact that When we Seperated MA Bell things did not work so well but you know what
THIS IS A DIFFRENT SITUATION,

You still havn't offered a shread of evidence to support your claim. How will seperating banks, insurance companies, and investing firms stop those different firms from working together with just as much conflict of interest as currently goes on? It surely didn't stop big business and the accounting firms from cooking the books and lying. It isn't a strawman you twit, its an analogy

Just because it has somthing to do with the Ecnomey does not mean its the same thing
The fact that should be obvious to any brain dead six year old, Somthing that even User99 would acknowledge having a company that does Investing, along with other services and also provdies Investing advise could be kinda SLIGHT Biased towards companys that if thier stock price rose would help them?

What makes you think that investment firm A won't be biased towards their buddies over at Insurance company B? No law can stop people from recommending their friends and associates. Only law enforcement can punish fraud when it occurs, in accordance with laws we already have

*This point on its unconstitutionality concided
Then it shall be changed becuase it must be changed

I really don't see that happening...Its possible though

Look everyone a Hasty Generelzation, Unions are just like Communsim!
Look Falcon the fact that 50%(maybe more) of Union reps did not acutal represent the people they where elected to kinda hurt them a bit you think?

Its not a hasty generalzation, sheesh you and your petty trite sayings. Its an analogy. Unions have a proven tract record of not working. Saying that they would work if some perfect scenario should happen along is unrealistic. Most things would work in perfect situations with perfect people, but in real life if you expect these wonderful situations to occur magically out of thin air you will be disappointed.

A acutal Union is a group of workers who gather togther to make thier vocies more easily heard kinda like Representive Democracy
Problem is Union Reps could normaly easily be bribed and thier where alot of people around to bribe them at the time
Unions are a form of minture democracy and it falls on the workers to pick somone who won't get distracted by the shinny penny, If not its there own falt to bad you desrved it. And secondly I freely admit that it only works when the Union leader is not corrputed, Barring that its a simple and easy system to run,besides if you notice I said 60% of Unions meaning thier where 40% of unions that DID work

Even if I grant you your 60\40 analysis of Unions working, which you seemingly pulled from the air, what makes you think that this specific union you are in favor of will work? Typically the bigger the union, the more fraud and corruption there is. Do you have any reasoning or evidence to back up your idea that we could get a non corrupt union in big businesses like Enron, etc...

And try to acutal read what I write next time instead of going off into your own little world

!!!!!!!!!

pot....kettle.....black

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-24 04:43am

After dealing with an attempted invasion of my home by rabid ants.

I have just read all the posts following mine. I will briefly address some of the more important points and leave the rest for tomorrow.

Here's the gist of my responses to Falcons earlier posts:
While laws do need stronger enforcement, the government still needs to enact new legislation that will close the loopholes and cover things not currently addressed under current law.
*note I did not address certain mundane comments that were already pointed out by Mr. Bean. These points I feel have already been either adequately, and if i feel the need to bring them back up i will do so tomorrow.

Here's reason for, in detail:

Are the lawyers engaging or helping in an illegal activity? If so, fine, why were they shielded in the first place? Who put laws into place that shields wrongdoing by lawyers?

Answer: YES, they were shielded because the gov was helping out their buds, laws were passed by the same branch of government that passes every other law in the country, congress.

Proof:
Two bills passed by Congress in the mid-1990s - the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") - severely reduce the rights of shareholders and other from attempting to recover their losses from corporate wrongdoers and their co-conspirators, especially accountants and lawyers. This has led to situations like Enron, where the risk of liability is far outweighed by the possible financial gains of the wrongdoing. These bills erected numerous hurdles for victims of financial crimes who are seeking to recover their losses. The PSLRA - enacted over President Clinton's veto (with support from members of both parties) - makes it far more difficult for victims to get into court, to maintain a case once there and to collect a meaningful percentage of their losses even if they win. The SLUSA forces almost all small investors to take their cases to federal court, where they must sue under the draconian terms of the PSLRA, instead of the often more investor-friendly laws of their own states.

That hardly helps when they are given incorrect information. That’s the problem, no one can know when something illegal is going on because the wrongdoers lie about it. How would your watchdog commission stop lies and fabrications?

Response to Mr. Bean

My point was that we already have watchdog groups, they failed. What makes you think this new watchdog would succeed where the old one failed? If its run by the government then its still going to be accountable to elected members of the government, who take funding from, guess who, big business. I'm not saying we shouldn't catch and punish wrongdoers, I just don't think that new government red tape is what’s needed.

Answer: Oh how you contradict yourself.

After Mr. Bean pointed out the idiocy of your statement you attempt feebly to backtrack yourself and try introduce your own opinion of watchdog groups over what I stated at the beginning. Doing this you fabricate evidence that only supports your argument. Pathetic

Proof: And that was "to establish Financial Consumer Associations, state-chartered, nonprofit organizations with fulltime staffs that can help consumers band together to serve as watchdogs on financial issues, such as securities fraud." If you will note these are all public groups who will not have to be part of the endless red tape of the government. Hence they will aid in cracking down on criminals.

How would that stop fraud? They already play favorites and swap favors. Taking this action wouldn't prevent them from continuing to do so.

Answer: I guess you completely misunderstood the meaning of this action. This separation would have allowed investors to have been more aware of the falling stack prices.

Proof: 47 of the 50 top investment brokerage firms covering companies that went bankrupt in the first four months of 2002 advised investors to "buy" or "hold" shares in failing companies even as they were filing for Chapter 11.

What’s that supposed to mean? Anyone who has been a businessman before can no longer serve in government? That’s not only stupid, its unconstitutional.

Response to Mr. Bean

The requirements of running for senate are defined in the Constitution. Anything more or less is a violation of the Constitution.

Answer: What the hell is your point?

The only thing you are saying is that it's unconstitutional. Is it? This is a baseless argument built on straw. A strawman. That's how did you get "no more businessmen in gov" from "close the revolving door" in and out of gov. Second the logic behind this is quite simple. If you’re a corporate exec and you want to be on the SEC board, you would be potentially policing a company that you were once a part of and one that you probably had money still invested in. Something called conflict of interest. Maybe you've heard of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with enforcing we need to:

Actively enforce the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, which contains several securities fraud provisions, including prohibitions on insider trading and nondisclosure.

Give corporate criminals real jail time.

Revoke professional licenses for lawyers and accountants who aid in fraud.

Expand SEC disclosure standards to include environmental and social issues.

Double the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) present budget of about $467 million for 2003.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SO why aren’t these things being done? Don't say Bush, most of the accounting frauds happened before he took office. It is government incompetence in general, and adding more laws will not change that.

Answer: How short is your memory span? I said laws which need enforcing. Not new laws. So cut the endless crap about no new laws. It's a broken record.
Second it is the gov's incompetence, which is why we need to increase funding for the SEC and expand their powers.

Proof:
President Bush's proposed $100 million increase in the SEC's 2003 budget is woefully inadequate, given the SEC's responsibility to investigate the many "bad apples" in the corporate bushel and in light of a longstanding need to increase the Agency's budget to reflect its growing responsibilities and high staff turnover/low pay rates. An overwhelming majority from both parties in Congress voted for a 75% increase in the SEC's budget before Bush made his proposal. Meanwhile, a March, 2002 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress on SEC operations reported that critical SEC regulatory and enforcement activities suffer from limited resources and staffing in the face of increased responsibilities. "[T]hese delays have resulted in foregone revenue and have hampered market innovation," the GAO concluded. See "SEC Operations: Increased Workload Creates Challenges," GAO-02-302.

*bah, too long finish you, I will tomorrow

----------------------
Azeron

Where do i start?

Well since it's late I’ll just note on your most incorrect info:

enforce the 1934 Securities Act? Have you ever even read the Act? obviously you haven't then you would realize how this doesnot apply to enron or the rest.

Let me ask you. Have you read the 1934 Securities Exchange Act? Because if you had it must had been upside down. Because you obviously missed the section which contains several securities fraud provisions, including a two-pronged statute that prohibits both insider trading and misdisclosure (concealing or misrepresenting the company's financial status). Along with the entire section on audit requrements. Something that AA did not follow.

Nice try bubo.

Double the SEC's budget? I assume that’s going to make the SEC 2x as effective. I doubt it, they are rather effective right now, but politions espeically fro mthe democratic side seem to keep interferring in the SEC's job.

Stop with your irrelevant assumptions. I doubt, I think, I assume. It doesn’t matter what you think unless you can support it with fact. D'uh.

Fact: A March, 2002 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress on SEC operations reported that critical SEC regulatory and enforcement activities suffer from limited resources and staffing in the face of increased responsibilities. "[T]hese delays have resulted in foregone revenue and have hampered market innovation," the GAO concluded. See "SEC Operations: Increased Workload Creates Challenges," GAO-02-302.

Oh btw, Anderson is a LLP, not a corp, it doesn't have a CEO, its has partners, and all partners approve of each others pay.

Just because it isn't a corp doesn't mean it dosn't have a CEO. Do you know anything?

Your pathetic.

Do some basic research and save yourself from embarrassment. Because they do have a CEO and he, Joseph Berardino, quit after the enron scandal. Here's some of his testimony at the CFS.
http://www.andersen.com/website.nsf/con ... enDocument

---------
Damn it's late must sleep. Good Night, or Good Morning. Bah.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-24 08:08am

You know it helps when people acutal read what a fellow wrote instead of accusing him of not reading what he wrote

Falcon you show a clear tendancy to twist the words of people debating aginst you to server your own ends and then claming they twist your words instead

Allow your doing is tossing out Straw-men by the truck-ful overgeneralizting making alot of comprasions to Communsiem but not acutal say anything

Examples.
I say we need new laws with strict penityls for things we don't have covered now
You call it goverment Red tape and then change your tune and say laws will be broken away.
YES Captian Obvious Laws are indeed broken all the time but if there is NOT a Law inplace should thier not be one so people can stop getting away with it?

Think about what you just said for a second. Lawyers doing illegal things. Bingo, go out and punish these law breakers, don't just make more laws. Laws are meaningless without enforcement, and I will say again, existing laws were broken, there is no need for new laws, there is need for current laws to be enforced.

And agian you forget the fact that loop-holes in existing laws is the problem along with a lack of good oversight, SO any Half witt and even a few idiots would concluded the thing to do is rewrite the laws and make new ones to cover things we did not have before and and close the old loop-holes,

And another thing oh Captian Brillant Explain to me how, Not institing any Reforms, And not incresing any budgets you will get effective oversight?

You keep saying why bother rasing the budget and saying we don't need a new Goverment Watch-dog group so please
For all of us at home how exactly are you going to get better oversight with no money or people?

You still havn't offered a shread of evidence to support your claim. How will seperating banks, insurance companies, and investing firms stop those different firms from working together with just as much conflict of interest as currently goes on? It surely didn't stop big business and the accounting firms from cooking the books and lying. It isn't a strawman you twit, its an analogy

And I'm trying to point out the fact its a TERRIBLE one
Prehaps I should have used Standerd Oil instead when I was comparing things, A Company that controls 100% of the Means of Preduction and Distrubiutment is a Monopoly on the first and second can jack up prices because people don't have a choice, Not a good comparison true but we have the same princple that Investinment Advise, Banking, And Insurance can ream the Customers for all they want and if not *Give them Advise that befinits them financily to achive just the same thing in the end one takes long

Secondly you still don't seem to understand what the whole idea of the American's Legel system works
Laws are EXACLTY what stop most crimes from being comminted, For those rare indviduals who do break the law the Enfocerment sytem comes into play and then from there into the courts and then the prisons
You seem to have this odd twisted idea that EVERY Company cooks the books and everyone breaks laws, You speak as if I killed 23 and wounded 49 because I felt like Driving on the Side-walk today, After all why not do it. Just LAWS saying I should not and how likley is it the cops will get me?
In a real perfect world there would be no need for laws, In a screwed up one they are despratly needed and thankfuly they are here, For things we did not think of twenty years ago we have Congress to pass new laws..
This being one of those situations

Its not a hasty generalzation, sheesh you and your petty trite sayings

They are Logic Flaws Captian Brillant and you are Guilty of commiting them over and over agian which is why I bring them up over and over agian

Saying that they would work if some perfect scenario should happen along is unrealistic. Most things would work in perfect situations with perfect people, but in real life if you expect these wonderful situations to occur magically out of thin air you will be disappointed.

The thing is obvious to everyone else you don't NEEED a perfect world, Infact you only need ONE nice uncorrputable person for the normal union to work
When you have sixty people working in the same place how hard is it to find one decent honset pesrson in the bunch?

pot....kettle..... black

No proof
No quotes
No Clue

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-24 09:06am

Proof:
Two bills passed by Congress in the mid-1990s - the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA") - severely reduce the rights of shareholders and other from attempting to recover their losses from corporate wrongdoers and their co-conspirators, especially accountants and lawyers. This has led to situations like Enron, where the risk of liability is far outweighed by the possible financial gains of the wrongdoing. These bills erected numerous hurdles for victims of financial crimes who are seeking to recover their losses. The PSLRA - enacted over President Clinton's veto (with support from members of both parties) - makes it far more difficult for victims to get into court, to maintain a case once there and to collect a meaningful percentage of their losses even if they win. The SLUSA forces almost all small investors to take their cases to federal court, where they must sue under the draconian terms of the PSLRA, instead of the often more investor-friendly laws of their own states.

That's your proof? ROFL

This measure wasn't passed to keep lawyers from being prosecuted for engaging in fraud, it was passed to keep frivilous lawsuits out of the courts. BTW, lawyers were in many cases against this legislation, because it ment fewer cases for them.

Answer: Oh how you contradict yourself. After Mr. Bean pointed out the idiocy of your statement you attempt feebly to backtrack yourself and try introduce your own opinion of watchdog groups over what I stated at the beginning. Doing this you fabricate evidence that only supports your argument. Pathetic

I havn't contradicted a single thing that I've said. What you need to do is stop trying to pull debate technique and start responding to point. You and commie have read Wong's sections on debate and now think you are some kind of uber debaters. Stuff the rethoric and just respond to the points in a meaningful way.

Proof: And that was "to establish Financial Consumer Associations, state-chartered, nonprofit organizations with fulltime staffs that can help consumers band together to serve as watchdogs on financial issues, such as securities fraud." If you will note these are all public groups who will not have to be part of the endless red tape of the government. Hence they will aid in cracking down on criminals.

And as I said before, do you have even a shred of evidence that these would work? Do you even have an implementation plan? Btw, anything associated with the government is mired in red tape, your watchdog group would have to be totally independent of the government, in which case it would have no teeth. It would have to go to court, hire lawyers, etc.. to get anything done.

Answer: I guess you completely misunderstood the meaning of this action. This separation would have allowed investors to have been more aware of the falling stack prices.

Why can't investors get up in the morning and turn on the TV, gaining instant access to the stock prices? Your action would accomplish nothing. Consumers not being aware of the stock prices isn't the problem, its them not being able to sell, such as in Enron.

Proof: 47 of the 50 top investment brokerage firms covering companies that went bankrupt in the first four months of 2002 advised investors to "buy" or "hold" shares in failing companies even as they were filing for Chapter 11.

Again, thats up to the investor if they believe their eyes or their broker when they see a company devaluing. Are you suggesting that all these brokerage firms knew they were corrupt and going bankrupt, but urged people to buy anyway? I'd love to see your evidence... I'd say its more likely that the brokerage firms were caught up in the same stupid glee that everyone else was (I heard morons saying the DOW would hit 20k)

Answer: What the hell is your point? The only thing you are saying is that it's unconstitutional. Is it? This is a baseless argument built on straw. A strawman. That's how did you get "no more businessmen in gov" from "close the revolving door" in and out of gov. Second the logic behind this is quite simple. If you’re a corporate exec and you want to be on the SEC board, you would be potentially policing a company that you were once a part of and one that you probably had money still invested in. Something called conflict of interest. Maybe you've heard of it.

Mr. Bean conceeded the point, why are you so dense you cannot? There is nothing strawman about this, you are trying to pull some more debating tricks instead of talking substance. There are specific requirements for who may or may not be elected. Anything else is unconstitutional. If a Congressman is doing something corrupt\illegal there is a process by which he can be removed from his office constitutioally. Why is it that you believe that the old laws will not work, but think that if you make a new one (even an unconstitutional one, banning business owners or some nonsense) that it will work?

Answer: How short is your memory span? I said laws which need enforcing. Not new laws. So cut the endless crap about no new laws. It's a broken record.
Second it is the gov's incompetence, which is why we need to increase funding for the SEC and expand their powers.

There was a big list posted by you of laws in Congress that needs passing...how long is your memory? Its a broken record because you simply will no get the point.

Funding does NOT = competence. I'd think after they finished wasting this years 2 TRILLION dollar budget you would finally get a clue.

Proof:
President Bush's proposed $100 million increase in the SEC's 2003 budget is woefully inadequate, given the SEC's responsibility to investigate the many "bad apples" in the corporate bushel and in light of a longstanding need to increase the Agency's budget to reflect its growing responsibilities and high staff turnover/low pay rates. An overwhelming majority from both parties in Congress voted for a 75% increase in the SEC's budget before Bush made his proposal. Meanwhile, a March, 2002 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress on SEC operations reported that critical SEC regulatory and enforcement activities suffer from limited resources and staffing in the face of increased responsibilities. "[T]hese delays have resulted in foregone revenue and have hampered market innovation," the GAO concluded. See "SEC Operations: Increased Workload Creates Challenges," GAO-02-302.

This is a far cry from proof. All this is is a collection of personal opinions, government agencies that are begging for more money, and rank speculation.

Fact: A March, 2002 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report to Congress on SEC operations reported that critical SEC regulatory and enforcement activities suffer from limited resources and staffing in the face of increased responsibilities. "[T]hese delays have resulted in foregone revenue and have hampered market innovation," the GAO concluded. See "SEC Operations: Increased Workload Creates Challenges," GAO-02-302.

Its a fact that government whined for more money? Big surprise...

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-24 09:21am

Mr Bean wrote:You know it helps when people acutal read what a fellow wrote instead of accusing him of not reading what he wrote

Falcon you show a clear tendancy to twist the words of people debating aginst you to server your own ends and then claming they twist your words instead

Allow your doing is tossing out Straw-men by the truck-ful overgeneralizting making alot of comprasions to Communsiem but not acutal say anything

Examples.
I say we need new laws with strict penityls for things we don't have covered now
You call it goverment Red tape and then change your tune and say laws will be broken away.

YES Captian Obvious Laws are indeed broken all the time but if there is NOT a Law inplace should thier not be one so people can stop getting away with it?

How dense can you be? My point was, and still is, that current law was broken, new law will not solve the problem since their actions are already illegal, punish the friggin wrongdoers, don't just pass new laws How much more illegal than ILLEGAL can you make an action?

And agian you forget the fact that loop-holes in existing laws is the problem along with a lack of good oversight, SO any Half witt and even a few idiots would concluded the thing to do is rewrite the laws and make new ones to cover things we did not have before and and close the old loop-holes,

Do you know why loop holes exist? Because of big government red tape legislators putting said loop holes in the laws. What makes you think your new laws will be any different? Government has displayed this favortism\loop hole\red tape inefficiency now for years, do you magically think it will stop now? Same thing with lack of oversight. Name something that the government has overseen that has been done cheaply and efficiently. I didn't think so. What makes you think the government will start working when it hasn't in the past? Focusing on new laws will change nothing, enforcing the old laws will at least punish the Enron types.

And another thing oh Captian Brillant Explain to me how, Not institing any Reforms, And not incresing any budgets you will get effective oversight?

They have enough money for enforcement right now, if they would just do it. There is no need for more money and more reforms when they currently have a budget and several cases literally screaming prosecute me!

You keep saying why bother rasing the budget and saying we don't need a new Goverment Watch-dog group so please
For all of us at home how exactly are you going to get better oversight with no money or people?

By having the current people use the current money to actually do their jobs

And I'm trying to point out the fact its a TERRIBLE one
Prehaps I should have used Standerd Oil instead when I was comparing things, A Company that controls 100% of the Means of Preduction and Distrubiutment is a Monopoly on the first and second can jack up prices because people don't have a choice, Not a good comparison true but we have the same princple that Investinment Advise, Banking, And Insurance can ream the Customers for all they want and if not *Give them Advise that befinits them financily to achive just the same thing in the end one takes long

How does a monopoly have anything to do with the current situation? There are no monopolies on insurance, brokering advice and banking. A company is not forbidden from engaging in all three of those services as long as other companies offer competation. There is no monopoly of one company in any of those fields.

Secondly you still don't seem to understand what the whole idea of the American's Legel system works
Laws are EXACLTY what stop most crimes from being comminted, For those rare indviduals who do break the law the Enfocerment sytem comes into play and then from there into the courts and then the prisons

The laws don't stop the crimes, they define what is a crime. The punishment is what deturs crime. If you bothered to read\comprehend what I'd written you might know this.

You seem to have this odd twisted idea that EVERY Company cooks the books and everyone breaks laws,

No I don't silly. The entire premise of my arguement has been that most companies DO NOT engage in illegal practices. Thus new laws and regulations will simply burden the innocent, when all that really needs to happen is the punishing of the guilty under current law. See? Simple.

They are Logic Flaws Captian Brillant and you are Guilty of commiting them over and over agian which is why I bring them up over and over agian

You can sit here and whine about logic flaws until you are hopefully blue in the face. Reality will always be here waiting for you if you want to join the real world.

The thing is obvious to everyone else you don't NEEED a perfect world, Infact you only need ONE nice uncorrputable person for the normal union to work
When you have sixty people working in the same place how hard is it to find one decent honset pesrson in the bunch?

Do you think that the current corruptable people were corrupt when they got to the head of the class? Human nature is to be corruptable, and its very hard for an honest, uncorruptable type to get elected since, guess why, the corrupting influences won't support them. The question is, how hard is it to get one honest person elected?

No proof
No quotes
No Clue

POT....KETTLE...MIDNIGHT XTRA SPECIAL BLACK

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-24 11:02am

Commie, you are right, it does infact establish Securities/Fraud crimes...... for IPO's not secondary market info years later. Although it does establish some relationships and licensings, it deals mostly with the first public offerings of a company thanb anything. A later law was passed while it was under study in the mean time to figure out the porper reforms, I beleive was sometime around 1938-1936.

As for the accountign laws that limited liabilty of accountants, might I point out that they were all autheded and sponsered exclusivelly by democrats. Mr. Liberman's threat to FASB was actually the point of an ethics/governemnt interefrence class for almost half a semester. He is still vilified for his actions by most accountants, really the antichrist. Its all part of the congressional record if you would care to look.

Whether the laws were good or bad, it the laws were in place because of abuses by lawyers against innocent Accounting Firms, dragging them into courts years for years if the company goes bust.

Lets see you want to create a non-profressional groups to monitor company books, really quasi-governemtnal. Suppose we established similar groups to momitor say communists, and muslims, boy would people scream. And they are more of a threat than coporations ever have been.

Fabricate evidence? Ahh can you point out where I did that? Wasn't it you who posted manipulative charts of CEO pay vs "worker" pay which completely distorts the relationships between skilled and unskilled labour at the height of the disparity in the bull market of 1999 rather than a later post pubble daata?

Last tiem I checked you are the one backtracking, from a position of Capitailism = evil imperial feudalism, while socialism is the best thing since slice bread. Now you are trying to sqeak out a rhetorical victory by demagoging the losses of company workers who were caught in these scams and trying to pin the wrap on corporations as a whole. You ahve already conceeded 90% of your intial position, and now you are trying to make coporations look as bad as communists, which will never happen. The amount of criminal fraud and theft that occurs at governemnt corporations and agencies far outstrip anything that happens in private sector. And everyone pays for that. You are bemoaning the loss of a few billion dollars in a 10 trillion dollar economy, when the government wastes almost a trillion in vote buying schemes of one sort of another.

You stil have to make the case on how this is going to stem the time of people who want to steal. And before you go on about if there were no penalties they would still be doing this, most people would never do these things regardless of whether thier was a

Don't forget to type your reply on you corporate made computer, using corporate run netowrks to transmit your data to a corporate run Hosting service. YOU are pathetic.

BTW what is it that you do?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-24 09:10pm

How dense can you be? My point was, and still is, that current law was broken, new law will not solve the problem since their actions are already illegal, punish the friggin wrongdoers, don't just pass new laws How much more illegal than ILLEGAL can you make an action?

Around and around we go when you'll get it, Hell if I know, Agian I say thier are people doing things that are wrong, And its not illegale, Obvious solutinon
Which you obviously ignored, and second you should know the answear to that
If the current law stats if you steal a billion dollers worth of cash and stock aaaaaannnd its illegle, The Max Penility?
A year in yail!
Woohoo thats a deturrant prehaps we should using your bad grammer make it MORE illegle and stiffin the punishments kinda like what we already said we needed to do and the House and Senate just voted to do today!

Must I write my points in twenty foot tall neon letters to get you to understand them?
Or acutal read them?

Do you know why loop holes exist? Because of big government red tape legislators putting said loop holes in the laws. What makes you think your new laws will be any different? Government has displayed this favortism\loop hole\red tape inefficiency now for years, do you magically think it will stop now?

If you don't do anything to you think it will magicly fix itself Captian Brillant?

Name something that the government has overseen that has been done cheaply and efficiently.

The Postal Service, Only part of the goverment ever to make a profit.

By having the current people use the current money to actually do their jobs

And you scuff at my Union example of it only we had one good person..

What makes people motivated to do thier jobs? At its base, As Resident has alreay helpfuly suppiled(And you have not countered) they don't have enough money to do the job the've been assinged and are quite under-paid for what they do and the hours they put in
So you expect them to go in working day in day out for minium pay and little reasourse
Just cause?

YFR!

How does a monopoly have anything to do with the current situation? There are no monopolies on insurance, brokering advice and banking. A company is not forbidden from engaging in all three of those services as long as other companies offer competation. There is no monopoly of one company in any of those fields.

Its a Comprason, Both things price gouge you because you don't have anywhere to go, Insurance industry is a good example, Sure you have competition but you have no levrage for some of them
What do I mean?
Normaly if I want to buy somthing I have both the option of buying Company A Or Company B, And maybe C, D, or E
I also have the option of not buying it at all
With Insurance I don't HAVE that optition
Thus the Monopoly comparson, Companys have two reasons to compete to get your business and to beat the other guy because they have to if they want your business, but with insurance, you don't have to and thus the growing problem Insurance companys are waking up that they have to buy insurance from SOMEBODY and like the Price Fixing of Old we are incoutering it all over agian thus the Monopoly comparson

The laws don't stop the crimes, they define what is a crime. The punishment is what deturs crime.

Word from the land of the obvious where people have thier eyes open
Pusihments are also determed by Laws...

The entire premise of my arguement has been that most companies DO NOT engage in illegal practices. Thus new laws and regulations will simply burden the innocent, when all that really needs to happen is the punishing of the guilty under current law. See? Simple.

?????
Burden the innocent?
Kindly explain how a Law that is targeted on huge Multi-billion doller International Coperations is going to do anything but watch the less than 10k Multi-billion Doller International Coperations?

You can sit here and whine about logic flaws until you are hopefully blue in the face. Reality will always be here waiting for you if you want to join the real world.

More than anything else I value my objectiuity and preception your self denial is nearing the levels of Darkstar
LOGIC FLAWS ARE JUST THAT FLAWS IN LOGIC
Meaing your aurgment is FLAWED
Because your Logic is Flawed
By your statment and your general tone I'm guessing even if I draged half the other people of the board in you to each post diffrent examples of your self denial and Wong droped by to post a few of your choicerer Logic Errors in nice bullet form, you much like Darkstar will simply ignore it

Based opon your contiued lack of Addresing my Points and near frank admitance of the numerous Logic Errors Present and your stringant refuselual to continue this Debate is a sane intellgent matter like 80% of the Rest of this Board

CONESSCISON ACEPTED

When your readly to act as an intellgent humionoid being and acutal Partispate in a DEBATE and not a Endless round of I know you are but what am I,

Call me,
Untill then forget it

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2002-07-24 11:55pm

I have a great idea. Since it is against the law to murder, and people still murder, why not pass a law making it against the law to brake the law. This would stop lawbreakers in their tracks, right?

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-25 12:13am

Must I write my points in twenty foot tall neon letters to get you to understand them?

Yes!

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-25 01:29am

Falcon, seriously, your argument has had the consistency of shit. Of all the numerous examples I have given you have responded with no real counter-evidence or substance, just opinionated whining. Which is why the majority of your arguments have been logical fallacies, which are so numerous it's laughable.

Here's is a recitation of all your crap:

This measure wasn't passed to keep lawyers from being prosecuted for engaging in fraud, it was passed to keep frivilous lawsuits out of the courts. BTW, lawyers were in many cases against this legislation, because it ment fewer cases for them.

I havn't contradicted a single thing that I've said. What you need to do is stop trying to pull debate technique and start responding to point. You and commie have read Wong's sections on debate and now think you are some kind of uber debaters. Stuff the rethoric and just respond to the points in a meaningful way.

And as I said before, do you have even a shred of evidence that these would work? Do you even have an implementation plan? Btw, anything associated with the government is mired in red tape, your watchdog group would have to be totally independent of the government, in which case it would have no teeth. It would have to go to court, hire lawyers, etc.. to get anything done.

Why can't investors get up in the morning and turn on the TV, gaining instant access to the stock prices? Your action would accomplish nothing. Consumers not being aware of the stock prices isn't the problem, its them not being able to sell , such as in Enron.

Again, thats up to the investor if they believe their eyes or their broker when they see a company devaluing. Are you suggesting that all these brokerage firms knew they were corrupt and going bankrupt, but urged people to buy anyway? I'd love to see your evidence... I'd say its more likely that the brokerage firms were caught up in the same stupid glee that everyone else was (I heard morons saying the DOW would hit 20k)

Mr. Bean conceeded the point, why are you so dense you cannot? There is nothing strawman about this, you are trying to pull some more debating tricks instead of talking substance. There are specific requirements for who may or may not be elected. Anything else is unconstitutional. If a Congressman is doing something corrupt\illegal there is a process by which he can be removed from his office constitutioally. Why is it that you believe that the old laws will not work, but think that if you make a new one (even an unconstitutional one, banning business owners or some nonsense) that it will work?

This is a far cry from proof. All this is is a collection of personal opinions, government agencies that are begging for more money, and rank speculation.

You first counter is a pure circular one with no backing whatsoever. It is widely regarded that the PSLRA has constricted the ability for adequate prosecution of corporate criminal and therefore must be remedied.
Here’s more real evidence/backing, unlike your baseless assumptions. http://www.senate.gov/%7Ecommerce/heari ... Coffee.pdf

As for whining about me using debate tactics, Mr. Bean covered this, but it's so fun i'll do it again. Your style of debate is crap you see, I’m pointing your flaws and your bitching about them. So just admit it and try better next time.

Your next argument is another fallacy. Lets use your same argument with another example:
setting 1775 "Has the Constitution been proven to work, its just another form of government, the British have a government that doesn't work, so why should we try another type of government. One that potentially will fail."
As you see this type of argument only come from those who are ignorant and don't understand or see the rudimentary argument for what it is. Ad ignoantium. Reform and change is essential in all aspects of life, if we allow something to become stagnant we have failed to better ourselves.

You then follow with a False Cause. By stating A: that if investors would have been more attentive, B: they wouldn't have lost so much, this is False because you are disregarding reality. People busy, they trust in there investment firms to manage their money wisely, that’s what they're are getting paid for. To say that investors lost money because of their ignorance is misleading and insulting.

Next,
How difficult is it to understand that the Constitution alone does not have the necessary provisions for barring those who wish to hold public office. This however, is something, which has been accounted for by US Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes. found here: http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_o ... clr_98.pdf
However, it is not enough to exercise conflict-of-interest rules under which officials recuse themselves from involving themselves in government activities involving their former employers and clients. Too often government officials don't recuse themselves from decisions that affect their former industry friends, and even when they do, it can diminish the capacity of government regulatory agencies (Harvey Pitt has had to recuse himself 29 times from SEC decisions that came before the Commissioners). In addition, the "cooling off" period is usually not long enough. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt who, before joining the Administration was a Wall Street lawyer representing investment banks, stock exchanges and all the big accounting firms said on July 19 that he does not intend to automatically excuse himself from cases involving his former clients once the one-year period requiring such a step expires in August of 2002.

Lastly, you are attempting to discredit a source that you yourself cannot refute legitimately. What standing do you have over a investigative office. Have you done research to suggest otherwise. It's like saying we can't trust the Supreme Court to interpret laws that concern the government because they are part of that same government.

------------------

Hopefully you have realized that substance is nothing without a foundation, and while you may dislike debating terminology, you fail to realize that they indeed point out obvious weaknesses of your argument. Try to learn off of what Mr. Bean and myself are saying. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to use common logical sense, will not help you become a better debater.

Try better next time.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-25 08:04am

Lemme know Resident if Falcon has a blinding flash of the obvious and relizes that you have this debate locked down solid.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-25 09:34am

Around and around we go when you'll get it, Hell if I know, Agian I say thier are people doing things that are wrong, And its not illegale, Obvious solutinon
Which you obviously ignored, and second you should know the answear to that If the current law stats if you steal a billion dollers worth of cash and stock aaaaaannnd its illegle, The Max Penility?
A year in yail!
Woohoo thats a deturrant prehaps we should using your bad grammer make it MORE illegle and stiffin the punishments kinda like what we already said we needed to do and the House and Senate just voted to do today!

If you bothered to read my posts you'd notice that I've been advocating stiffer enforcement of current law. I'm glad you finally agree.

If you don't do anything to you think it will magicly fix itself Captian Brillant?

You have a shocking lack of real world comprehension. In the current climate of Congress it is impossible to get a bill without loopholes and hidden lines imbedded in them. Your idea that if we want it really bad enough, Congress will pass clean legislation is naive. What makes you think Congress will start behaving in a way it hasn't behaved in for over a century?

The Postal Service, Only part of the goverment ever to make a profit.

Since when was the postal service making a profit? Its been years, and then only when they constantly hike the stamp prices. Right now the Postal Service is a complete mess, something like 5 billion short last I heard.

And you scuff at my Union example of it only we had one good person..

What makes people motivated to do thier jobs? At its base, As Resident has alreay helpfuly suppiled(And you have not countered) they don't have enough money to do the job the've been assinged and are quite under-paid for what they do and the hours they put in
So you expect them to go in working day in day out for minium pay and little reasourse
Just cause?

YFR!

If they don't want to do their jobs with the money they have, they can quit. My quote was concerning the investigation and oversight in corporate practices. I wasn't advocating more money for them either, just that they use the money they have more effectively.

Its a Comprason, Both things price gouge you because you don't have anywhere to go, Insurance industry is a good example, Sure you have competition but you have no levrage for some of them
What do I mean?
Normaly if I want to buy somthing I have both the option of buying Company A Or Company B, And maybe C, D, or E
I also have the option of not buying it at all
With Insurance I don't HAVE that optition
Thus the Monopoly comparson, Companys have two reasons to compete to get your business and to beat the other guy because they have to if they want your business, but with insurance, you don't have to and thus the growing problem Insurance companys are waking up that they have to buy insurance from SOMEBODY and like the Price Fixing of Old we are incoutering it all over agian thus the Monopoly comparson

Your comparison was apples to oranges. If you are going to make a comparison at least make a plausable one. Also, insurance, except for things like driving insurance, is totally optional anyway. If the prices get to high just don't buy it. I do agree that things like car insurance is a monopoly which needs to be fixed.

Word from the land of the obvious where people have thier eyes open
Pusihments are also determed by Laws...

Actually, it should be completely determined by juries, although we do have some laws limiting punishments. Don't make new laws, just repeal those old laws that have too whimpy a punishment phase.

?????
Burden the innocent?
Kindly explain how a Law that is targeted on huge Multi-billion doller International Coperations is going to do anything but watch the less than 10k Multi-billion Doller International Coperations?

Sorry, multi-billion dollar coporations have rights to (unless they arn't American), and they deserve due process like the rest of us. If they break the law, through the book at them, but until then don't mire their business with red tape and petty (probably bribe sucking) oversight committees...

More than anything else I value my objectiuity and preception your self denial is nearing the levels of Darkstar
LOGIC FLAWS ARE JUST THAT FLAWS IN LOGIC
Meaing your aurgment is FLAWED
Because your Logic is Flawed
By your statment and your general tone I'm guessing even if I draged half the other people of the board in you to each post diffrent examples of your self denial and Wong droped by to post a few of your choicerer Logic Errors in nice bullet form, you much like Darkstar will simply ignore it

Based opon your contiued lack of Addresing my Points and near frank admitance of the numerous Logic Errors Present and your stringant refuselual to continue this Debate is a sane intellgent matter like 80% of the Rest of this Board

CONESSCISON ACEPTED

When your readly to act as an intellgent humionoid being and acutal Partispate in a DEBATE and not a Endless round of I know you are but what am I,

Call me,
Untill then forget it

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with inane rants. If its to look intelligent, I'd suggest you stick to tic-tac-toe instead...

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-25 10:04am

Resident Commie wrote:Falcon, seriously, your argument has had the consistency of shit. Of all the numerous examples I have given you have responded with no real counter-evidence or substance, just opinionated whining. Which is why the majority of your arguments have been logical fallacies, which are so numerous it's laughable.

Here's is a recitation of all your crap:

Posturing will get you no where with me. Just respond to points and leave the tripe at the door.

You first counter is a pure circular one with no backing whatsoever. It is widely regarded that the PSLRA has constricted the ability for adequate prosecution of corporate criminal and therefore must be remedied.
Here’s more real evidence/backing, unlike your baseless assumptions. http://www.senate.gov/%7Ecommerce/heari ... Coffee.pdf

ROFL, the PSLRA is your best response? According to your own article, which you so graciously provided,
------------------------------------------------------
1. The Enhanced Pleading Requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (the "PSLRA"). Under Section 21D(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which added
by the PSLRA, a complaint in a securities fraud case must:
"state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
In a Rule 10b-5 suit, this requires the plaintiff to plead with particularly facts giving rise to a "strong
inference of fraud" on the part of the specific defendant. This pleading must be made at the outset of the
litigation before the plaintiff has obtained any discovery. In practice, this provision is far more protective
of auditors than of other defendants. For example, in the Enron case, plaintiffs can plead that the
corporate officers at Enron withheld material information in order to permit them to sell their large stock
holdings before the Enron market price collapsed. Evidence of such insider sales may (if they are large
enough in percentage terms) satisfy the plaintiff’s obligation to plead with particularity facts giving rise to
the requisite "strong inference of fraud" on the part of Enron’s insiders. But the same pleading cannot be
made with respect to the auditors, who by definition do not own stock in an audit client.
-------------------------------------------------

Basically, the auditors have a way out if they were not given accurate information. Do you really want to prosecute an auditor if they really were given false information? Now the easly solution to make sure that corrupt auditors get whats coming to them is to do an investigation that uncovers their willing participation in the fraud. At least that is my interpertation of the law, incidently it was inadvertently supported by Mr. Coffee(who for the record is against it).

As for whining about me using debate tactics, Mr. Bean covered this, but it's so fun i'll do it again. Your style of debate is crap you see, I’m pointing your flaws and your bitching about them. So just admit it and try better next time.

Its a crappy style of debate to simply make points and respond to parts of others posts that you don't agree with? Ahhh, thats right, the best way to 'debate' (thats what you call this?) is to make trite little remarks and pretend to be insightful. me = not impressed

Your next argument is another fallacy. Lets use your same argument with another example:
setting 1775 "Has the Constitution been proven to work, its just another form of government, the British have a government that doesn't work, so why should we try another type of government. One that potentially will fail."
As you see this type of argument only come from those who are ignorant and don't understand or see the rudimentary argument for what it is. Ad ignoantium. Reform and change is essential in all aspects of life, if we allow something to become stagnant we have failed to better ourselves.

More like, why do something thats a proven failure. More government is almost never good. More complicated loop-hole ridden laws, of the sort we can expect from Congress, will just muddy the waters and hinder business. Reform is fine and good, but is what is being proposed actually reform, or is it just more political\legal mumbo-jumbo that will do little real good.

You then follow with a False Cause. By stating A: that if investors would have been more attentive, B: they wouldn't have lost so much, this is False because you are disregarding reality. People busy, they trust in there investment firms to manage their money wisely, that’s what they're are getting paid for. To say that investors lost money because of their ignorance is misleading and insulting.

No, you again failed to get my point, which was a response to Mr. Bean saying that 47 of 50 of the top brokerage firms said 'hold or buy' on companies that were to shortly fail. My point is that people should be aware of what they're doing and not just buying anything thats sold to them. Your excuse that people are busy and trust in their brokers, well, that is their choice to do so. They can accept the consequences for how they choose to manage their money. Now when actual fraud is committed thats a different story, I'm talking about legitimate brokers who just make errors, which does happen. Most investors who lost money did lose it because of their own ignorence and greed. I've been saying, to anyone who would listen for over two years now, that the market is overvalued, due for a major correction, and that there is probably a lot of fraud going on since companies which were making no profit or taking losses were enjoying soaring stocks. Its common sense that the greedy people in the market didn't see until too late.

Next,
How difficult is it to understand that the Constitution alone does not have the necessary provisions for barring those who wish to hold public office. This however, is something, which has been accounted for by US Criminal Conflict of Interest Statutes. found here: http://www.usoge.gov/pages/forms_pubs_o ... clr_98.pdf

Elected officials do not fall into the same catagory as employees. The requirements for elected officials come streight from the Constitution, and that is the only qualifier for who may or may not hold office. Those elected officials swear to uphold the Constitution and defend the rights of the people. If it is found they are using their position in a way not in accordance with the Constitution there is proceedure to remove them from office. Sometimes officials recuse themselves, most often in the courts, and elected officials often get out of business, like with Dick Cheny, but it doesn't say they have to in the Constitution, that I'm aware of.

However, it is not enough to exercise conflict-of-interest rules under which officials recuse themselves from involving themselves in government activities involving their former employers and clients. Too often government officials don't recuse themselves from decisions that affect their former industry friends, and even when they do, it can diminish the capacity of government regulatory agencies (Harvey Pitt has had to recuse himself 29 times from SEC decisions that came before the Commissioners). In addition, the "cooling off" period is usually not long enough. SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt who, before joining the Administration was a Wall Street lawyer representing investment banks, stock exchanges and all the big accounting firms said on July 19 that he does not intend to automatically excuse himself from cases involving his former clients once the one-year period requiring such a step expires in August of 2002.

Yippie? What does that have to do with anything?

Lastly, you are attempting to discredit a source that you yourself cannot refute legitimately. What standing do you have over a investigative office. Have you done research to suggest otherwise. It's like saying we can't trust the Supreme Court to interpret laws that concern the government because they are part of that same government.

Apples...oranges...

Did you know that most government agencies lose money if they don't spend it? Therefor they continually beg for more money so they won't take a pay cut. Hence there is no surprise when a government agency is out begging for more cash...

Hopefully you have realized that substance is nothing without a foundation, and while you may dislike debating terminology, you fail to realize that they indeed point out obvious weaknesses of your argument. Try to learn off of what Mr. Bean and myself are saying. Sticking your head in the sand and refusing to use common logical sense, will not help you become a better debater.

Try better next time.

Next time just stick to the issues. This isn't about who is the best word winking pretty boy. Using phrases and technique to cover up ignorence might look good to some, but it just ticks others off.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-25 07:22pm

Resident and I have agreed to call this Debate to an end
Falcon by his own admission admits that his posts and his ideas have logic flaws within them

His countiued ignorance of what a Logic Flaw Means has lead us to conculded we are trying to debate with a brick wall here, Over the course of this Debate Falcon has yet to answear my points and responds to questioning simply by throwing them back at me without any explination
Much like the classic sentance,
I know you are but what am I?

From my first post here to my last one Falcon agian and agian has failed to provide any proof or working theories or ideas at all.

Resident Commie can tell you his own specific reasons but you know mine

To quote Dogbert
"It's best to avoide Time-Wasting Morons"

So in that fasion I shall end this as its obvious short of Divine Intervention of some sort(Jesus could not do it, Hmm maybe Allah? I think Buddah could probably swing it,)
Falcon does not get the fact he has lost and also admited he has lost

So in the grand Tradition of Debating
VICTORY!
Resident Commie!
Through showing his point cleary and having yet to have his points acutal countered though lots of whining generated
I declare this a Victory for Commie

Closing remarks by Resident Commie shall follow along with a few posts from the Loosers wither they will be graisous or not time will tell

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-25 08:21pm

Mr Bean wrote:arrogence

You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it true.

Resident Commie · Post by **Resident Commie** » 2002-07-25 10:28pm

Falcon, do you have any sense of honor at all!

You have lost plain and simple. Do not treat this like a life or death situation. Accept your defeat and move on like a man, not a baby. Like, I said before treat this like a learning experience and don't become stagnant.

Secondly, you were beaten because your arguments had flaws. Plain and simple. Debaters for thousands of years have been aware of these flaws and have gradually learned to stay way from these. Your disregard for established theory only shows your ignorance. This is why Mike wrote the page on logical fallacies. To teach those who were using obvious flaws the error of their logic. This board is built on logic and reason and respects those who in turn use logic and reason. You have shown neither. This much is proven.

Here I will again

show you why your latest arguments have no merit.

ROFL, the PSLRA is your best response? According to your own article, which you so graciously provided,
------------------------------------------------------
1. The Enhanced Pleading Requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (the "PSLRA"). Under Section 21D(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which added
by the PSLRA, a complaint in a securities fraud case must:
"state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind."
In a Rule 10b-5 suit, this requires the plaintiff to plead with particularly facts giving rise to a "strong
inference of fraud" on the part of the specific defendant. This pleading must be made at the outset of the
litigation before the plaintiff has obtained any discovery. In practice, this provision is far more protective
of auditors than of other defendants. For example, in the Enron case, plaintiffs can plead that the
corporate officers at Enron withheld material information in order to permit them to sell their large stock
holdings before the Enron market price collapsed. Evidence of such insider sales may (if they are large
enough in percentage terms) satisfy the plaintiff’s obligation to plead with particularity facts giving rise to
the requisite "strong inference of fraud" on the part of Enron’s insiders. But the same pleading cannot be
made with respect to the auditors, who by definition do not own stock in an audit client.
-------------------------------------------------

Basically, the auditors have a way out if they were not given accurate information. Do you really want to prosecute an auditor if they really were given false information? Now the easily solution to make sure that corrupt auditors get what’s coming to them is to do an investigation that uncovers their willing participation in the fraud. At least that is my interpretation of the law, incidentally it was inadvertently supported by Mr. Coffee(who for the record is against it).

Again ill placed sarcasm will not drive your point any further than it can with out it. As for the argument it self, you continently failed to include the entire main point of that piece of evidence:
"Although auditors may have been subject to conflict of interest or may have been pressured into accepting improper accounting presentations, these fact will rarely be evident at the outset of the case. Hence, the auditors benefit far more from this pleading requirement than do other defendants, because the case against it must be dismissed if such facts cannot be plead prior to discovery."

Quoting out of context is one of the basic underlying rules of any argument or debate. To make it even more blatant, is that what you left out immediately follwed what you stated. Don't base your on the hope that I will not discover such a basic flaw, it's laughable. Work on finding counter-evidence, instead of trying to obscure mine.

The rest of your argument is either speculation, personal opinion, or an unsupported assertion. Which don't even qualify as a meaningful rebuttal. So don't use them!

In this debate you are the weakest link.
Good Bye.

Azeron · Post by **Azeron** » 2002-07-25 10:59pm

Commie,

Have you ever been on an audit? Do you even know whats involved in autiing someone's books? Do you really know whats involved in consulting services vs auditing? Can you name one major consulting firm and its accoutning counterpart? do you know what GAAP stands for? Do you know what it means? Can you tell me the differnt types of audit reports?

Have you even met an auditor? Have you even met an Accounting consultant? If they both stood next to each other and told you what its involved in thier job, do you think you could tell the differnce?

Do you even REALLY understand what happened at enron, worldcom and anderson? Can you tell what Anderson did wrong and why they weren't convicted of more serious charges?

I suspect that the answers to all these questions is no. You have no idea what involved in these scandels, so you really can't understand what effect the law has. You have no idea about the problems accouinting firms have. You are just ignorant anti-capitalist.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » 2002-07-26 09:31am

Again ill placed sarcasm will not drive your point any further than it can with out it.

I wish you'd practice what you preach. Your arrogent little diversions are quite tiresome.

As for the argument it self, you continently failed to include the entire main point of that piece of evidence:
"Although auditors may have been subject to conflict of interest or may have been pressured into accepting improper accounting presentations, these fact will rarely be evident at the outset of the case. Hence, the auditors benefit far more from this pleading requirement than do other defendants, because the case against it must be dismissed if such facts cannot be plead prior to discovery."

I left that out because it doesn't matter. Have you ever heard the phrase innocent until proven guilty? Its better than 100 guilty go free than one innocent be condemned unjustly, etc... The real phase you should have been homing in on is

"But the same pleading cannot be made with respect to the auditors, who by definition do not own stock in an audit client. "

If the auditors did engage in knowingly abeting fraud, then you can get them on other charges besides in a Rule 10b-5 suit.

Quoting out of context is one of the basic underlying rules of any argument or debate.

It wasn't out of context, it was only the relevent parts. It doesn't matter that the auditors benifit from the system more than others. Criminals benifit more from the American justice system than innocent people The whole model of justice in America is that it is a very difficult and long process to conduct a court case. This helps criminals get out of their crimes, (and helps the innocent too), but the innocent have to often be out time money and reputation as a result.

To make it even more blatant, is that what you left out immediately follwed what you stated.

No it didn't, in fact it had nothing to do with my point. The fact that you've dismissed responding to anything else I've said, instead choosing to jump all over what you considered to be a major mistake on my part, shows just how desperate you are to find a point you think you can win with. You've got no substance.

Don't base your on the hope that I will not discover such a basic flaw, it's laughable. Work on finding counter-evidence, instead of trying to obscure mine.

Lets see, I make points, and point out where I disagree with yours. You on the other hand try to argue about technique and make snide remarks on logic with no evidence or logic of your own to back yourself up. You talk big, but in the end say nothing.

The rest of your argument is either speculation, personal opinion, or an unsupported assertion. Which don't even qualify as a meaningful rebuttal. So don't use them!

Its like I'm looking in a mirror here. Everything I've said has been based on what I think would be best, then I say why. I'm sure there could be flaws in my theories and opinions, but you sure as heck havn't come close to pointing any of them out. In fact, I'm convinced you don't even have a clue what I'm talking about, and probably you don't have to firm a grasp on the issues you're talking about either. Lemme guess, you are a google boy. If you want to continue this stick to the friggin issues and shut up about inane technique and word mincing.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here is to US imperlialism

Responce

Re: Responce

Point, Set, and Match

Re: Point, Set, and Match