Bush re-election bid to coincide with 9/11

[Joe]

Let me get this straight: if a guy robs convenience stores three times, he goes to jail for decades. But if a guy bilks people out of hundreds of millions of dollars, he gets to live out the rest of his life in freedom and luxury, and this is somehow a "more suitable punishment"?

Being in and out of court for the rest of your life is no fun. Especially American courts.

Oh, puh-lease. Given the choice between rotting in prison and living a relatively comfortable life of freedom punctuated with court appearances, which would you take?

I don't care how much suffering Mr. Lay goes through. His victims need to be compensated monetarily as much as possible, and letting him rot in jail will make that much more difficult.

[Darth Wong]

I don't care how much suffering Mr. Lay goes through. His victims need to be compensated monetarily as much as possible, and letting him rot in jail will make that much more difficult.

You figure he'll make billions of dollars to pay off his victims? What kind of fantasy-world have you embedded yourself in? He will live a comfortable life of freedom punctuated with occasional court appearances and declarations of bankruptcy, but he will never be poor because he has too many connections. His victims will get precisely dick. Justice, corporate-style.

[Joe]

I don't care how much suffering Mr. Lay goes through. His victims need to be compensated monetarily as much as possible, and letting him rot in jail will make that much more difficult.

You figure he'll make billions of dollars to pay off his victims? What kind of fantasy-world have you embedded yourself in? He will live a comfortable life of freedom punctuated with occasional court appearances and declarations of bankruptcy, but he will never be poor because he has too many connections. His victims will get precisely dick. Justice, corporate-style.

He can get started. At least with the lawsuits, there will be SOME compensation paid to the victims.

[Darth Wong]

He can get started. At least with the lawsuits, there will be SOME compensation paid to the victims.

Ah yes, because after his decades of swindling, he couldn't possibly be clever enough to avoid them, right? He wouldn't be clever enough to keep assets in the names of relatives, take payment from his employers in the form of a house and a company car and luxury perks rather than cash, never build up enough personal assets on paper to pay off any significant lawsuit, etc., right?

Face it; he is walking proof of injustice.

[Joe]

He can get started. At least with the lawsuits, there will be SOME compensation paid to the victims.

Ah yes, because after his decades of swindling, he couldn't possibly be clever enough to avoid them, right? He wouldn't be clever enough to keep assets in the names of relatives, take payment from his employers in the form of a house and a company car and luxury perks rather than cash, never build up enough personal assets on paper to pay off any significant lawsuit, etc., right?

Face it; he is walking proof of injustice.

I never said that he wasn't walking proof of injustice. I'm just saying that his victims are more likely to get compensation with him out of prison rather than in it.

[Darth Wong]

I never said that he wasn't walking proof of injustice. I'm just saying that his victims are more likely to get compensation with him out of prison rather than in it.

They won't get compensation either way. But if he went to prison, they might get some semblance of justice. As it is, they get precisely dick. And there is little deterrent to the next corporate ass-clown.

[Joe]

Of course Enron and Worldcom wilh have a deterring effect. Enron and Worldcom were a result of the very real irrational exuberance, as they call it, of the late 90's boom, and both businesses and individuals will learn from the mistakes of the past because of them. When it became clear that Enron and Worldcom were no good, investors turned away from them and their market value dwinded dramatically. Enron and Worldcom will make companies clean up their act.

I mean, a couple of years ago Enron was reporting a P/E ratio of five-hundred. Perhaps the collapse of Enron will teach people not to trust financial statements reporting those kinds of numbers.

[Darth Wong]

Of course Enron and Worldcom wilh have a deterring effect. Enron and Worldcom were a result of the very real irrational exuberance, as they call it, of the late 90's boom, and both businesses and individuals will learn from the mistakes of the past because of them. When it became clear that Enron and Worldcom were no good, investors turned away from them and their market value dwinded dramatically. Enron and Worldcom will make companies clean up their act.

Just enough to skirt the law, which is still not enough. The point is that white-collar crime has always been, and continues to be a crime which is not punishable by hard prison time. This has to change, or it will remain standing proof that American justice is bought and paid for.

[Crayz9000]

So what about the white-collar "criminals" who got jailed only because they broke the shoddy security of firm X? For example, J. Random Hacker...

[Joe]

Another way to prevent the kind of losses sustained by Enron employees would be to rewrite the income tax code to where employees didn't have so much of an incentive to put their earnings into a risky 401K scheme, but that will never happen.

BTW, I do agree that we need some laws making it more difficult for corporate miscreants to evade punishment (it is too easy for them to file for bankruptcy, for example).

[Darth Wong]

So what about the white-collar "criminals" who got jailed only because they broke the shoddy security of firm X? For example, J. Random Hacker...

Not rich enough to get Corporate American Justice(TM). They get Joe Blow American Justice(TM) instead, which costs a lot less but doesn't have all the features. J. Random CEO, on the other hand ...

[HemlockGrey]

Alas, Mike, this will never happen, unless a multimillionaire runs for President, because campaign money has to come from somewhere.

Of course, a multimillionaire will be protecting business anyway. How do you think he got his cash?

[Joe]

And for all you people who won't get off Bush, please note that Enron gave $100,000 dollars to the Democratic party (about $10,000 shy of the amount given to Bush during his Presidential campaign) after Bill Clinton secured a $3 billion project in India for Enron. Corruption knows no party lines.

[Ignorant twit]

Mike do you have any evidence that doesn't amount to a heap of circumstantial evidence? Anything that shows actual malefeasance?

Bush calls Argentina to help Kenneth lay ... yes the two were BUSINESS PARTNERS and friends before that.

Bush appoints Wood, and Wood makes decisions that help Enron. Could it possibly, possibly be that Wood (and the Bushes) have a CONSERVATIVE view on the actions they took are simply consistent with their economic/political philosophy?

Other alleged crimes:
appointing industry lobbyists to help is his transition team ... yeah like that hasn't happened before. Hell I view this as a good thing, an incoming president needs to be informed about the major corporations. Anyone representing said corporations will invariably end up being a lobbyist ... so why not just use the ones already there?

Bush appoints people to government positions who have experience with Enron. Given the size of federal government, and the number of people who have been through Enron, and the shared basic philosophy these conservatives have ... what exactly is the problem.

As far as your BS about white collar crime. What, you want to change the laws ex post facto on Lay? Anything Bush did after the scandal broke to change the modus operandi of the justice system that could be applied to Enron would have to be retroactive. Frankly Enron is going down just numerous other companies under the existing laws. Is there any gross disparity between how Enron, Authur Anderson, WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc. are handled?

Sure the laws may be crap. However changing them after the fact is not only a bad precedent, it would make a damn good case to just let the bastards walk (given the workings of the US judicial system).

Frankly I don't WANT the president to be the one who determines which laws need to be revamped, I'd much prefer congressional action on the matter.

And lastly the "victims" of Enron were often victims by their own design. The first rule of investment is ... if it sounds to good to be true ... it is. I have precious little pity for people who don't understand the concepts of diversification, risk/reward tradeoff, and betting on rising stock. People looked to get rich off of Enron, some people legitimately did. But with the pontential for great returns is the risk of excessively poor returns. If you invest in stocks and don't diversify, then stupidity is its own punishment.

[Joe]

And lastly the "victims" of Enron were often victims by their own design. The first rule of investment is ... if it sounds to good to be true ... it is. I have precious little pity for people who don't understand the concepts of diversification, risk/reward tradeoff, and betting on rising stock. People looked to get rich off of Enron, some people legitimately did. But with the pontential for great returns is the risk of excessively poor returns. If you invest in stocks and don't diversify, then stupidity is its own punishment.

Like I said, blame our wonderful income tax code. Diversification is discouraged, leading workers to invest in 401Ks over which they have limited control.

And I do believe that the losses being reported by Enron employees are vastly exaggerated. Enron didn't become a really big corporation until about five years ago; most employees couldn't have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into their 401ks because there are limits on how much one can contribute a year. Furthermore, the fact that the 401ks were worth so much is due to Enron's book-cooking. If you take a look at how much the pensions are worth now, I think you would find that the employees hadn't lost too much beyond their original investment.

[Darth Wong]

Mike do you have any evidence that doesn't amount to a heap of circumstantial evidence? Anything that shows actual malefeasance?

Kenneth Lay was quite clearly guilty of malfeasance, and GWB did not open the can o' whoop-ass that was required. What do you find difficult to understand about this?

Bush calls Argentina to help Kenneth lay ... yes the two were BUSINESS PARTNERS and friends before that.

Bush appoints Wood, and Wood makes decisions that help Enron. Could it possibly, possibly be that Wood (and the Bushes) have a CONSERVATIVE view on the actions they took are simply consistent with their economic/political philosophy?

You're missing the point, which is not to hold Bush guilty of malfeasance for being associated with Enron, but rather, to note that he did not react in a sufficiently vigorous manner and he just coincidentally happens to have had close ties to Enron for years.

Other alleged crimes:
appointing industry lobbyists to help is his transition team ... yeah like that hasn't happened before. Hell I view this as a good thing, an incoming president needs to be informed about the major corporations. Anyone representing said corporations will invariably end up being a lobbyist ... so why not just use the ones already there?

Bush appoints people to government positions who have experience with Enron. Given the size of federal government, and the number of people who have been through Enron, and the shared basic philosophy these conservatives have ... what exactly is the problem.

I guess you haven't heard the breaking news that concepts like "cronyism" and "conflict of interest" are actually considered bad things ...

As far as your BS about white collar crime. What, you want to change the laws ex post facto on Lay? Anything Bush did after the scandal broke to change the modus operandi of the justice system that could be applied to Enron would have to be retroactive. Frankly Enron is going down just numerous other companies under the existing laws. Is there any gross disparity between how Enron, Authur Anderson, WorldCom, Global Crossing, etc. are handled?

Ah yes, the "everybody does it" excuse. How pathetic. How does the ubiquitous nature of white-collar slaps on the wrist somehow make them just?

Sure the laws may be crap. However changing them after the fact is not only a bad precedent, it would make a damn good case to just let the bastards walk (given the workings of the US judicial system).

Bullshit. We're not talking about changing laws; we're talking about stiffening penalties. There is a lot of precedent for the notion that you can't make a legal action illegal after the fact, but why the fuck are the penalties for white-collar crime so feeble, hmm? Perhaps it's because the judiciary and the politicians refuse to send their ilk to do hard time? Because they play on the same fucking golf courses?

Frankly I don't WANT the president to be the one who determines which laws need to be revamped, I'd much prefer congressional action on the matter.

Ah yes, pass the hot potato. As long as nothing gets done, right?

And lastly the "victims" of Enron were often victims by their own design. The first rule of investment is ... if it sounds to good to be true ... it is.

And the second rule of investment is apparently that if you defraud people, you should go to jail, unless you defraud people for hundreds of millions of dollars instead of just a few thousand.

I have precious little pity for people who don't understand the concepts of diversification, risk/reward tradeoff, and betting on rising stock. People looked to get rich off of Enron, some people legitimately did. But with the pontential for great returns is the risk of excessively poor returns. If you invest in stocks and don't diversify, then stupidity is its own punishment.

The "blame the victim" tactic, eh? Sorry, but that's exactly like the argument that a drunk driver isn't really at fault for the victim's injuries if the victim wasn't wearing his seatbelt. While the victim could have and should have taken greater precautions, his or her lack of disgression hardly exonerates the perp.

[Ignorant twit]

Kenneth Lay was quite clearly guilty of malfeasance, and GWB did not open the can o' whoop-ass that was required. What do you find difficult to understand about this?

The part where Bush could meet the burden of proof to make the charges stick. To "open the can o' whoop-ass" would basically require to DoJ to prove what Ken Lay knew, when he knew it, and that he had malicious intent. What Ken Lay officially did was make inaccurate statements and sold stock at a suspsicious time. You'd have to prove that he wasn't just in error, used insider information and didn't sell for another reason, and willfully lied. OJ was guilty, that doesn't make the charges stick.

You're missing the point, which is not to hold Bush guilty of malfeasance for being associated with Enron, but rather, to note that he did not react in a sufficiently vigorous manner and he just coincidentally happens to have had close ties to Enron for years.

I see, and what would be sufficiently vigorious?

I guess you haven't heard the breaking news that concepts like "cronyism" and "conflict of interest" are actually considered bad things ...

I see and if you want some to ADVISE you about the industry from the INSIDE who WOULDN'T have a conflict of interest? The only people who have any other credentials to deal with economics at this scale all hail from ivory towers. What is so hideously wrong with having people from industry advise you?

Cronyism only occurs if you do it without regard to their qualifications. OR do you think running a major corporation doesn't count as qualification?

Ah yes, the "everybody does it" excuse. How pathetic. How does the ubiquitous nature of white-collar slaps on the wrist somehow make them just?

No but it isn't the job of the president to make the penalty fit the crime. Much hay has been made over not nailing Enron. Why do I hear nothing about the other companies, less well connected to Bush not being nailed either? If Bush is paying back political favors why are ALL these cases going down in the same manner?

Oh let me guess, Bush is in cahoots with ALL major businesses

Bullshit. We're not talking about changing laws; we're talking about stiffening penalties. There is a lot of precedent for the notion that you can't make a legal action illegal after the fact, but why the fuck are the penalties for white-collar crime so feeble, hmm? Perhaps it's because the judiciary and the politicians refuse to send their ilk to do hard time? Because they play on the same fucking golf courses?

I see. According to my civics book, "any law which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law."

I could be wrong about the precedent, but I think changing the punishment after the fact gets the case tossed on appeal. In any event I don't think changing the penalities after the fact should be done, as a matter of principle, except for the most HENIOUS acts.

Ah yes, pass the hot potato. As long as nothing gets done, right?

Strawman. I beleive in seperation of powers. In my view this is the job of the congress. The President should only have the power to stiffen penalties ex post facto in the most EXTREME of circustances.

And the second rule of investment is apparently that if you defraud people, you should go to jail, unless you defraud people for hundreds of millions of dollars instead of just a few thousand.

If you get caught with sufficient evidence you go to jail. If you were a CEO and didn't take the actions yourself and have only a circumstantial case, abeit a strong circumstantial case, you probably won't get off. It is pretty damn hard to sack Ken Lay personally with anything that will stand against appeal. Civil court, is of course a different burden of proof.

The "blame the victim" tactic, eh? Sorry, but that's exactly like the argument that a drunk driver isn't really at fault for the victim's injuries if the victim wasn't wearing his seatbelt. While the victim could have and should have taken greater precautions, his or her lack of disgression hardly exonerates the perp.

I see so if the brake lights on your car burn out, you disdain to replace them, and when you make a sudden stop on the freeway ... you are responsible for taking care of the dumb guys behind you who didn't have their seltbelts on and went flying through the windsheild. Indeed you should be brought up on negligent homicide because you didn't change your tail lights. Right?

Sorry I don't buy it. People should pay part of the cost of their own stupidity. Perhaps not all, but they should bear at least SOME of the burden.

[Edi]

I guess you haven't heard the breaking news that concepts like "cronyism" and "conflict of interest" are actually considered bad things ...

I see and if you want some to ADVISE you about the industry from the INSIDE who WOULDN'T have a conflict of interest? The only people who have any other credentials to deal with economics at this scale all hail from ivory towers. What is so hideously wrong with having people from industry advise you?

Cronyism only occurs if you do it without regard to their qualifications. OR do you think running a major corporation doesn't count as qualification?

You'd be fucking incompetent if you couldn't find people who have a good understanding of how a given segment of the business world works and who don't have massive conflicts of interest. Your problem is that you look exclusively at the highest top level for the people, where they inevitably do have those conflicts of interest, when you would do just as well if not better by looking a little lower and placing more emphasis on their actual factual expertise and less on their connections. But apparently US laws on conflicts of interest either do not exist or are so laughable they might as well not. You really are living up to your chosen handle.

Ah yes, the "everybody does it" excuse. How pathetic. How does the ubiquitous nature of white-collar slaps on the wrist somehow make them just?

No but it isn't the job of the president to make the penalty fit the crime. Much hay has been made over not nailing Enron. Why do I hear nothing about the other companies, less well connected to Bush not being nailed either? If Bush is paying back political favors why are ALL these cases going down in the same manner?

Oh let me guess, Bush is in cahoots with ALL major businesses

Not necessarily, though that possibility isn't all that farfetched, given the influence said major businesses have on politics (on both sides, at that).

What DW means that there is a huge fucking SYSTEMIC problem in how white collar crime is being treated. What part of this is so difficult to understand? Oh, I forgot, you're an ignorant twit.

Bullshit. We're not talking about changing laws; we're talking about stiffening penalties. There is a lot of precedent for the notion that you can't make a legal action illegal after the fact, but why the fuck are the penalties for white-collar crime so feeble, hmm? Perhaps it's because the judiciary and the politicians refuse to send their ilk to do hard time? Because they play on the same fucking golf courses?

I see. According to my civics book, "any law which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law."

Yes, this is not in dispute. It is also not being argued. You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems.

I could be wrong about the precedent, but I think changing the punishment after the fact gets the case tossed on appeal. In any event I don't think changing the penalities after the fact should be done, as a matter of principle, except for the most HENIOUS acts.

Changing the penalties after the fact is not acceptable under any circumstances unless you want to toss important first principles of law out the window. And again, this is not being argued!

What DW is saying here is that the laws governing white collar crime should be revamped and the penalties incurred by such crime be drastically increased to be proportionate to the harm they inflict (maybe by taking the drug war penalties and scaling them, hmm?) for the future. That way even if the current crop of crooks get off the hook relatively lightly, future offenders will get nailed good and hard and there might actually be some justice. I caught this message the first time I saw it in his posts, so what the fuck is it with the reading comprehension problems the rest of you idiots have?

Ah yes, pass the hot potato. As long as nothing gets done, right?

Strawman. I beleive in seperation of powers. In my view this is the job of the congress. The President should only have the power to stiffen penalties ex post facto in the most EXTREME of circustances.

Oh, yes, ignore those first principles again.
Yes, separation of powers is important, but it does not mean that the president can't make it known to the lawmakers that he wants those white collar crime laws revamped and penalties stiffened post-haste, something that Bush decidedly implied in his speech and which he subsequently failed to do. You are astonishingly adept at evading the point. Your handle suits you really well.

And the second rule of investment is apparently that if you defraud people, you should go to jail, unless you defraud people for hundreds of millions of dollars instead of just a few thousand.

If you get caught with sufficient evidence you go to jail. If you were a CEO and didn't take the actions yourself and have only a circumstantial case, abeit a strong circumstantial case, you probably won't get off. It is pretty damn hard to sack Ken Lay personally with anything that will stand against appeal. Civil court, is of course a different burden of proof.

Maybe this wouldn't actually be the case if you had workable laws? If Enron had happened here the way it did in the US, Ken Lay would be in prison for a long time.

The "blame the victim" tactic, eh? Sorry, but that's exactly like the argument that a drunk driver isn't really at fault for the victim's injuries if the victim wasn't wearing his seatbelt. While the victim could have and should have taken greater precautions, his or her lack of disgression hardly exonerates the perp.

I see so if the brake lights on your car burn out, you disdain to replace them, and when you make a sudden stop on the freeway ... you are responsible for taking care of the dumb guys behind you who didn't have their seltbelts on and went flying through the windsheild. Indeed you should be brought up on negligent homicide because you didn't change your tail lights. Right?

In essence, yes. Do you have any fucking idea of what a causal relationship is? Intentionally neglecting replacement of the broken brake lights is a direct contributor to the collision and moreover a factor that increases the severity of the damage caused in case the crash was unavoidable (instead of hitting the brakes and just bending a couple of fenders, a full on crash), then yes, you fucking well are for a very large part directly responsible because the other guy did not know and could not be expected to know that you are braking. Your intentional negligence is responsible for the accident, therefore you are. If you're studying law, remind me never to hire you as my counselor, you ignorant moron!

Sorry I don't buy it. People should pay part of the cost of their own stupidity. Perhaps not all, but they should bear at least SOME of the burden.

Yes, the guys who didn't wear seatbelts will have to pay for their mistakes (assuming they survive) in proportion to their own responsibility for the accident, i.e. they could hardly claim full cost of medical treatment because they contributed to the severity of their own injuries by refusing to wear seatbelts, but they will get a damn sight more than just some nominal sum because your negligence was intentional and malicious and therefore YOU are responsible. Concession accepted, idiot!

Edi

[Ignorant twit]

You'd be fucking incompetent if you couldn't find people who have a good understanding of how a given segment of the business world works and who don't have massive conflicts of interest. Your problem is that you look exclusively at the highest top level for the people, where they inevitably do have those conflicts of interest, when you would do just as well if not better by looking a little lower and placing more emphasis on their actual factual expertise and less on their connections. But apparently US laws on conflicts of interest either do not exist or are so laughable they might as well not. You really are living up to your chosen handle.

Oh come now Washington wants people who have strategic level decision making experience. Guys who were in charge, not guys who carried out orders. Look over most of any country's economics advisors they are either former decisions makers or they hail from the ivory tower.

The fact of the matter is the people in the upper teir of business tend to get there, and stay there, because they happen to be good at what they do. Exceptions abound, but there is nothing wrong with a CEO advising the government. There is nothing wrong with appointing former CEO's to regulator positions.

It has been this way since the days the of Hamilton, can you actually a president who DIDN'T have advisors/apointees from industry? Are ALL of them corrupt?

Not necessarily, though that possibility isn't all that farfetched, given the influence said major businesses have on politics (on both sides, at that).

What DW means that there is a huge fucking SYSTEMIC problem in how white collar crime is being treated. What part of this is so difficult to understand? Oh, I forgot, you're an ignorant twit.

Okay let's grant that this is a systematic problem, why exactly does this fall on Bush's plate? Does he try the cases? Does he set the statutes? My point is that if anyone has dropped the ball here it is Congress, this CLEARLY is their job to fix.

Yes, this is not in dispute. It is also not being argued. You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems.

Stiffening penalties, changing the burden of proof ... which is what it would take to open that can o' whoop-ass on Lay, would be ex post facto. This isn't a new problem, if any Bush is responsible for these guys not getting nailed, it would be GHWB. The rules were in place, they seemed to be working, and then this broke. If you only care about future rememedy ... don't bitch and moan if Enron get's off on the rules already on the books.

Yes, separation of powers is important, but it does not mean that the president can't make it known to the lawmakers that he wants those white collar crime laws revamped and penalties stiffened post-haste, something that Bush decidedly implied in his speech and which he subsequently failed to do. You are astonishingly adept at evading the point. Your handle suits you really well.

I see so you know for a fact that Bush has never made this case privately? That every "implication" in his speeches were not doing this and then ignored by Congress?

Basically your entire gripe is he hasn't made a damn speech?

Maybe this wouldn't actually be the case if you had workable laws? If Enron had happened here the way it did in the US, Ken Lay would be in prison for a long time.

Of course but the fact that we don't have workable laws doesn't come from the president. It comes from the fact that the majority of our congressmen are lawyers, and any serious reform gets hammered by skittish conservative business interests and liberal legal interests.

In essence, yes. Do you have any fucking idea of what a causal relationship is? Intentionally neglecting replacement of the broken brake lights is a direct contributor to the collision and moreover a factor that increases the severity of the damage caused in case the crash was unavoidable (instead of hitting the brakes and just bending a couple of fenders, a full on crash), then yes, you fucking well are for a very large part directly responsible because the other guy did not know and could not be expected to know that you are braking. Your intentional negligence is responsible for the accident, therefore you are. If you're studying law, remind me never to hire you as my counselor, you ignorant moron!

Casualty can be multifaceted. The fact that an action you took is part of the casual chain does not make you liable for every act that occurs after that. You are PARTIALLY to blame, ergo you are PARTIALLY responsible. In this case the victims are partially to blame, they should be partially responsible.

Serving decades in jail time for what is a fix-it ticket in other circumstances does not make any sane sense to me.

Yes, the guys who didn't wear seatbelts will have to pay for their mistakes (assuming they survive) in proportion to their own responsibility for the accident, i.e. they could hardly claim full cost of medical treatment because they contributed to the severity of their own injuries by refusing to wear seatbelts, but they will get a damn sight more than just some nominal sum because your negligence was intentional and malicious and therefore YOU are responsible. Concession accepted, idiot!

I never said otherwise jackass. I simply have very little pity for a bunch of people looking to get rich easy and then complaining when it failed. I'd be more inclined to listen to their case with a sympathetic ear if they started reporting their losses by how much they invested ... not how much they lost from Enron's peak stock price.

[Joe]

I never said otherwise jackass. I simply have very little pity for a bunch of people looking to get rich easy and then complaining when it failed. I'd be more inclined to listen to their case with a sympathetic ear if they started reporting their losses by how much they invested ... not how much they lost from Enron's peak stock price.

Here's some information on this (taken from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/kondaks1.html)

It's a mathematical exercise: up to year 2001, the maximum that an employee was allowed to contribute to a 401(k) program was $10,500 per year. When you consider that Enron has only been in business 10 or 15 years (and only became a very large company with many employees only 4 or 5 years ago), it is mathematically impossible for anyone to have actually contributed any significant amount of money into their plans. So when we see an Enron employee interviewed on the 6 o'clock news, as I did recently, and he tells us that his 401(k) program was worth $1.5 million last summer and now it is worth $25,000, I would suggest to you that that particular employee didn't, and mathematically couldn't have, contributed much more than that into the plan in the first place!

[Coyote]

And before anyone mentions Enron or Global Crossing, the corruption of these companies did not start in the few months Bush had been in office...

Oh, puh-lease. George W. Bush and his family and their associated oil businesses have been intimately connected with Enron for nearly 20 years. Why do you think Kenneth Lay had his own office in Washington DC as part of George Bush's advisory staff?...

I didn't state that GWB had no connection to them, my point, which you actually backed up, was the Enron and Global Crossing had been corrupt before Bush took the office of the Presidency. GWB becoming President did not trigger the economic slowdown; it was happening before he took office.

GWB has been involved with those companies and gotten advantages from them, true. But he is not the sole reason they failed-- unless you count the fact the he did not bail them out, even though there is precedent in recent US history for the gov't to bailout failing US companies on the pretext that the overall economy (as well as lots of jobs) depends on them so much they cannot be allowed to fail.

My point here is not that GWB is a heroic figure, only that his share of the blame has been greatly exaggerated for political purposes (but then, that's politics as normal, too...).

[Coyote]

And yes, reading the rest of the thread, the fatcat white collar criminals like Kenneth Lay do need to suffer for their crimes; while Bush did not cause their failure or the economic troubles he also has not done enough to go after these guys-- if at least to hoist them up as bad examples. In that, the current administration has failed.