Posted on 08/07/2005 12:37:45 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Edited on 08/07/2005 9:27:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute at least $1 million each to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups, to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up during the last three decades.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Let's let them think so!
Hillary will be a handful of nails pounded into the top of that box.
Could it be, they don't want Hillary and are getting an advance team together to find another candidate?
Can't figure out that ideas are also needed!
Well, everything else has failed. Heh heh heh...
One nice thing about that $80 million. It's toast. It will be wasted, the project won't work and demcrats won't have access to it after they've squandered it.
You just made me spill my coffee!!
Send them a bill for that info!
LOL
Just another dimocRATic "financial clearing house". Isn't the market already flooded with those freakin things.
I don't know.
Several Clintonists listed.
Air America II
A ______ and his _______ are soon ________.
The left constantly whines and complains that there's never enough money spent on social programs, yet they always find money to spend on pushing politics.
On a side note, one of the more amusing DU threads I saw a while back started out with the question, "What would you do if you got a hundred million dollars?" The posts were well into the double digits before anyone thought of donating to help other people, which they pretend is their shtick. Most were all schemes that they thought would take back the White House.
Yes.
See post #27.
I guess they're just swirling in that Hillary bowl along with the rest of them.
Of course.
To them, the universe is out of wack if a LIBERAL isn't running the show.
They could just fund that fake Indian freak in Colorado; let him have freedom to bombastically teach "what it takes to win."
There is a perfectly easy way out, but it requires that some democrat of stature stand up to the special interests.
If I were advising Hillary, I'd tell her to come out in favor of voluntary private investment accounts in Social Security coupled with a guarantee that everyone would get at least as much as Social Security promises. Eliminate the downside risk. Maybe throw in a sweetener for low income folks in the form of an additional federal payment, to be phased out as income rises. Then she should have a Sister Souljah moment with the NEA and come out for school choice.
Hillary could do these things and still get the nomination. She would be the next President. Other democrats could and should do them. Their route to the nomination would be tougher, but they could still break the Party out of its rut.
IOW, all it would take for the 'rats to get healthy is to come unstuck on a couple of big issues. Sooner or later they will, first and foremost because they want to win elections.
The current Democratic Party ISN'T about doing what is right, it's about getting power back and running our lives, the way they see fit.
If Hillary says anything else, she's a liar. But then we already know she's a liar.
Hillary Clinton and the Radical Left - Hillary Clinton and the Third Way***.......If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints. ...........***
New York Islanders owners Steven Gluckstern and Howard Milstein, embroiled in similar battle with SMG over their lease at Nassau Coliseum, are reportedly considering filing Chapter 7 and liquidating their interest in the team, in which case the franchise could end up being run by the league. Both sets of owners are ultimately seeking new publicly funded arenas.
******
How did AIG use insurance contracts to sell accounting fraud?
Steven Gluckstern and Michael Palm figured out how to minimize insurers' risk and give customers an accounting edge and a tax break: Multiyear contracts in which the premiums covered most if not all of the potential losses -- but refunded much of the unclaimed money at the end of the contract. Buyers loved the policies because they could offset losses with loan-like proceeds without disclosing liabilities that would muddy their bottom lines. And the premiums were tax deductible. Such policies became among the industry's hottest products. Now, two decades later, they are the focus of multiple state and federal investigations into companies suspected of using them to manipulate earnings. And this week, those probes helped topple Mr. Greenberg as chief executive, although he will remain chairman. His company sold one policy later declared a sham by federal authorities and itself bought another -- now the focus of intense scrutiny -- from Berkshire Hathaway Inc., where Messrs. Gluckstern and Palm got their start. "If used improperly, these contracts can enable a company to conceal the bottom-line impact of a loss and thus misrepresent its financial results," says the Securities and Exchange Commission's Mark Schonfeld, who is overseeing the agency's probe of such policies as the head of its Northeast office.
March 5, 1999
Capital Z is run by partner Steven Gluckstern, the CEO of Zurich Reinsurance (North America), Inc., the principal underwriting affiliate of the Zurich Group in the North American market for property and casualty reinsurance. Gluckstern also made recent headlines locally by acquiring the troubled New York Islanders hockey franchise
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.