Replies

More questions!

From johnthebaptistmoore:

"To this day, the U.S. is still the closest to being the only fully capitalistic country in the entire world, and we, as an entire country, still need to improve upon this as much as we truly can. We are alone in being a capitalistic country. Everybody else in the entire world who comes the closest to being fully capitalistic countries are still very socialistic countries today. If more countries are truly just like the U.S., then the calibur of anti-Americanism that still exists throughout the world would probably decrease! How can the U.S. succeed in fully promoting "full capitalism" to the rest of the world and not just only fully promoting democracy to the rest of the world from now on?"

And from pray4liberty:

"Is Duncan Hunter that tough-guy candidate who will tell the intelligentsia to shut up and not apologize for it? Will he tell the uncompromising truth and let the chips fall where they may? Could he care less about causing controversy, will he have the balls to take those bullies head-on and beat them?"

I made some comments and asked some questions in post #69. If you have time to look at them, that would be great, but I know that you'll be overwhelmed with all of the things that people are asking. In that post, I said that I'd hit a few issues in later posts, and I want to hit one of those issues now.

Some of Congressman Hunter's critics here on Free Republic make an issue of his voting for Sarbanes-Oxley. I haven't heard anyone explain their reasons for this criticism in detail, but I can make a couple of guesses. As I read it, Sarbanes-Oxley is going to cost businesses more to operate in the United States. Businesses already spend millions of dollars trying to comply with various federal laws. Audits are expensive, and Sarbanes-Oxley appears to create more audits or audit-like reviews and more regulations to follow and paperwork to file to show compliance. If we make operating a business in the United States more expensive, we create another incentive for that business to pick up and move overseas. I realize that there was tremendous pressure at that time for legislation that would stop another Enron/WorldCom debacle, but creating a more hostile business climate is risky for the country. What about Sarbanes-Oxley justified putting this extra expense on the companies that operate in this country?

Bill