Skip to comments.
The Clinton Bubble: Buying Binge Could Cost Corporate America $1T
USA Today
| April 4, 2002
| Thor Valdmanis, USA TODAY
Posted on 04/05/2002 4:59:57 AM PST by an amused spectator
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
Did the Clintonites buy the 1996 election by regulatorily "looking the other way" for campaign cash?
It's beginning to look like it.
To: an amused spectator
I'll bet this commentator is short the market.
2
posted on
04/05/2002 5:04:29 AM PST
by
JoeFromCA
To: an amused spectator
I expect this is large enough to make a significant difference in the government's budget as well, via much larger than normal tax deductions.
3
posted on
04/05/2002 5:05:32 AM PST
by
lepton
To: an amused spectator
No, No...you have to remember that this was the "largest peace time expansion of the economy." "It's the economy, stupid!". < /sarcasm>
Looks like stoopid was running the economy at that time. dot.com fantasyland. Fantasy? Kind of like the liberals opinion that Klintoon was a great president.
4
posted on
04/05/2002 5:13:39 AM PST
by
mattdono
To: an amused spectator
The first I've heard the phrase "Clinton Bubble", I like it, should see it in the history books soon hopefully.
5
posted on
04/05/2002 5:14:48 AM PST
by
tupac
To: JoeFromCA
David Tice want's you to be poor so he can be rich. This guy is the prototypical Don't Pass line pool pooper. The guy everyone loves to hate. He and Zogby ought to be performers in a pie in the face carnival booth.
6
posted on
04/05/2002 5:15:54 AM PST
by
kinghorse
To: an amused spectator
"We are going to get confirmation that hundreds of billions of dollars in shareholder capital has been wasted or destroyed," says David Tice, manager of the Prudent Bear fund, which makes bets that certain stocks will fall.A more accurate assessment would be that much of this "value" never really existed.
When someone invests $1,000 and within a year the stock goes to to $20,000 and then loses all its value, it is invariably reported as a loss of $20,000, as though $20,000 of value ever really existed. The actual "loss," of course is $1,000, plus a reasonable one year return on investment.
This is the type of loss many of the Enron employees suffered, and is is different only in degree from a Vegas gambler who starts with $500, is momentarily up to $50000 and then loses it all.
7
posted on
04/05/2002 5:20:30 AM PST
by
Restorer
To: tupac
"Irrational Exhuberance" is the Clinton Legacy for both the economy and his accomplishments.
To: Restorer
This also applies when one company with overpriced stock uses stock to buy another company whose stock is also overpriced. The next year they have to turn around and write off billions in 'goodwill' that never really existed--except on the stock exchange.
To: an amused spectator
This is the wrong story. Think about it.
One company exchanges some overpriced paper (stock) for another company's over priced paper. The economy slows down, the market goes down and the value of the paper goes down. At this point everyone is about even since the market value of both companies would have gone down had they not merged.
The best part is that the acquiring company is now required to take a large non-cash tax deduction. Uncle Sam's IRS takes it in the ear.
Imagine. You do a non-cash paper swap and get a real cash break with reduced tax payments.
What a country!
10
posted on
04/05/2002 5:35:04 AM PST
by
VA Voter
To: an amused spectator
I guess we need new laws to protect the Govt. from greed...just like they wanna do with the greedy Enron losers. How nice.
11
posted on
04/05/2002 5:36:51 AM PST
by
Puppage
To: Oldeconomybuyer
As I grow older, and have the time to do so, I will keep an eye on the textbooks in high school and college to relish the (hopefully) truth that will be printed there about clinton. That will be the legacy so well deserved.
12
posted on
04/05/2002 5:38:14 AM PST
by
tupac
To: an amused spectator
I dunno. We couldn't have picked a bigger loser than Bob Dole.
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Did
we pick Bob Dole, or was he picked for us? I read a snippet last week about Jonathan Alter basically lobbying for the nomination of Dole over the more dangerous Lamar Alexander and others in his
Newsweek column over the course of the 1996 campaign. How many other Clinton sock-puppets in the press did the same? ;-)
You do remember Alter's column about "The Big Dog" a week or two ago, wherein Jonathan declares his undying love for all things Bill, and informs us in no uncertain terms that his blue dress got burned immediately after the love encounter?
To: an amused spectator
Could you post a link to this story ?
15
posted on
04/05/2002 5:59:24 AM PST
by
quimby
To: an amused spectator
Other major media companies have announced they will follow suit, including Clear Channel, with a $15 billion to $25 billion write-down, and Vivendi Universal, with a $12.3 billion to $13.2 billion write-down. Isn't Vivendi the parent company to the publisher(s) who gave Bill 'n Hill the multi-million dollar book deals? Also, I recall Vivendi being involved with the TV stations who used "moral message" situations in TV shows to side-step the Public Service Message requirement. (At some point during the Clinton era, it was mandated that all stations had to broadcast Public Service messages -- anti-drug, anti-smoking, etc. The stations involved claimed they did not have to run the Public Service Announcements because their dramas depicted situations delivering the same message -- a charcter says, "Dope is bad for you" qualified as the Public Service Announcement.)
Or maybe I've been reading too much FR before the coffee is ready . . .
To: an amused spectator
Yeah, Alter's one sided. As far as Bob Dole, no one I know was ever consulted in the run up to the campaign.
To: tupac
"I will keep an eye on the textbooks in high school and college to relish the (hopefully) truth that will be printed there about clinton."They will never print the truth about clinton. Never.
18
posted on
04/05/2002 6:17:08 AM PST
by
Mike K
To: an amused spectator
Did we pick Bob Dole, or was he picked for us? He was picked for us by the checked pants Republicans who believed he should've been President because it was his turn. He in turn felt he deserved it, therefore it was in the bag.
To: Mike K
Revisionist history is very "in" right now.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-38 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson