Posted on 05/11/2002 4:12:10 AM PDT by snopercod
Uh huh. Companies went bankrupt. It happens. Still waiting to hear what this has to do with "corruption of the right".
In addition to the FERC obstruction of CA looking into manipulations of the power market, there is the unresolved issue of the Energy Task Force under Cheney.
In English, please? What did "the right" do, and why was it "corrupt"? Can you state this by yourself in one sentence, without linking to some Google search? Sheesh. It's a simple question.
You're taking a very big shortcut in your argument. Your argument consists of bits and pieces of information: CA power crisis, some kind of FERC investigation, two companies "went down".
But what's the corruption?
You remind me of Clinton defenders, who quibbled about what was "legal" in putting forth a defense of what was illegal.
The difference is that Clinton defenders were rebutting people who were actually making substantive charges of some kind. I still don't even know what it is you think that Bush (?) did that was so "corrupt". Aren't you capable of telling me?
I don't give a damn what you say, where there is stink there is sh_t, you know the old saying "I smell sh_t!"
Excellent argumentation. Bravo, I concede!
Make a point of some kind, please, or be silent. I don't have time to deal with childish cartoonish one-liners strung together as if doing so constitutes rational argument.
The answers to your questions:
1. I have no idea where the Vice President of the United States "has been lately". Who cares?
2. I don't know "why" he is "lying low" nor do I even think that's the case, except in the shallow minds of people with a very cartoonish view of politics.
So anyway, what's your point? Do you have one?
Grow up, please. Goodbye.
The reason why corporations incorporate offshore is not to "hide" things, it's because of taxes.
There is an article in today's IBD reporting that Stanley Toolworks is incorporating in Bermuda [same as Enron], because doing so will save them $30 million per year in taxes.
The democRATS are in a rage that "during this time of war, Stanley has chosen profit over patriotism"
IBD asked if they should stay so they could be "taxed at punitive rates so that [the Democrats] can hand out costly favors to their voters."
I may post the full editorial if I feel like keying it in...
The answer to a democrat is obviously, yes they should stay and pay punitive taxes!
Let's look at California, do the Democrats think that with high power rates, and likely higher taxes that Boeing isn't going to shift some production out of California to a state that provides a more favorable business climate. Boeing told the state of Washington to change. The democrats in charge of politics in Washington state told Boeing to shove it. Boeing is now headquartered in Chicago rather than in Seattle where it had been since its birth.
In explaining the move, Boeing stressed its obligations to its stockholders.
Yep, Stanley tools will incorporate whereever they need to.
In most cases, yes, that's true. (I agree that companies are outrageously taxed.) But in Enron's case, they used offshore accounts to hide the true nature of the company's financial status, to massage the bottom line. Sherryl Watkins
blew the whistle. It was time for show and tell - to answer questions. The Enron game was over.
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.