Actinanass , Is This Your Idea of Good Conservatism?

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
I guess spending more money is okay if ideolgy is pure.

source: Star-Telegram

Texas electricity rates skyrocketed after dereg
By Dave Montgomerydmontogomery@star-telegram

AUSTIN – Electricity rates in Texas have soared well above the national average under a 10-year-old deregulation law, according to a study by a coalition of cities.

"As this report illustrates, consumers have paid too much for too long under deregulation," said Jay Doegey, chairman of the Cities Aggregation Power Project, a non-profit coalition of 103 municipalities.

An industry group immediately challenged the findings, saying the report was based on "flawed reasoning" that resulted in erroneous conclusions.

"The simple fact is that in most parts of the state, there are lower competitive prices today than when prices were regulated," said the Association of Electric Companies of Texas. "The Texas competitive market is working, even if CAPP thinks otherwise."

The conflicting viewpoints point to a contentious battle in the 2009 Legislature over electricity rates. Several lawmakers say they plan to pursue legislation to protect consumers from rising costs on a number of fronts, including insurance and utility rates.

The CAPP report examined the impact of Senate Bill 7, which was passed by the Legislature in 1999 in what its sponsors said was an attempt to rein in rising electricity rates.

DAVE MONTGOMERY, 512-476-4294
 
Did you look at how MY state's housing market though?

To answer you question, every side has its bad side. I'm not naive to that notion. However, you are.....
 
And remember...
I bet Ken Lay is livin' it up Paraguay right about now! Good ol' Texas deregualtion.


source: CBC News

INDEPTH: ENRON
From collapse to convictions: a timeline

CBC News Online | Updated October 23, 2006

Enron began in 1985, when it started operations as an interstate pipeline company created from the merger of Houston Natural Gas and Omaha-based InterNorth. Kenneth Lay, the former chief executive officer of Houston Natural Gas, became CEO. A year later he was named chairman.

By 1999, the company had moved into new fields, including Enron Online, the company's website for trading commodities. It soon became the largest business site in the world. About 90 per cent of Enron's income eventually came from trades over Enron Online.

The company enjoyed spectacular growth with annual revenue hitting $100 billion US in 2000, making it the seventh-largest company on the Fortune 500 and the sixth-largest energy company in the world. The company's stock price peaked at $90 US.

But by 2001, cracks began to appear. In August Jeffrey Skilling, a driving force in Enron's revamp and the company's CEO of six months, announced his departure, and Lay resumed the post of CEO. In October 2001, Enron reported a loss of $618 million - its first quarterly loss in four years.

Chief financial officer Andrew Fastow was replaced, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation into investment partnerships led by Fastow. That investigation would later show that a complex web of partnerships was designed to hide Enron's debt. By late November, the company's stock was down to less than $1 US. Investors had lost billions.

On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for bankruptcy protection in the biggest case of bankruptcy in the United States up to that point. (WorldCom's collapse would later steal that dubious honour.) Roughly 5,600 Enron employees subsequently lost their jobs.

The next month, the U.S. Justice Department opened its investigation of the company's dealings, and Ken Lay quit as chairman and CEO. Hundreds of charges would eventually be laid - and 19 former executives would either plead guilty or be convicted for their part in what would become known as one of the biggest frauds in American history.

Founder Ken Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling were both convicted in May. But Lay died two months later, escaping what would surely have been a lengthy jail sentence. Skilling, on the other hand, was given more than 24 years. Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer, was given a relatively light sentence of six years after he cooperated with prosecutors.

TIMELINE:

Oct. 23, 2006:Former Enron chief executive officer Jeffrey Skilling is sentenced to 24 years, four months in jail for his role in the collapse.
» CBC STORY:Enron's Skilling jailed for years

Oct. 17, 2006: A U.S. judge throws out the criminal convictions of Kenneth Lay because he died before he could appeal his case.
» CBC STORY: :Judge vacates criminal convictions of Enron's Ken Lay

Sept. 26, 2006: Andrew Fastow, Enron's former chief financial officer, is sentenced to six years in prison. He could have been given up to 10 years, but the judge notes his guilty plea and his co-operation with authorities, saying "These factors call for mercy."
» CBC STORY: Ex-Enron executive Fastow gets 6-year sentence

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">July 5, 2006: Ken Lay, 64, dies of a heart attack at a family home in Aspen, Colo. </SPAN>(yea, right!)
» CBC STORY: Disgraced Enron founder Lay dead

May 25, 2006: In the sixth day of deliberations, a jury finds Enron founder Kenneth Lay guilty of all six counts against him, including conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. As well, former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling is convicted of one count of conspiracy, 17 counts of fraud and making false statements and one count of insider trading.

Lay and Skilling had blamed the collapse of what was once the seventh-largest company in the United States on bad publicity and lost market confidence. Prosecutors had a different theory: they accused the two men of repeatedly lying to investors and employees about Enron's financial health and of running an elaborate fraud that gave the company the illusion of success as it was hurtling toward bankruptcy.

Both men face lengthy prison sentences – but are expected to appeal. A total of 19 former Enron executives have either pleaded guilty or been convicted for their part in the company's failure.
» CBC STORY: Enron's Lay found guilty on all counts, Skilling on 19

April 10, 2006: Former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling testifies in his own defence on 28 charges relating to the company's bankruptcy, telling a Houston court that he is "absolutely innocent" and he would "fight these charges until the day I die."
» CBC STORY: 'Absolutely innocent,' ex-CEO tells Enron trial

March 28, 2006: The prosecution rests in the trial of Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay and former chief executive officer Jeffrey Skilling. Three charges against Skilling and one charge against Lay are dropped after the prosecution doesn't present evidence to support them. Skilling still faces 28 counts of conspiracy, fraud and insider trading. Lay faces six counts of conspiracy and fraud.
» CBC STORY: Prosecution rests in Enron trial as some charges dropped against Skilling, Lay

Jan. 30, 2006: Jury selection in the trial of Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay and former CEO Jeffrey Skilling begins in Houston. The trial is expected to last about four months.
» CBC STORY: Jury selection underway for trial of former Enron bosses

Dec. 28, 2005: Richard Causey, former chief accountant at Enron Corp., pleads guilty to a single count of securities fraud as part of a deal with prosecutors. Causey originally pleaded not guilty to 34 counts in early 2004. The other charges were dropped, and Causey will be sentenced to seven years in prison.
» CBC STORY: Enron exec pleads guilty to securities fraud

July 15, 2005: Enron agrees to a $1.5-billion US settlement to end claims that it manipulated the electricity market during the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.
» CBC STORY: Enron settles California price-gouging claim

July 15, 2005:Enron agrees to a $1.5 billion US settlement to end claims that it manipulated the electricity market during the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.

May 31, 2005:The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturns the 2002 conviction of Arthur Andersen for destroying documents in the Enron case. The decision says instructions to the jury were too broad.
» CBC STORY: Arthur Andersen's Enron conviction overturned

July 15, 2004: A New York judge gives his approval for Enron's plan to emerge from bankruptcy protection, which will see the company pay $12 billion US of the $63 billion US it owes to about 20,000 creditors.
» CBC STORY: Enron approved to emerge from bankruptcy protection

July 7, 2004: Former Enron founder and CEO Kenneth Lay turns himself in to the Houston office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He is led in handcuffs to a courthouse, where he is charged with 11 criminal charges, including securities and wire fraud, and making false statements. He pleads not guilty to all of them. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also files civil charges of insider trading against Lay.
» CBC STORY: Enron's Kenneth Lay pleads not guilty on 11 counts

May 6, 2004: Lea Fastow, Enron's former assistant treasurer and wife of former CFO Andrew Fastow, agrees to a plea agreement and a one-year prison term. She pleads guilty to filing false tax forms.
» CBC STORY: Lea Fastow pleads guilty to tax charge, gets 12-month sentence

Feb. 19, 2004: Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling pleads not guilty to 40 federal charges, from insider trading to making false statements to auditors. He posts a $5-million bond.
» CBC STORY: Former Enron chief faces 40 federal charges

Jan. 14, 2004: Former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow agrees to a plea agreement and a 10-year prison sentence. He pleads guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He also agrees to co-operate with federal prosecutors. His wife, Lea Fastow, also pleads guilty, but would later withdraw the plea.
» CBC STORY: Andrew Fastow agrees to plea deal; will cooperate in Enron case

Sept. 10, 2003: Ben Glisan, a former Enron treasurer, pleads guilty to a charge of conspiracy. He is sentenced to five years in prison, making him the first former Enron executive to go to jail.
» CBC STORY: First Enron executive goes to prison

July 11, 2003: Enron unveils a bankruptcy restructuring plan that would see most of Enron's 20,000 creditors receive about 20 per cent of the $63 billion US they are owed.
» CBC STORY: Enron unveils restructuring plan

May 1, 2003: Lea Fastow, Enron's former assistant treasurer and wife of former CFO Andrew Fastow, is charged with conspiracy and filing false tax forms for her role in some of her husband's deals to hide Enron's debt.

Oct. 16, 2002: Accountancy firm Arthur Andersen is given the maximum sentence for obstruction of justice after shredding Enron documents: five years' probation and a $500,000 fine.
» CBC STORY: Arthur Andersen fined, given probation over Enron scandal

Oct. 2, 2002: Former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow is arrested on charges of fraud and money laundering. He would eventually face 98 charges.
» CBC STORY: Former Enron CFO charged with fraud, money laundering

Aug. 21, 2002: Former Enron executive Michael Kopper pleads guilty to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He becomes the first former Enron executive to plead guilty to criminal charges. Kopper agrees to co-operate with federal investigators.
» CBC STORY: Michael Kopper becomes first ex-Enron exec to plead guilty

March 14, 2002: Arthur Andersen is charged with obstruction of justice for destroying paper and computer documents related to Enron as the SEC investigation started.
» CBC STORY: Arthur Andersen charged with obstruction in Enron case

Feb. 12, 2002: Former CEO Lay declines to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
» CBC STORY: Enron's Lay refuses to testify

Feb. 7, 2002: Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling denies any knowledge of financial or accounting irregularities. At the same hearing before Congress, four Enron executives, including former CFO Andrew Fastow, invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and decline to testify.
» CBC STORY: Former Enron CEO says was 'not aware' of financial irregularities

Feb. 5, 2002: The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee subpoenas former Enron CEO Ken Lay.
» CBC STORY: U.S. Senators subpoena Enron's Lay

Feb. 4, 2002: Ken Lay resigns from Enron's board of directors.
» CBC STORY: Lay resigns from Enron board ahead of subpoena

Jan. 25, 2002: John Clifford Baxter, former Enron vice-president, is found dead in his car. He was shot once in the head, and authorities treat his death as a suicide. Baxter resigned as vice-president in May 2001.
» CBC STORY: Former Enron executive found dead

Jan. 24, 2002: David Duncan, a former Arthur Andersen auditor who handled the Enron bankruptcy, invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself and refuses to testify before Congress.
» CBC STORY: Fired auditor refuses to answer Enron questions

Jan. 10, 2002: Arthur Andersen says its employees destroyed a "significant but undetermined" number of Enron documents.
» CBC STORY: Enron documents destroyed: auditor

January 2002: The U.S. Justice Department begins its investigation of Enron. Lay resigns as chairman and chief executive.

Dec. 2, 2001: Enron files for bankruptcy protection, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at the time. (The dubious title would later go to WorldCom in July 2002.) Thousands of workers would be laid off.
» CBC STORY: Enron files for Chapter 11; lawsuits loom

November 2001: Enron announces it had overstated its earnings back to 1997 by about $600 million. Its shares plunge to "junk" status by the end of the month. The SEC adds accountancy firm Arthur Andersen, the auditor for Enron, to its investigation.
» CBC STORY: Enron shares plunge; Dynegy abandons takeover

October 2001: Enron reports its first quarterly loss in four years, $618 million US, and a reduction in shareholder equity of over $1 billion. CFO Andrew Fastow is replaced. The Securities and Exchange Commission begins an investigation related to investment partnerships led by Fastow. Their investigation would later show that the complex web of partnerships was designed to hide Enron's debt.

August 2000: Enron's shares hit an all-time high of more than $90 US. Annual revenues reach $100 billion US. It is ranked the sixth-largest energy company in the world.

1999: Enron launches its broadband services unit and Enron Online, the company's website for trading commodities, which soon becomes the largest business site in the world. About 90 per cent of its income would eventually come from trades over Enron Online.

1990-1998: Enron expands its holdings in the U.K., Europe, South America and India. It moves away from natural gas and pipeline operations to marketing in other energy-related commodities.

1989: Enron opens its Gas Bank, where consumers can buy long-term supplies of natural gas at a fixed price, even as the real price fluctuates.

1988: Enron opens offices in the U.K. after the country's privatizes its power industry.

1986: Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Houston Natural Gas, becomes chairman and chief executive of Enron.

1985: Interstate pipeline company Enron is formed by the merging of Houston Natural Gas and Omaha-based InterNorth.
 
so you believe in telling everyone what to do, instead of letting them live their own life?

I guess you know, and your side know my life better than I do? No wonder your side cannot be happy.

Besides the three examples of "bad" conservatism, I'm pretty happy with my life. You know why? Because I control what I do, and I do not think the government will take care of me. I don't hope the government will change, or work for me. Because government only work for itself in the long run.
 
so you believe in telling everyone what to do, instead of letting them live their own life?

I guess you know, and your side know my life better than I do? No wonder your side cannot be happy.

Besides the three examples of "bad" conservatism, I'm pretty happy with my life. You know why? Because I control what I do, and I do not think the government will take care of me. I don't hope the government will change, or work for me. Because government only work for itself in the long run.

:roflmao:
 
You laugh, but I can actually find way more examples of when socialism goes bad.

If you don't know, socialism is the big brother of liberalism....

Bad old big brother, liberal, socialist counties. I'm telling you, conservative ideology will be the death of America as we know it!

source: The Dark Skinny

World Bank Report - The Safest Countries for Your Savings

RANKINGS

1. Canada

2. Sweden

3. Luxembourg

4. Australia

5. Denmark

6. Netherlands

7. Belgium

8. New Zealand

9. Ireland

10. Malta

11. Hong Kong

12. Finland

13. Singapore

14. Norway

15. South Africa

16. Switzerland

17. Namibia

18. Chile

19. France

20. Spain
 
Besides the three examples of "bad" conservatism, I'm pretty happy with my life. You know why? Because I control what I do, and I do not think the government will take care of me. I don't hope the government will change, or work for me. Because government only work for itself in the long run.

Government should do "that which you cannot do for yourself." - Barack Obama

The government should regulate food safety, pollution, clean water supply, traffic safety, the banking industry, MONETARY POLICY. Congress controlling monetary policy is not very conservative of Ron Paul but he is right that it should be controlled by GOVERNMENT and not private bankers. Therein lies the problem with conservatism. As a philosophy it is largely limited and narrow thus causing the need to be rejected at times.

The truth is that most Americans (based on poll results) like social programs. The problem is folks don't like some policies that may benefit "the other." The Southern strategy of Republicans has largely relied on focusing on the social policies "big" government gives to the "other" which has been historically black folks but now foreigners and immigrants get some of that heat as well. But that is another discussion.

My main point is that conservatism often falls on its face because it is by definition unchanging and narrow and thus it is unacceptable to a constantly changing and diverse society. Personally I believe that homogeneity would go along way in preserving a conservative society, however America as a whole is not that society. Maybe a few pockets of America but as a whole... well just look at how heterogeneous the first family is.
 
Bad old big brother, liberal, socialist counties. I'm telling you, conservative ideology will be the death of America as we know it!

source: The Dark Skinny

World Bank Report - The Safest Countries for Your Savings

RANKINGS

1. Canada

2. Sweden

3. Luxembourg

4. Australia

5. Denmark

6. Netherlands

7. Belgium

8. New Zealand

9. Ireland

10. Malta

11. Hong Kong

12. Finland

13. Singapore

14. Norway

15. South Africa

16. Switzerland

17. Namibia

18. Chile

19. France

20. Spain

tell me what would happen to most of these countries if our market crashed right now? I mean great depression type crash.... Not to mention, every country on here has been taken over more than once in their history.

Not to mention, do you live in any of these countries?
 
Government should do "that which you cannot do for yourself." - Barack Obama

The government should regulate food safety, pollution, clean water supply, traffic safety, the banking industry, MONETARY POLICY. Congress controlling monetary policy is not very conservative of Ron Paul but he is right that it should be controlled by GOVERNMENT and not private bankers. Therein lies the problem with conservatism. As a philosophy it is largely limited and narrow thus causing the need to be rejected at times.

The truth is that most Americans (based on poll results) like social programs. The problem is folks don't like some policies that may benefit "the other." The Southern strategy of Republicans has largely relied on focusing on the social policies "big" government gives to the "other" which has been historically black folks but now foreigners and immigrants get some of that heat as well. But that is another discussion.

My main point is that conservatism often falls on its face because it is by definition unchanging and narrow and thus it is unacceptable to a constantly changing and diverse society. Personally I believe that homogeneity would go along way in preserving a conservative society, however America as a whole is not that society. Maybe a few pockets of America but as a whole... well just look at how heterogeneous the first family is.

dude, im not saying NO government. Just limited government.

People like to deal in extremes don't they?
 
tell me what would happen to most of these countries if our market crashed right now? I mean great depression type crash.... Not to mention, every country on here has been taken over more than once in their history.

Not to mention, do you live in any of these countries?


HUH?
huh.jpg

1. Canada

Maybe because our military budget is larger than most very other country combined is the main reason why our economy is so fucked up! News flash, we are in a recession maybe soon to be a depression! I think you are running out of so called conservative rhetoric and right wing talk show jabber more than usual saying anything that comes in to you head, You are no longer worthy of debate. You are really starting to not make sense.
 
HUH?
huh.jpg

1. Canada

Maybe because our military budget is larger than most very other country combined is the main reason why our economy is so fucked up! News flash, we are in a recession maybe soon to be a depression! I think you are running out of so called conservative rhetoric and right wing talk show jabber more than usual saying anything that comes in to you head, You are no longer worthy of debate. You are really starting to not make sense.

NO sir. Im not about to let you get away with this bullshit.

1. Because our military budget is larger than pretty much the whole world is the reason why these little pussy ass countries have some sort of decent status. Canada is the only country because of US. Cutting the military just makes the world worst off. How about we cut some of these bullshit programs YOU support? Like...lets say.....SOCIAL SECURITY. Something I will never see since I'm under the age of 30 in 2009.

Dude, I really can't help that you drink the liberal kool-aid like you do. I try to deal with facts. The fact is, that we need our military, and our educational system. They are both bloated bureaucracies, however, they are a necessary evil. You can't really fuck with either one without pissing someone off. If any elected official do what you suggest, it would be political suicide. That is why you are what YOU are, and Obama is where he is at. Obama will never do some of the dumb shit you post, or support. So what do that say about YOUR policies?

BTW, do you feel threaten because I'm outspoken about my politics? I mean I do not recall ever challenging you.
 
NO sir. Im not about to let you get away with this bullshit.

1. Because our military budget is larger than pretty much the whole world is the reason why these little pussy ass countries have some sort of decent status. Canada is the only country because of US. Cutting the military just makes the world worst off. How about we cut some of these bullshit programs YOU support? Like...lets say.....SOCIAL SECURITY.:lol: Something I will never see since I'm under the age of 30 in 2009.

Dude, I really can't help that you drink the liberal kool-aid like you do. I try to deal with facts. The fact is, that we need our military, and our educational system. They are both bloated bureaucracies, however, they are a necessary evil. You can't really fuck with either one without pissing someone off. If any elected official do what you suggest, it would be political suicide. That is why you are what YOU are, and Obama is where he is at. Obama will never do some of the dumb shit you post, or support. So what do that say about YOUR policies?

BTW, do you feel threaten because I'm outspoken about my politics? I mean I do not recall ever challenging you.

Obviously, so emotional.
 
Thought, your views toward Repubs is flawed because what we've seen in the past 7 yrs has not been conservative at all! My point, in order to have tax cuts, you must make spending cuts. That would lead to smaller govt. With Bush, however, this guy tripled the size of govt so as a result, the tax cuts did not work. They resorted to printing the difference of tax revenues & expenditures, which increased the cost of food, energy and other commodities. Not very conservative! Sorry AAA, I just call em like I see em

Some of you are failing to see the anti-war faction of conservatism, honestly, we can't afford it. Some of you are failing to see the faction who want to protect our civil liberties (Obama voted with Bush to wiretap our phones!) I give props to Kucinich and Ron Paul for their views toward the Federal Reserve (that should be bi-partisan!)
 
Thought, your views toward Repubs is flawed because what we've seen in the past 7 yrs has not been conservative at all! My point, in order to have tax cuts, you must make spending cuts. That would lead to smaller govt. With Bush, however, this guy tripled the size of govt so as a result, the tax cuts did not work. They resorted to printing the difference of tax revenues & expenditures, which increased the cost of food, energy and other commodities. Not very conservative! Sorry AAA, I just call em like I see em

Some of you are failing to see the anti-war faction of conservatism, honestly, we can't afford it. Some of you are failing to see the faction who want to protect our civil liberties (Obama voted with Bush to wiretap our phones!) I give props to Kucinich and Ron Paul for their views toward the Federal Reserve (that should be bi-partisan!)


Republicans have been gently trying to distance themselves from GW, particularly since just after the 2006 midterm congressional election results after they were stunned by the dramatic ouster of the republican senate and congressional majorities. In fact, even though GW was absolutely being hidden by the GOP during the latter portion of the 2008 presidential election aided by the so called "liberal media" in not being called to task for virtually all of his decisions over the last 8 years, John McSame did active seek, behind close doors his help from the hard right republican money contributors (remember the economy is fundamentally sound). Absolutely GW is a conservative. Absolutely his economic policies are conservative; it’s just that they didn’t work out the way the conservatives had planned/hoped. Cutting taxes for the top 5%of income earners, militarist chest pounding, the over empowering of the very wealthy and big corporations and suppression of freedom of speech under the guise of national security. These are all conservative values. When GW won in 2004 there was not any loud out cry by the Republican Party that GW was not a conservative. His policies have not changed and when the republicans lost in 2008, they claim that is not conservatism. Like hell!

source: New York Times

It's His Party
By DAVID FRUM
Published: January 5, 2003

When George W. Bush took the oath of office two years ago, many people doubted that he would ever be able to govern effectively. During the campaign, an unprophetic pundit observed on TV, ''One thing George Bush is going to have trouble asserting when he gets to office is that he's got a mandate for government.''

That unprophetic pundit was me. In the 24 months since Inauguration Day, Mr. Bush has made his own mandate. Today, Mr. Bush is more than a strong president: he dominates his own party in a way that few modern presidents ever have.

Unlike Lyndon B. Johnson (who was never trusted by Democratic liberals) or Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was only grudgingly tolerated by Republican conservatives), Mr. Bush has been accepted by all important Republican factions without so much as a squeak of public dissent. And while even Franklin D. Roosevelt was humiliated when he tried to get rid of some disobedient Democratic senators in the 1938 primaries, Mr. Bush pretty much fired the Senate majority leader without suffering so much as a bruise or a scratch himself.

This power enables Mr. Bush to do much more than just lead his party. It has enabled him to change it.

For those of us who believed in the more radical conservatism espoused by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, Mr. Bush's softer Republicanism can often be difficult to adjust to. ''Compassionate conservatism'' sounded less like a philosophy than a marketing slogan: ''The same ideological taste you love -- now with less controversy.'' But it was also true that with every passing election, Reagan-Gingrich conservatism seemed to be appealing less and less to the American people. The old conservative rhetoric was getting stale. Voters wanted something new. And at the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 2000, something new was exactly what Mr. Bush promised to provide.

Halfway through his term, we can see what this new kind of Republicanism has turned out to be.

George Bush's party is less economically libertarian than the Republican Party of the 1980's and 1990's. Mr. Bush's tax cut, for example, was only one-third as large as Ronald Reagan's, relative to the size of the United States economy. And while Mr. Reagan's cut took effect in only three years, Mr. Bush's won't be complete for 10.

Similarly, Mr. Reagan's tax cut allowed all Americans to keep more of what they earned. By contrast, Mr. Bush's tax cut metes out its rewards according to family status rather than economic activity. For most middle-class Americans, the $500 increase in the per-child tax credit will be far more lucrative than the comparatively modest reduction in their income-tax rates.

There is no more talk of radical tax simplification and tax reform -- instead, the tax code continues to bulk up with benefits meant to encourage government-preferred activities like installing solar heating or attending community college. And there is not much talk of a deregulation agenda. After Enron, deregulation went out of style.

Ronald Reagan fought an unending, and ultimately unsuccessful, struggle against the growth of entitlements. Mr. Bush is presiding over the expansion of Medicaid into something that is coming to look more and more like a universal health insurance program. He uncomplainingly signed the biggest farm bill in history, jettisoned school vouchers to win his education bill and let his Social Security reform commission quietly expire.

The Bush administration remains largely a pro-growth, pro-free-enterprise administration. But just as Bill Clinton declared an end to the era of big government, so George W. Bush has put an end to the era of antigovernment. In the fight against government growth, he makes no promises to do more than hold the line.

If Mr. Bush has been much more cautious than Mr. Reagan on the economy, however, he has been far bolder on social issues.

In the months from his first State of the Union address until Sept. 11, Mr. Bush gave only one televised speech to the nation. It was his speech to explain his decision to ban most stem-cell research

Stem-cell research contemplates the cloning -- and destruction -- of human embryos. For religious conservatives, it represents a horrifying industrialization of abortion. At the same time, stem-cell research offers correspondingly large benefits: the possibility of treatments for horrific diseases, replacements for damaged human organs, conceivably even the halting of the aging process.

Many Republicans offer the pro-life movement rhetorical tributes. Mr. Bush has brought the concerns of religious conservatives in from the periphery of American politics to its center. His stem-cell policy is the biggest political victory the pro-life movement has had in years. More significantly, he delivered that victory without alienating or frightening those Americans who are not pro-life.

Mr. Bush has found a new language on social issues, one that stresses the commonalities between the religious and the secular. He has kept his distance from anything that might seem censorious, avoiding mention, for example, of the debate over civil unions for gay couples and carefully inserting the words ''and of none'' after his references to ''good people of all faiths.''

In the 19th century, the Republican Party was defined by region. It was the North against the South. In the 20th century, it became a party defined by class -- the white-collar middle class as opposed to the poor and the metropolitan rich. Under George W. Bush, the party in the 21st century is on its way to becoming a party defined by faith. In 2000, Mr. Bush beat Vice President Al Gore among people who attend church at least once a week by a margin of 57 percent to 40 percent. The margin was 25 percent larger than his margin of victory among those who earn more than $100,000 a year.

Yet of all the ways that Mr. Bush is changing his party, none is as profound or as surprising as the change he has made in its foreign policy. Republicans returned to office in 2000 fed up with the random do-goodery of the Clinton years. As a candidate, Mr. Bush promised a ''humble'' foreign policy. Today, a quarter of a million American and allied troops are unhumbly poised to topple the Iraqi regime.

Critics of the president's Iraq policy warn that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could destabilize the entire Arab world, including allies like Saudi Arabia. That, presumably, is an outcome Mr. Bush would wish to avoid. But on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush pledged to defeat not just the terrorist organizations that had attacked the United States, but also the states that sponsor and shelter terrorists. That commitment has drawn him toward conflict with many of those same Arab allies.

It sometimes seemed to me, as I watched the debate between the administration's hawks and doves from the inside, that I was witnessing a reprise of the great strategic debates of the Civil War. Back then, official Washington was divided between the realists, who wanted to fight the smallest possible war in order (as they said) to save the Union as it was, and the idealists, who sought the biggest possible victory, even if it meant smashing the old order in the South forever. Today's realists, like their 19th-century counterparts, are more frightened of change than they are of defeat.

At every step, President Bush has opted for the course that offers the hope of a bigger victory -- even at the price of a wider war. Surprisingly, the Republican Party has followed. And so the president who once talked of scaling back America's overseas commitments now finds himself crusading for democracy not only in Iraq, but also for the entire Arab world.

Republicans usually like to see themselves as steely realists. Foreign-policy realism is the tradition from which President Bush and his top foreign-policy advisers have come. But under the pressure of war, Mr. Bush has found what the great American presidents have believed: that American principles are as ''real'' as ships and armies and wealth. It's not just Mr. Bush's party that is changing. It is Mr. Bush himself.
 
Thought, your views toward Repubs is flawed because what we've seen in the past 7 yrs has not been conservative at all! My point, in order to have tax cuts, you must make spending cuts. That would lead to smaller govt. With Bush, however, this guy tripled the size of govt so as a result, the tax cuts did not work. They resorted to printing the difference of tax revenues & expenditures, which increased the cost of food, energy and other commodities. Not very conservative! Sorry AAA, I just call em like I see em

Some of you are failing to see the anti-war faction of conservatism, honestly, we can't afford it. Some of you are failing to see the faction who want to protect our civil liberties (Obama voted with Bush to wiretap our phones!) I give props to Kucinich and Ron Paul for their views toward the Federal Reserve (that should be bi-partisan!)

Honestly, we can do cuts all across the board. I'm actually for that. However, its all about what do you considered important enough to keep big these days. I value this country's security over anything else. That's my belief. Thats why I'm cool with spending money on National Security. I rather have us with the hi tech military than...lets say OUR ENEMIES.

You can not get away from spending money if you're running a country like this. The beauty about Texas is that you actually see most of the money from your taxes when it comes to new city development. Is there corruption, I'm sure it is in some degree, however, the corruption is never out of hand. Unlike other states, we take care of the corrupt officials if they are caught.

Moral of the story is this, if you going to spend, make sure you have something to show from it. Conservatism isn't about if you're spending less, but its if you're spending on an efficient project. Reagan spent a lot of money on the military because his sole promise was that we was going to win the cold war. So yea, we spent a lot of money for the military, however, Reagan did what he said he was going to do. Right now, Obama is basically agreeing on a massive spending bill that has NO clear impact on the economy. It really seems like Obama is doing this to pay off people who supported him. Reason being because, anyone who has studied economics knows that recessions tend to correct itself.
 
Another example of "Bad" Texas conservatism. Seems to be a lot of that lately.

source: Reuters

U.S. charges Allen Stanford with "massive" fraud

By Anna Driver and Jason Szep

HOUSTON/ST JOHN'S, Antigua (Reuters) - Texas billionaire Allen Stanford and three of his companies were charged with "massive" fraud on Tuesday as federal agents swooped on his U.S. headquarters.

In a civil complaint filed in federal court in Dallas, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Stanford, a high-profile cricket promoter, and two executives of fraudulently selling $8 billion in high-yield certificates of deposit in a scheme that stretched from Texas to the Caribbean.

"We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world," said Rose Romero, regional director of the SEC's office in Fort Worth, Texas.

The SEC complaint named Stanford International Bank (SIB), based in Antigua with 30,000 clients in 131 countries and $8.5 billion in assets, and the group's Houston-based broker-dealer and investment adviser units.

In all, the company claims to oversee $50 billion in assets.

The news sent shockwaves across the twin-island Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda, where the prime minister warned it could be "catastrophic."

Stanford's assets have been frozen and a federal judge has appointed a receiver "to take possession and control of defendants' assets for the protection of defendants' victims."

Early Tuesday, about 15 federal agents, some wearing U.S. marshals jackets, entered the lobby of company headquarters in the Houston Galleria area, a Reuters eyewitness said.

The company remained open for business but was "under the management of a receiver," a sign taped to the door read. Spokesman Brian Bertsch referred press inquiries to the SEC.

Stanford, a 58-year-old Texan running the firm that his grandfather founded, has denied any wrongdoing, but his location remained a mystery. The SEC said he failed to respond to subpoenas seeking testimony and did not produce "a single document.

James Davis, a Stanford aide, and O.Y. Goswick, a board member of the Antiguan affiliate, had also been subpoenaed but failed to appear, the SEC said.

SOUGHT EMBRACE OF WASHINGTON, SPORTS

Stanford's property holdings and celebrity associations drew comparisons with Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff, who was charged in December in a suspected $50 billion fraud.

Stanford was also expanding his political reach, opening a Washington lobbying office about two years ago after buying the Washington Research Group, a policy study unit of Charles Schwab & Co, in 2005.

Stanford spent $2.8 million on lobbying in 2008, according to records accessed through the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. His political action committee and employees donated about $2.4 million to parties and candidates for federal office since 1989.

Stanford has also played an increasing role in sports, including endorsement relationships with golfer Vijay Singh and soccer star Michael Owen, along with involvement in polo and expensive effort to rehabilitate West Indian cricket.

He was a sponsor of a world-class tennis tournament, the 2009 Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida, in March.

The England and West Indies cricket boards suspended sponsorship talks with the Stanford group after the charges.

Stanford shot to prominence in international cricket after his private Twenty20 competition in the Caribbean, and the $20 million (14 million pound) game in November between England and his own team of West Indian players.

England Cricket Board Chairman Giles Clarke said his organization may utilize get-out clauses in its deal with Stanford, and he suggested the proposed quadrangular Twenty20 series in England in May was now unlikely to happen.

'WONDERED WHERE HE GOT HIS MONEY'

The SEC said Stanford's Antigua-based bank sold $8 billion in certificates of deposit "by promising high return rates that exceed those available through true certificates of deposits offered by traditional banks."

Holding dual U.S.-Antiguan citizenship, Stanford lived for more than 20 years in the reef-girded island, where he owns the country's largest newspaper, heads a local commercial bank, is the biggest private employer, its top investor and is the first American to receive a knighthood from its government.

He has homes sprinkled across the region -- from Antigua to St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands to Miami.

"Everybody always wondered where he got his money from," said Odessa Haley, 28, a manager of a cafe in the island's capital St. John's.

Many feared the U.S. charges would revive Antigua's image as one of the Caribbean's most corrupt nations, which local policy makers took pains to shake off in the 1990s.

Others feared the economic fallout. "A lot of people work for him," said Francis Cortwright, a taxi driver.

There were no signs of imminent criminal charges against Stanford, whose personal fortune was estimated by Forbes Magazine last year at $2.2 billion. A Justice Department spokesman would not confirm or deny the existence of a criminal investigation.

But Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Michigan and a former federal prosecutor, said U.S. prosecutors have likely filed a sealed criminal indictment against Stanford to be unveiled at a later time.

"The amount of money involved indicates there will be criminal interest in this, as well as the number of potential victims involved," Henning said.

Investors such as Kelly Dehay, a realtor, showed up at the office in Houston on Tuesday to ask about their funds, only to be turned away at the door.

Dehay said his Stanford broker sold him a CD held by SIB, promising returns above 8 percent. "I started planning for my retirement a long time ago," Dehay said. "I feel very betrayed."

The developments come as investors, politicians and regulators focus on the returns promised and provided by investment firms after the suspected Madoff scheme.

Stanford's investment companies were exposed to losses from the alleged Madoff scheme, but falsely reassured investors otherwise, the SEC charged.

The SEC added that Stanford's firm had sought to remove nearly $200 million from its accounts in recent weeks. It also accused Stanford of falsely telling at least one customer this month that he could not withdraw a multimillion-dollar CD because the SEC had frozen the account.

SERIES OF ALLEGATIONS

The SEC also alleged that:

-- Stanford's Antigua-based bank reported identical returns of 15.71 percent in 1995 and 1996, which the SEC called "improbable" and suspicious.

-- Ninety percent of the offshore bank's claimed investment portfolio was in a "black box" shielded from any independent oversight, and only Stanford and aide James Davis, also charged, knew details of the bulk of the portfolio.

-- Stanford failed to cooperate with the SEC probe and continued to mislead investors by falsely saying the SEC had frozen accounts or the company had ordered a moratorium on CD redemptions.

-- A major, unidentified clearing firm stopped processing wires to SIB for purchase of SIB-issued CDs after the clearing firm was unable to obtain information about the company's financial condition.

-- Stanford used false information to promote a mutual fund program separate from the CDs. The program grew to more than $1.2 billion from less than $10 million in 2004.

James Dunlap, an Atlanta lawyer representing about a dozen investors who bought CDs from Stanford Financial Group, said he planned to sue the firm and would likely accuse the company of breaching its contract.

Several investors have told lawyers they assumed the CDs they bought were safe short-term instruments that were insured, two lawyers said. But when an investor working with Dunlap tried to get $250,000 out of a CD that came due last week, she was told she would have to wait.
 
Another example of "Bad" Texas conservatism. Seems to be a lot of that lately.

source: Reuters

U.S. charges Allen Stanford with "massive" fraud

By Anna Driver and Jason Szep

HOUSTON/ST JOHN'S, Antigua (Reuters) - Texas billionaire Allen Stanford and three of his companies were charged with "massive" fraud on Tuesday as federal agents swooped on his U.S. headquarters.

In a civil complaint filed in federal court in Dallas, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Stanford, a high-profile cricket promoter, and two executives of fraudulently selling $8 billion in high-yield certificates of deposit in a scheme that stretched from Texas to the Caribbean.

"We are alleging a fraud of shocking magnitude that has spread its tentacles throughout the world," said Rose Romero, regional director of the SEC's office in Fort Worth, Texas.

The SEC complaint named Stanford International Bank (SIB), based in Antigua with 30,000 clients in 131 countries and $8.5 billion in assets, and the group's Houston-based broker-dealer and investment adviser units.

In all, the company claims to oversee $50 billion in assets.

The news sent shockwaves across the twin-island Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda, where the prime minister warned it could be "catastrophic."

Stanford's assets have been frozen and a federal judge has appointed a receiver "to take possession and control of defendants' assets for the protection of defendants' victims."

Early Tuesday, about 15 federal agents, some wearing U.S. marshals jackets, entered the lobby of company headquarters in the Houston Galleria area, a Reuters eyewitness said.

The company remained open for business but was "under the management of a receiver," a sign taped to the door read. Spokesman Brian Bertsch referred press inquiries to the SEC.

Stanford, a 58-year-old Texan running the firm that his grandfather founded, has denied any wrongdoing, but his location remained a mystery. The SEC said he failed to respond to subpoenas seeking testimony and did not produce "a single document.

James Davis, a Stanford aide, and O.Y. Goswick, a board member of the Antiguan affiliate, had also been subpoenaed but failed to appear, the SEC said.

SOUGHT EMBRACE OF WASHINGTON, SPORTS

Stanford's property holdings and celebrity associations drew comparisons with Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff, who was charged in December in a suspected $50 billion fraud.

Stanford was also expanding his political reach, opening a Washington lobbying office about two years ago after buying the Washington Research Group, a policy study unit of Charles Schwab & Co, in 2005.

Stanford spent $2.8 million on lobbying in 2008, according to records accessed through the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. His political action committee and employees donated about $2.4 million to parties and candidates for federal office since 1989.

Stanford has also played an increasing role in sports, including endorsement relationships with golfer Vijay Singh and soccer star Michael Owen, along with involvement in polo and expensive effort to rehabilitate West Indian cricket.

He was a sponsor of a world-class tennis tournament, the 2009 Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida, in March.

The England and West Indies cricket boards suspended sponsorship talks with the Stanford group after the charges.

Stanford shot to prominence in international cricket after his private Twenty20 competition in the Caribbean, and the $20 million (14 million pound) game in November between England and his own team of West Indian players.

England Cricket Board Chairman Giles Clarke said his organization may utilize get-out clauses in its deal with Stanford, and he suggested the proposed quadrangular Twenty20 series in England in May was now unlikely to happen.

'WONDERED WHERE HE GOT HIS MONEY'

The SEC said Stanford's Antigua-based bank sold $8 billion in certificates of deposit "by promising high return rates that exceed those available through true certificates of deposits offered by traditional banks."

Holding dual U.S.-Antiguan citizenship, Stanford lived for more than 20 years in the reef-girded island, where he owns the country's largest newspaper, heads a local commercial bank, is the biggest private employer, its top investor and is the first American to receive a knighthood from its government.

He has homes sprinkled across the region -- from Antigua to St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands to Miami.

"Everybody always wondered where he got his money from," said Odessa Haley, 28, a manager of a cafe in the island's capital St. John's.

Many feared the U.S. charges would revive Antigua's image as one of the Caribbean's most corrupt nations, which local policy makers took pains to shake off in the 1990s.

Others feared the economic fallout. "A lot of people work for him," said Francis Cortwright, a taxi driver.

There were no signs of imminent criminal charges against Stanford, whose personal fortune was estimated by Forbes Magazine last year at $2.2 billion. A Justice Department spokesman would not confirm or deny the existence of a criminal investigation.

But Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Michigan and a former federal prosecutor, said U.S. prosecutors have likely filed a sealed criminal indictment against Stanford to be unveiled at a later time.

"The amount of money involved indicates there will be criminal interest in this, as well as the number of potential victims involved," Henning said.

Investors such as Kelly Dehay, a realtor, showed up at the office in Houston on Tuesday to ask about their funds, only to be turned away at the door.

Dehay said his Stanford broker sold him a CD held by SIB, promising returns above 8 percent. "I started planning for my retirement a long time ago," Dehay said. "I feel very betrayed."

The developments come as investors, politicians and regulators focus on the returns promised and provided by investment firms after the suspected Madoff scheme.

Stanford's investment companies were exposed to losses from the alleged Madoff scheme, but falsely reassured investors otherwise, the SEC charged.

The SEC added that Stanford's firm had sought to remove nearly $200 million from its accounts in recent weeks. It also accused Stanford of falsely telling at least one customer this month that he could not withdraw a multimillion-dollar CD because the SEC had frozen the account.

SERIES OF ALLEGATIONS

The SEC also alleged that:

-- Stanford's Antigua-based bank reported identical returns of 15.71 percent in 1995 and 1996, which the SEC called "improbable" and suspicious.

-- Ninety percent of the offshore bank's claimed investment portfolio was in a "black box" shielded from any independent oversight, and only Stanford and aide James Davis, also charged, knew details of the bulk of the portfolio.

-- Stanford failed to cooperate with the SEC probe and continued to mislead investors by falsely saying the SEC had frozen accounts or the company had ordered a moratorium on CD redemptions.

-- A major, unidentified clearing firm stopped processing wires to SIB for purchase of SIB-issued CDs after the clearing firm was unable to obtain information about the company's financial condition.

-- Stanford used false information to promote a mutual fund program separate from the CDs. The program grew to more than $1.2 billion from less than $10 million in 2004.

James Dunlap, an Atlanta lawyer representing about a dozen investors who bought CDs from Stanford Financial Group, said he planned to sue the firm and would likely accuse the company of breaching its contract.

Several investors have told lawyers they assumed the CDs they bought were safe short-term instruments that were insured, two lawyers said. But when an investor working with Dunlap tried to get $250,000 out of a CD that came due last week, she was told she would have to wait.

He will go to jail...your point?

Oh WAIT I GET IT, all rich people needs to go to jail. Rich people are EVIL right?
 
tell me what would happen to most of these countries if our market crashed right now? I mean great depression type crash.... Not to mention, every country on here has been taken over more than once in their history.

Not to mention, do you live in any of these countries?

Give him a 6 months and he'll float back to the states on an inner tube!!!:D
The tax structure alone in some of those countries would eat him alive. Why would they want another victocrat.
 
You did say all rich people. What is your defintion of rich?

Another example of your gross generalities as an argument.

Anyone you complain about....

Now lets see who you complain about....

the military...

any company...

any conservative...

any republican...

anyone who agrees with a republican/conservative idea...

the state of Texas...
 
I rest my case!

so I'm right?

*thinks to self, hmmm yea I was right*

BTW, good conservatism do not whine. We review, warn everyone, and then overcome. That's why you cannot stand it that I'm on this board talking politics. This is why you go to the name calling method. You accuse me for using gross hypothetical situations, yet if your stance was strong enough, you could overcome such questions. I will win most of the debates I choose to debate with you because of this. You make the mistake of thinking that I think conservatives do not do any wrongdoing. The reality is this, they are all human. They are capable of falling into sin just like me. I just happen to believe the conservative ideas are better than the progressive ideas on the most part. The ideas I'm speaking of is the fiscal, and defense side of things. I could careless about most social issues *such as abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action...YEA I SAID IT!!!*. I believe that we all can achieve a greater life if you are willing to work for it. Something you obviously done with yourself...so it seems....
 
so I'm right?

*thinks to self, hmmm yea I was right*

BTW, good conservatism do not whine. We review, warn everyone, and then overcome. That's why you cannot stand it that I'm on this board talking politics. This is why you go to the name calling method. You accuse me for using gross hypothetical situations, yet if your stance was strong enough, you could overcome such questions. I will win most of the debates I choose to debate with you because of this. You make the mistake of thinking that I think conservatives do not do any wrongdoing. The reality is this, they are all human. They are capable of falling into sin just like me. I just happen to believe the conservative ideas are better than the progressive ideas on the most part. The ideas I'm speaking of is the fiscal, and defense side of things. I could careless about most social issues *such as abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action...YEA I SAID IT!!!*. I believe that we all can achieve a greater life if you are willing to work for it. Something you obviously done with yourself...so it seems....


You're right about refusing to answer who are the "rich" people.
 
Back
Top