Rich Get Richer, Thanks To Stimulus

[Article 15]

I was Air Force, Gunny.

I was never part of one of those massive departures or arrivals ... my unit was a small deployable Comm unit.

If that banner wasn't a declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq especially with Bush announcing the end to combat missions then it's an epic failure on the Bush administration's PR team.

Either way. Mistake.

 

[Xenophon]

Actually, the speech Bush gave that day was about how pacifying iraq was going to take years and be very difficult.

Not that it matters, it ended up being a classic faux Pax for a guy who seemed to make countless mistakes.

 

[Article 15]

Actually, the speech Bush gave that day was about how pacifying iraq was going to take years and be very difficult.

Not that it matters, it ended up being a classic faux Pax for a guy who seemed to make countless mistakes.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFijzDyJnVE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFijzDyJnVE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

That's the USS Lincoln and not visible in the video is the mission accomplished banner.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Obama Stimulus Saves Microsoft Billionaire Hundreds Of Millions

illionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.

And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer.

Here's how:....

Mr Obama is a liberal, of course he is going to protect his rich pals.
What else did you think?
Don't tell me you fell for his campaign rhetoric.

WHAT?? You mean they really were just words?!?

 

[Modbert]

You have a problem with a law that requires companies to be responsible and fully disclose their financial positions?

SOX is probably one of the best things to come out of the last administration, you nimwit.

Didn't you say you wanted to be an accountant? You're off to a terrible start. Sarbanes-Oxley is the backbone to modern accounting and current trends in financial reporting. You may as well go ahead and say that XBRL and the IASB are a waste of our money too, idiot.

God J, all you do is assume, assume and assume here.

I don't have a problem with the principle of the law itself; however I do have a problem with the way the law is set up. I agree we need something like it in place, however it shouldn't cost American companies so much that it costs them that much as I stated earlier.

Jeez, will you remember for two god damn minutes that I'm for regulation and being against the principles of this law goes against that. Stop trying to get a sound byte or mischaracterize my position by trying to state it for me.

 

[Jon]

The reason SOX cost companies so much is because they were NOT IN COMPLIANCE with GAAP. Since the CEO and CFO now have to sign off on all financial statements, all these companies had to actually COMPLY with the law before their officers were willing to sign off. So, these companies suffered financial loss because they were violating the law. Boohoo.

Some argue that SOX caused a lot of companies to pull out of the U.S. stock exchange, which is true. A lot of those companies moved to the London exchange, but guess what, their standards are even higher. And most of the companies who pulled out lost a lot in stock value.

Compliance isn't cheap, but that's life. We have to protect investors so there's not another Enron. Companies should have been complying all along. You're for regulation? Then act like it.

 

[Modbert]

The reason SOX cost companies so much is because they were NOT IN COMPLIANCE with GAAP. Since the CEO and CFO now have to sign off on all financial statements, all these companies had to actually COMPLY with the law before their officers were willing to sign off. So, these companies suffered financial loss because they were violating the law. Boohoo.

Some argue that SOX caused a lot of companies to pull out of the U.S. stock exchange, which is true. A lot of those companies moved to the London exchange, but guess what, their standards are even higher. And most of the companies who pulled out lost a lot in stock value.

Compliance isn't cheap, but that's life. We have to protect investors so there's not another Enron. Companies should have been complying all along. You're for regulation? Then act like it.

Compliance isn't cheap, but certainly there is a better cost effective method in the long run for companies that do comply with the standards.

And I agree, companies should have been complying all along.

 

[editec]

There are REAL COSTS associated with enforcing all laws, folks.

It's too damned bad that human beings are bad monkeys and that we need laws, regulations and police and armies and so forth, but there it is.

 

[Modbert]

There are REAL COSTS associated with enforcing all laws, folks.

It's too damned bad that human beings are bad monkeys and that we need laws, regulations and police and armies and so forth, but there it is.

Chimp Goes Wild and is Killed After Taking Xanax - VitalVotes - articles.mercola.com

The chimp wasn't the only bad monkey in this article.

 

[Jon]

Compliance isn't cheap, but certainly there is a better cost effective method in the long run for companies that do comply with the standards.

Sorry, there's not. The law is comprehensive, and for companies to oblige, it's going to cost them. C'est la vie.

In the long run, companies WILL benefit from SOX. The standards it puts on financial reporting are going to help investors in making informed, safe, and lucrative investments in the companies that comply, and those companies will see growth in stock price (once the economy recovers, that is).

 

[Modbert]

Sorry, there's not. The law is comprehensive, and for companies to oblige, it's going to cost them. C'est la vie.

In the long run, companies WILL benefit from SOX. The standards it puts on financial reporting are going to help investors in making informed, safe, and lucrative investments in the companies that comply, and those companies will see growth in stock price (once the economy recovers, that is).

If there's not a better cost effective way of going about this, then this will have to make due then.

And I do hope you're right. I do like how much financial information is available out there for publicly traded companies now though; easier to assess how a company's health is financials wise.

Much easier to do a class project too when you have such information available unlike Subway who guard such information as a private company more so then even the government guards private information at times.

 

[Jon]

That's the beauty of the changes taken place in accounting. Investors want transparency. After Enron, full disclosure is a MUST. And because of the push towards an international accounting standard, soon we'll see a lot more foreign companies investing in local markets, and vice versa. Because right now the cost to recalculate a GAAP appropriate financial statement into one that meets the standards to exchange on the foreign markets is so high, a lot of companies are opting out. I have a feeling with the current conditions, the need for the IASB will be more apparent than ever, but Obama continues to want to push it aside. He wants to delay these changes, and it's sad because these changes can HELP our current situation.

 

[Modbert]

That's the beauty of the changes taken place in accounting. Investors want transparency. After Enron, full disclosure is a MUST. And because of the push towards an international accounting standard, soon we'll see a lot more foreign companies investing in local markets, and vice versa. Because right now the cost to recalculate a GAAP appropriate financial statement into one that meets the standards to exchange on the foreign markets is so high, a lot of companies are opting out. I have a feeling with the current conditions, the need for the IASB will be more apparent than ever, but Obama continues to want to push it aside. He wants to delay these changes, and it's sad because these changes can HELP our current situation.

I agree he should soon in the future look into fixing the situation more. Hopefully he will now that he has gotten this bill out of the way.

 

[editec]

Of course publically traded companies have to honestly report their financial positions.

Of course many of them might object to doing that.

But we've seen the effects of allowing them to misreport their positions enough times to know that if the can fudge the numbers they WILL fudge the numbers.

We have to protect investors and bond purchasers, don't we?

I cannot imagine why people who think cpaitalism is a good idea would object to laws about the way PUBLICALLY TRADED companies report their financial status.

 

[Modbert]

Of course publically traded companies have to honestly report their financial positions.

Of course many of them might object to doing that.

But we've seen the effects of allowing them to misreport their positions enough times to know that if the can fudge the numbers they WILL fudge the numbers.

We have to protect investors and bond purchasers, don't we?

I cannot imagine why people who think cpaitalism is a good idea would object to laws about the way PUBLICALLY TRADED companies report their financial status.

I don't think anyone here objected to laws about the way pubically traded companies report their financial status. I would of just liked to see a better cost effective measure for smaller businesses but if there isn't one then we have to make due with this.

I've stated my positions on here before; We need Regulation and can't trust Wall Street at all. This recent incident is an indicator of that.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Mr Obama is a liberal, of course he is going to protect his rich pals.

Bush is a conservative and of course he protected his rich pals.


What asswipe hogwash this board has descened into.

 

[editec]

Of course publically traded companies have to honestly report their financial positions.

Of course many of them might object to doing that.

But we've seen the effects of allowing them to misreport their positions enough times to know that if the can fudge the numbers they WILL fudge the numbers.

We have to protect investors and bond purchasers, don't we?

I cannot imagine why people who think cpaitalism is a good idea would object to laws about the way PUBLICALLY TRADED companies report their financial status.

I don't think anyone here objected to laws about the way pubically traded companies report their financial status. I would of just liked to see a better cost effective measure for smaller businesses but if there isn't one then we have to make due with this.

I've stated my positions on here before; We need Regulation and can't trust Wall Street at all. This recent incident is an indicator of that.

That's a valid enough complaint.

Sometimes the costs of following the regulations greatly exceeds their benefit to the society.

Some problems are just too damned complex to create regulations that truly work, too.

It's a constant give and take war between regulators and crooks seeking to find way to get around those regs.

Usually the government is catching up with the new scams.

The truly corrupt are often very creative people.

 

[xsited1]

Obama Stimulus Saves Microsoft Billionaire Hundreds Of Millions

illionaire Paul Allen is a Microsoft cofounder, the owner of the NFL's Seattle Seahawks and the owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers.

And, thanks to the stimulus bill President Obama signed this week, he's also about to be as much as a billion dollars richer.

Here's how:....

The Democrat Party has been the party of the rich for some time now. Unfortunately, some members either don't know this or don't want to admit it. Maybe if I say I'm an Obama supporter he'll buy me a new house. Works for me.

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, the speech Bush gave that day was about how pacifying iraq was going to take years and be very difficult.

Not that it matters, it ended up being a classic faux Pax for a guy who seemed to make countless mistakes.

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFijzDyJnVE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CFijzDyJnVE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

That's the USS Lincoln and not visible in the video is the mission accomplished banner.

that alone should tell you something

the media had to lay on the deck to get those pics of Bush with the banner in them and then SOME were photoshoped to make it look closer


use your brain

 

[editec]

That's the beauty of the changes taken place in accounting. Investors want transparency. After Enron, full disclosure is a MUST. And because of the push towards an international accounting standard, soon we'll see a lot more foreign companies investing in local markets, and vice versa. Because right now the cost to recalculate a GAAP appropriate financial statement into one that meets the standards to exchange on the foreign markets is so high, a lot of companies are opting out. I have a feeling with the current conditions, the need for the IASB will be more apparent than ever, but Obama continues to want to push it aside. He wants to delay these changes, and it's sad because these changes can HELP our current situation.

An international accounting standards board doesn't already exist?

It didn't occur to me, until this thread, that one would be necessary. But now that the subject comes up it seems obvious that one will be necessary to complete the total liberation of capital from national perochialism.

How is Obama pushing this issue aside?

Has it come across his desk?

It seems like such an arcane technical issue, that it probably won't come up on his radar for quite some time.

Why do you suppose Obama objects to this board's creation?

Who loses by its development?