I KNEW IT! Gray Davis recalled for nothing!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by sparky

This is absolutely no surprise to me. I knew it was a phony crisis when it was happening. Everyone associated with Enron should be flogged, put in the stocks, and pelted with rocks and garbage while they are paraded through the streets in flatbed trucks. That is a vile company and they have been in bed with the Bushes forever. They'll all go scot free with platinum parachutes.

Not only the R's, but the D's as well. Let's not forget the Enron fiasco happened under Clinton's watch and he failed to catch it and it was his SEC's and DOJ's duty to do so. Enron's meteoric rise should have made eyebrows rise - but it, along with all of the other fraud, was overlooked. Plus, many D's have taken money from Enron. So, I blame all politicians for that one. Note: this does not mean I do not despise Bush more than most - I am just calling it like I see it

It always makes me cringe when people say "the economy was so much better under Clinton" - I always think well of course it was, it would have to be when two of the largest companies in the world (Enron and MCI/WC) were cooking the books and many many other huge companies went into debt trying to keep up with them. Then other huge companies were built on nothing but expectations (which is the public's fault IMO)

Thus, my rant for the evening - AND again, Bush sucks

[hayley]

Originally Posted by David

He probably won't. Most Californians think he really sucked.

To me, he was the epitome of the career politician. He spent his years doing favors for friends, just like all of them.

But, David- he was CUUUUUUUUTE.

deal with it!

[irishgrl]

Yes, the economy was better under Clinton! not because Enron/MCI were cooking their books but because the general financial atmosphere was more fluid and people had more discretionary income! Not to mention the fact that the budget was balanced for perhaps the ONLY time in OUR lifetimes (or many more to come unfortunately) Stocks were rising, interest rates were rock bottom, more people could buy homes than ever before....the whole picture was just rosier and he did it IN SPITE of a Republican Congress determined to bring him down! Give the man credit, he deserves it
personally I think you are pinning the tail on the wrong donkey for failure to catch Enron, that was the fault of FERC and various other regulatory committees btw, Gray Davis was screaming blue blazes about what Enron was doing but good old Bush ignored CA because CA didnt vote him in.


on a side note, I read where Bush is again ignoring CA, even tho Ahnuld asked for emergency status based on all the mudslides/flooding etc that southern CA suffered....FEMA has already determined that there IS a state of emergency and Bush is sitting on it......why am I not surprised?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by David

He probably won't. Most Californians think he really sucked.

To me, he was the epitome of the career politician. He spent his years doing favors for friends, just like all of them.

I LIKED him and there are a lot more who did but are hesitant to say so for fear of the vileness that has been heaped upon him WHICH btw WAS NOT HIS FAULT
I am not sure where you get your info that he "spent his years doing favors for friends," and why people sneer about him doing it when ALL Politicians do it?
Why should HE be so vilified? I thought he was a GOOD Governor, who happened to be Democrat and therefore in the way, so he had a big bullseye painted on his back.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

There is no way the entore thing could be faked. There were too many players and too many opposing interests. Plus, what have the R's gained with Arnold? I mean Arnold hardly is representative of the R party as it stands today - a theocracy. Plus, Arnold could never give a R the state of Calif.'s electoral votes. So, I do not think your theory can be proven when put up against those facts

ah, but it was. the ENTIRE thing was manipulated because California bought part of its excess energy back via third party sources (read, Enron) that artificially raised the prices. Then Enron arranged to have key power plants shut down during peak use times, which created a domino effect. PG&E was one of the single largest power suppliers in CA, (Edison Electric in Southern CA is a PG&E affiliate) and they were screaming about having to buy back their own power at vastly increased prices, and btw, as a result they filed for bankruptcy. I knew quite a few people who worked for PG&E up the Feather
River Canyon (which houses at least two if not three power plants which generate billions of megawatts of power total) who knew that the "crisis" was phony. It makes me sick.

as for your other assertion that Ahnuld could never deliver the State for the Republicans, I am afraid that many people (esp in MY neck of the woods) would follow that man anywhere! And this movement to amend the Constitution so that people like the Governator could be President should be viewed with alarm. There are a LOT of people that like the idea (God Forbid)
and their numbers are GROWING! About the ONLY thing I LIKE about him is that he is pro-choice.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Yes, the economy was better under Clinton! not because Enron/MCI were cooking their books but because the general financial atmosphere was more fluid and people had more discretionary income! Not to mention the fact that the budget was balanced for perhaps the ONLY time in OUR lifetimes (or many more to come unfortunately) Stocks were rising, interest rates were rock bottom, more people could buy homes than ever before....the whole picture was just rosier and he did it IN SPITE of a Republican Congress determined to bring him down! Give the man credit, he deserves it

No - the fall of those two companies and the peripheral losses in other companies was the death knell for an economy built on stilts. I realize people had more money, but that was a direct result of people speculating on IPO's in companies that had never shown a profit and those same companies went belly up four or so years later to the loss of trillions over and above the trillions lost in the Enron and MCI debacles alone.

I am not saying Clinton was not a good Pres. or that his policies did not in a general way help the economy. I am just saying all of this "the econony was stellar solely thanks to Clinton and now it sucks solely thanks to W"(general paraphrase not a direct quote) is just wrong in that the facts fail to support it. Again, I just do not see how it can be argues that the economy was mostly stellar under Clinton because of the abovemetioned fraud and the blind speculation in historically profitless companies. Interestingly, the success of the economy is a classic trickle down theory - which is what the R's are always claiming they want to do, but never really do It is that because companies had this insurgence of cash from the blind speculation (esp. in the Calif. economy - which was caused by (initially) the tech bubble burst a/k/a the results of the carnage from the blind speculations by greedy investors) then hired a bunch of people (the estimates are staggering with MCI and Enron alone) , spent money like there was no end in sight (buildings, cars, ads, etc. ), and then were broke.

In the end, I think the Pres. can only do so much to stimulate the economy. I think Clinton did that. I think the results would have been a good economy. But, the hyper inflated economy of the 90's was WAY more than that and we are paying for it now.

Interestingly, if W had allowed the initial spark of the tax cuts to take effect (Greenspan confirmed this spark ) and then spent in a truly conservative manner instead of pissing away money with things like:

1. rushing into war with Iraq and lying about how the US was going to pay for it - did anyone really believe that a$$hole when he said Iraq's oil cold pay for the liberation when the oil rev.'s IN TOTAL were only like 1/10 of the cost

2. The Medicare Rx coverage fliet mingon to the drug companies - again the fed. govt. - UNLIKE EVERY PRIVATE INSURER - pays a non-negotiated lesser rate for patient's drugs

and so many more. W and his cronies spend FAR more liberally than ANY Democrat I have ever seen

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ah, but it was. the ENTIRE thing was manipulated because California bought part of its excess energy back via third party sources (read, Enron) that artificially raised the prices. Then Enron arranged to have key power plants shut down during peak use times, which created a domino effect. PG&E was one of the single largest power suppliers in CA, (Edison Electric in Southern CA is a PG&E affiliate) and they were screaming about having to buy back their own power at vastly increased prices, and btw, as a result they filed for bankruptcy. I knew quite a few people who worked for PG&E up the Feather River Canyon (which houses at least two if not three power plants which generate billions of megawatts of power total) who knew that the "crisis" was phony. It makes me sick.

Prove it with facts - and by facts I mean anything other than that articel you posted

In the end, I agree Enron was to blame, but they did not act alone and some of those players just might be D's

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . . as for your other assertion that Ahnuld could never deliver the State for the Republicans, I am afraid that many people (esp in MY neck of the woods) would follow that man anywhere! And this movement to amend the Constitution so that people like the Governator could be President should be viewed with alarm. There are a LOT of people that like the idea (God Forbid)
and their numbers are GROWING! About the ONLY thing I LIKE about him is that he is pro-choice.

That alone makes him persona non grata in the entire R party these days Again, I just do not see that he has done anything that bad. If he has, let's see it

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That alone makes him persona non grata in the entire R party these days Again, I just do not see that he has done anything that bad. If he has, let's see it

Can Ahnuld even be considered an R anymore? He's a RINO, isn't he?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Can Ahnuld even be considered an R anymore? He's a RINO, isn't he?

What is RINO?

I am on cold meds. and a little loopy right now

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

What is RINO?

I am on cold meds. and a little loopy right now

Republican in name only.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Republican in name only.

and I think I totally knew that - but that Nyquil can be a doozy

[irishgrl]

No - the fall of those two companies and the peripheral losses in other companies was the death knell for an economy built on stilts. I realize people had more money, but that was a direct result of people speculating on IPO's in companies that had never shown a profit and those same companies went belly up four or so years later to the loss of trillions over and above the trillions lost in the Enron and MCI debacles alone.

I didnt speculate in any IPO's, I didnt speculate in ANYTHING! You are looking at it from the standpoint of someone with quite a bit of discretionary income I think! I myself, as just an average working class joe was able to purchase a car and a home thanks to the fluidity of the economy, which BECAUSE of the balanced budget, did not translate to program cuts on the State or Local level. For the first time, programs were funded decently, and States were in a better financial shape (except for CA which was targeted by EVIL Enron because we used to be a wealthy State, with the worlds 5th largest economy)

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Prove it with facts - and by facts I mean anything other than that articel you posted

In the end, I agree Enron was to blame, but they did not act alone and some of those players just might be D's

there have been numerous articles written both before and after Gray Davis was out of office that pinpointed Enron as the culprit. CA bought back its excess energy from Enron at inflated prices. I will have to go back to archives to find it but I wonder why you are objecting to the article I posted? it is the same source used for much of the material posted here in the past. There are plenty of articles it will just take time. But, I will find them, never fear.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I didnt speculate in any IPO's, I didnt speculate in ANYTHING! You are looking at it from the standpoint of someone with quite a bit of discretionary income I think! I myself, as just an average working class joe was able to purchase a car and a home thanks to the fluidity of the economy, which BECAUSE of the balanced budget, did not translate to program cuts on the State or Local level. For the first time, programs were funded decently, and States were in a better financial shape (except for CA which was targeted by EVIL Enron because we used to be a wealthy State, with the worlds 5th largest economy)

No, I am not.

Where do you think the money can from to balance the budget? I submit it can from where all of the govt.'s money comes from, taxes. A significant portion of those taxes, esp. in Calif. in the 90's, came from the monies generated by these companies. In Calif. alone, millions of new jobs were lost four or so years later. With the loss of those jobs came the peripheral losses such as local shops where those employees shopped, hotel closings or at least loss of rev., janitorial service companies laying off because they no longer have as many contracts, etc. - these are all pretty much lower level jobs All of that equals to many times more jobs lost than the actual employees of the closed businesses (again the businesses saw hundreds of millions in the IPO and months thereafter and then no more rev.) - Then, these people could not find other jobs because the economy was having its uber correction to compensate for the abovementioned loss of trillions and the concurrent loss of trillions associated with Enron, MCI, and all that peripheral loss. So , I am not just talking about investors - though they also lost a bunch - and it was at all levels from the janitor at MCI with a 401K on up.

With the loss of that rev. came the loss of funding for state programs, which also caused loss of stimulus for the economy