USA si USA no

[Franci (POL)]

Originally posted by FLenzi
Le ripeto signor FILOAMERICANO MEDIO che siamo piu' sciocchi che furbi, le ripeto che se e' vero che il nsotro paese e' una democrazia il 75% degli Italiani disapprova la politica USA e quindi non come ITALIA dobbiamo dire USA NO GRAZIE, poi se lei e la signorina Franci volente andarvene negli USA nessuno ve lo vieta.

Io AMO il mio Paese. Non credo che andrò mai a vivere negli States, anche se li ammiro profondamente. Questo perchè credo che le colline senesi, il mare della sardegna, le bellezze architettoniche che abbiamo qui da noi non potranno venire rimpiazzate da mille palazzi di vetro e di acciaio.
Io mi godo quello che l'Italia mi offre, ma, nonostante ciò, credo che se posso scrivere in un Forum e dire tutto ciò che penso è grazie agli Stati Uniti. Li ritengo senza alcun idealismo o retorica i paladini della democrazia. Ma non per questo li elevo a supremo modello per le nostre abitudini e le nostre usanze. Sai, FL, si può apprezzare di uno Stato il sistema economico e di pensiero senza volerne per forza importare tutti gli elementi. Se ne può ammirare il ruolo storico riconoscendone, contemporanemante, errori e difetti.
Sei capace di capirlo, questo? Ho i miei dubbi.

C&C
Franci

[bom-bim-bom]

Originally posted by Franci

Li ritengo senza alcun idealismo o retorica i paladini della democrazia.

Originally posted by Franci
Non è Bush ad essere un guerrafondaio. Il Presidente fa soltanto ciò che il 90% dei suoi cittadini si aspetta da lui. Comprovato dai sondaggi e dai cartelli che si vedevano l'indomani dell'attentato in giro per Manhattan: "bombardate l'Afghanistan", "Bush buttali giù" e così via. E' scorretto distinguere tra l'amministrazione statunitense e il suo popolo: tra essi, specialmente dopo l'11 settembre, c'è sintonia totale.
E, in ultimo, credi davvero che Gore o Clinton avrebbero fatto in modo minimamente diverso? Ti ricordo che i Presidenti USA che hanno portato il proprio paese alla guerra, nel novecento, sono stati tutti democratici.

C&C
franci

E tu vorresti paragonare Gore o Clinton (il primo, poi, gia dalla faccia si vede che è un minus habens ) con il grandissimo Franklin Delano Roosevelt che, con la sua entrata in guerra, sconfisse i nazisti che avevano invaso l'Europa? O, peggio, con Bush jr, che vuole attaccare l' Irak perchè soffre di complesso di Edipo, oltre ad essere pressato dalle lobby delle industrie belliche?

[bom-bim-bom]

Originally posted by gdr


E tu vorresti paragonare Gore o Clinton (il primo, poi, gia dalla faccia si vede che è un minus habens ) con il grandissimo Franklin Delano Roosevelt che, con la sua entrata in guerra, sconfisse i nazisti che avevano invaso l'Europa? O, peggio, con Bush jr, che vuole attaccare l' Irak perchè soffre di complesso di Edipo, oltre ad essere pressato dalle lobby delle industrie belliche?

Aggiungi anche che ci sono le elezioni del congresso a Novembre, mentre è scoppiato il casino che sappiamo in cui lui e la sua equipe di petrolieri sono coinvolti.
Un diversivo che compatti l'opinione pubblica acriticamente dietro il presidente sarebbe ideale.
Cosa di meglio di una bella guerra?

Tieni conto che c'è anche il ricco premio del secondo paese al mondo come quantità di riserve petrolifere.

Originally posted by bom-bim-bom


Aggiungi anche che ci sono le elezioni del congresso a Novembre, mentre è scoppiato il casino che sappiamo in cui lui e la sua equipe di petrolieri sono coinvolti.

Mi spiegheresti meglio questa cosa?

[bom-bim-bom]

Il caso enron ecc. ecc...

Vai su questo sito Common Dreams - Breaking news & views for the Progressive Community
Una raccolta di articoli progressisti dalla stampa nordamericana.

Questo ti piacerà perchè è un ammiratore di FDR...
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0722-02.htm

Un esempio di articolo.


Published on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 in the Boston Globe
Bush's Role in Corporate Fraud
by Bill Black and James Galbraith

Bill Black and James Galbraith teach at the University of Texas at Austin. Black was counsel to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in the early 1980s; Galbraith is an economist.

PRESIDENT George W. Bush has reassured us that ''From the antitrust laws of the 19th century to the S&L reforms of recent times, America has tackled financial problems when they appeared.'' But the savings & loan reforms came seven years and 150 billion taxpayer dollars late. Nor did that problem merely ''appear.'' It was created by a deregulation bill in 1982 overseen at that time by Vice President George Bush.

From 1981 to 1988, the Reagan-Bush administration covered up the S&L debacle. It forced reductions in S&L examiners and fought against the top federal regulator, Ed Gray, who sounded the alarm. Charles Keating, the felon who drove Lincoln Savings into the most expensive S&L failure in history ($3 billion) considered Vice President Bush an ally in his efforts to force Gray from office. Only after he was safely elected president did Bush propose to reregulate the S&L industry in 1989.

Meanwhile, Neil Bush, private citizen, was getting a ''loan'' from a business partner. The partner invested the loan for the president's son with the agreement that if the investment succeeded Neil would get all the profits and repay the debt, but if it failed he would not have to repay. Neil knew that this business partner was not creditworthy and yet was borrowing over $100 million from Silverado S&L, where Neil was a member of the board. Neil did not warn Silverado that the borrower was not creditworthy. When Silverado failed, the Office of Thrift Supervision proposed a minor enforcement action against Neil, which the Bush administration then attempted to block.

George W. Bush, private citizen, emulated his brother Neil. He became rich through a buyout of his interest in the Texas Rangers at a huge profit. How did he purchase that interest in the first place? He got a very large loan from a very friendly bank. How was the bank able to justify the loan? If at all, because of the market's valuation of Bush's shares in Harken. Why was he on Harken's board of directors and also a well-paid consultant? Because his name was Bush. Why was he able to sell his Harken shares for a profit? Because Harken committed a financial fraud that hid real losses and created fictional income.

What was the nature of that fraud? It was a variant on the Enron and Lincoln Savings frauds. Harken insiders formed a entity which ''purchased'' Harken's bad assets for a grossly excessive price. But Harken financed almost all of the sale. If the bad assets had stayed on the books, Harken would have had to report severe losses, threatening its survival and causing its stock values to plummet. George W. Bush is a wealthy man today because his business friends were willing to stoop to fraud to make him rich.

George W. Bush is in trouble, in part, because of his clumsy coverups of this fraud. Knowing of the severe problems at Harken, Bush sold around 200,000 shares of stock for around $4 a share. (We do not know who purchased Bush's shares, but was it the ever-friendly Harvard Management Corp., which had started buying Harken when Bush joined it and had, by 1990, become one of its largest holders?) He then failed to file required notice of these sales. When challenged on that point, he first claimed that the SEC ''lost'' his filing. His second story was to blame the failure on Harken's lawyers. But that won't wash. Bush was selling his own stock, and was therefore personally responsible for filing the documents.

Bush claims to see nothing wrong about Harken's frauds. However, the goal was to hide real losses and to book fictional income. The people who made the decision and the board of directors stood to gain directly from the fraud, and Bush did benefit - enormously.

Bush is also wrong on the accounting. This was a deliberately complicated transaction for the same reason that Enron's and Lincoln Savings's partnerships were complicated. Complexity makes it hard for regulators to discern fraud. While the transaction was complicated, the underlying fraud is so well known that the accounting rules governing such transactions are not vague. There was no ''honest dispute'' about accounting rules. There was a deliberate fraud structured in a complicated manner in order to claim that it wasn't really deliberate.

Now Bush tells us that the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to be strengthened. But he appointed an SEC head, Harvey Pitt, who as a lawyer for the accountants led the campaign to block the Clinton administration's effort to clean up the accounting profession. Back in Texas, then-Governor Bush was proud that he had made it extremely difficult for securities fraud victims to receive compensation through lawsuits. When the Enron scandal broke, Bush continued this line, suggesting that victims of fraud who bring suits are ''extort[ionists].'' He, and Republicans in the House, have fought vigorously to stop real accounting reform.

President George W. Bush is right to bring up the S&L debacle as an analogy. He is following in his father's footsteps: First, create the problem by taking actions that encourage fraud. Second, do nothing while the frauds become epidemic. Finally, when the scandal breaks, claim like Claude Rains in ''Casablanca'' that he is ''shocked, shocked'' that gambling is going on. In Bush's case, the winnings from gambling were safely pocketed long ago.

[bom-bim-bom]

Anzi quell'articolo che ho solo linkato lo pubblico perchè è simpatico e dimostra perchè non posso essere contro la società statunitense nel suo complesso.


Published on Monday, July 22, 2002 in the Madison Capital Times
Cheney is an Unashamed Corporate Shill
by Dave Zweifel

The unmitigated gall of Vice President Dick Cheney.

At least his boss, the president, appears to be a little bit embarrassed by his past business experience of taking investors for a ride with Harken Energy and Texas taxpayers for suckers with the Texas Rangers baseball stadium shenanigans.

But not our vice president. He's not only not even ashamed of presiding over the Halliburton Corp. while it was cooking the books on its earnings, he wants to keep the world safe for more rape and pillage of the unsuspecting by other greedy corporate moguls.

Cheney has the audacity to complain about Congress' attempts to enact some meaningful reforms that just might protect innocent investors in the future from the likes of Enron and WorldCom.

The vice president has been grumbling that even if Congress can't find a way to make it impossible to lose money in the stock market, it will try.

The guy's a real comedian.

No, Dick Cheney, responsible members of Congress aren't trying to find a way to make it impossible to lose money in the stock market. They're trying to make it impossible for people like you to suck unconscionable amounts of money from your corporations while leaving the working people and widows who thought they could trust you hanging out to dry.

Cheney, as we now know, walked away from Halliburton with a $34 million retirement package, not a bad take for a few years on a cushy, made-to-order job. Most Americans would be happy to retire with one hundredth of that amount after devoting an entire working lifetime to an employer.

The vice president's cavalier attitude is indicative of what is so wrong with too much of corporate America. There's an attitude that nothing is above the corporation - not even the law.

Employees are treated like pawns. Profits short of expectations? Fire a few thousand.

Executives are pampered like royalty. Need another vacation home? Invent another accounting gimmick to hide costs and produce an extra few million for big shot bonuses.

The government agencies that are supposed to keep an eye on shenanigans are kept at bay. Some bureaucrat getting too nosy? Buy another politician or two.

One of the great ironies of history is that while the late Franklin D. Roosevelt was reviled by big business because of his insistence that corporations needed strong government regulation, FDR's programs actually saved capitalism from itself during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Unfortunately, instead of a Roosevelt, we've got Bush and Cheney for this crisis.

And that doesn't bode well.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

[Jan Hus]

Originally posted by FLenzi
Come vuole signor filoamericano medio, ma poi non venga a lamentarsi insieme alla signorina franci.

E dove mi sarei lamentato, signor antiamericano medio(cre)?