*Some* of that criticism of the Repubs is deserved, I think -- Bush was tight with
oil interests, which is okay, but he allowed further deregulations which basically
allowed companies to hide a lot of stuff from their shareholders.

Not that we're lily-white, either. The TSX (the Toronto Stock Exchange, and the
regulatory bodies that regulate it) allow a rather arcane manoeuvre, the details
of which I won't get into because of their complexity, which allow senior
executives to appear in annual reports to be holding stock when in fact all they
own are the votes associated with that stock -- the stock is effectively owned by
banks who have bought short positions against the stocks as backup when the
inevitable burst comes but in the meantime the managers get to vote themselves
hefty salary increases and "performance bonuses". Our tax philosophy is that the
difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance is that you're allowed to
structure your affairs in such a way as to avoid paying any more tax than you have
to. Evasion, besides the usual definition, includes any manoeuvre which is set up
for the *primary* purpose of avoiding tax, however, a bit of a grey area that it
seems our tax officials are afraid of, or are underfunded, to try testing. Maybe
they're afraid of slicing the top off of most of the TSX 500 companies :-/

Dan R Allen wrote:

> Marc:
> I don't care whose watch they were codified under -- they're still laws
> which
> allow for unlawful transfer of property.
> Dan:
> Oh, I agree, but on this side of the border and prior to the elections, the
> standard complaint was that the Enron debacle was the sole fault of the
> Republicans. I was merely pointing out who was supposed to be minding the
> store at the time.
> I agree with John that on most issues there isn't much difference between
> the two parties, but the Republican party does have a few redeeming planks
> left - notably the charter violation issues, while the Democratic party has
> none.
> Dan R Allen wrote:
> > "John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> >
> > >  For instance, to me a "socialist" is anyone who advocates government
> > > redistribution of the wealth from those who produce wealth to those who
> > > don't.  Using that definition the Democratic party is definitely
> > controlled
> > > by socialists.  But then using that definition, the Republicans are
> also
> > > controlled by socialists.  So what's the difference except in rhetoric?
> > >
> >
> > Marc:
> > Such as laws which allowed the workers of Enron to have their pension
> funds
> > robbed
> > by the big brass....
> > (sorry, I couldn't resist, although I'm sure John would actually agree).
> >
> > Dan:
> > But weren't those laws modified under Clinton's watch? The robberies
> > certainly were...
> >
> >
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> > ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
> >
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
> ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

“Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick
himself up and continue on” – Winston Churchill

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to