Posted by garnet71 on June 9, 2009, at 23:55:23
In reply to Re: GSK - Paxil lawsuits » garnet71, posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2009, at 18:53:12
That puts an interesting spin on things, Lar.
Not so sure I agree with it all.
"January 2005, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce described Spitzer's approach as "the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times."
Well the Chamber of Commerce is like a mini-mafia arm for business, so they don't have too much credibility there imo.
Well most people know banks have to report any transaction over $10,000 from any individual; it's hard to believe an Attorney General would be that naive. That's puzzling. Plus, I have no clue but I can't imagine there is a govt. employee looking at every single Form 8300 submitted by a bank. But if the transactions were under $10,000, does the bank have the right to target him? Or were they digging into his accounts in a way that was not common? Would they rummage through the accounts of legislatures that produced bank-friendly legislation? Of course not. It seems many were finding ways to go after him, when there are others doing similar things. That's really the point; there is tons of govt. and business corruption-but who is chosen to be targeted for investigating and why? That's what I'm interested in. I would only be able to "guess" the D O J has a list of other politicians who have used call girl services, probably the same one Spitzer was using, but waiting for the right time to let it out; it's matter of who is chosen for prosecution. My "guess" is actually a bit more than just guessing though....
Same with GSK; many companies use creative accounting, that's why business schools have creative accounting classes. I spent 16 hours last weekend analyzing the financials/annual report of a very shady corporation that was never 'targeted'. I do wonder how many others there are. And most companies hide things w/in their financials. They are burried.
Also, it is a fact that the F B I has had a huge shortage of accountants for a number of years. They have to pick and choose which corps. to investigate. Sometimes I think the Enrons were just an example to curb corporate fraud because they did not have the resources - or will - to go after every company who does such things. it was a way to send a message to corps.: "don't be too greedy now". I guess $3 billion is a pretty damn good incentive too.
I really don't know enough about his approach, with the subponea of documents to comment on that, though it sounds interesting.
Motives, to me, are often more important than the acts themselves when it comes to government.
U.S. Senator Arlen Spector, PA, recently switched from a Republican to a Democrat. All of the sudden, he was investigated for a questionable business transaction that occurred like 30 years ago.
It's just interesting to think about whether things are just conincidences or if there is a link between events. Actually, I think I hate politics at this point. But at the same time, I realized I am really starting to like accounting. I never thought in a million years I would like something like that.
There are some good businesses out there. It just sux there has been a massive shift in wealth to the top 2%, while the middle class is deteriorating. I worked in govt. for 12 years now and am a bit jaded too, I suppose.
poster:garnet71
thread:899784
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090531/msgs/900255.html