Your original issue of consultants had everything to do with law firms. Local bar associations (which do not only include "trial lawyers" who fund the Democratic Party) were primed to go after these consultants for the "unauthorized practice of law". These attorneys working for the CPA firms were mixing their "efforts" with CPA's, MBA's, etc. and calling it "consulting". Pre-Enron the local bars hoped to attack this, however with friends like Joe Lieberman protecting these CPA/Consulting firms, they had little chance for legislative action. Of course, perhaps you believe that had the Enron's been forced to go to a traditional "law firm" for advice on setting up these partnerships they would have been out-of-luck because all attorney's are as pristine as TuWho? and would never take part in such shenanigans! LOL So I am glad you changed the subject to something that perhaps you understand (giving you the benefit of my doubt). Namely corporate compensation. Of course, Clinton's efforts on this issue were at best non-factors and at worst, they precipitated the eventual problems. Unless you believe Mr. Lay and others stock options were a reward? Perhaps had Clinton done his homework instead of silly posturing, he would have set standards on when these options could be exercised relative to corporate "health"? But that would have taken someone in the White House up to the job, luckily we have such a person now!
My reply to Sir Biggles! My friend Tom is lucky I have not unleashed the hounds of the Alley on his posts. I have not even analyzed it for possible misspelled words or the time of his post! I would challenge his to something that involved him flying to North Dakota on his own time, but I don't want to give my dear friend Soph any ideas!
Re: Your original issue of consultants had everything to do with law firms. First, your consulting explanation is nonsense. Consulting in most cases referred to external guidance of how to spend money, where to spend money, etc. That is not in attorney's realm of knowledge. I can name brokerage firms and specific companies that got together and made deals wherein the brokerage firms "advised" on matters such as selling parts of the company, etc. So once again, you throw lawyers in as a red herring because you have no believable argument to make. Now to the really asinine part of your post (hard to judge, but this was indeed more stupid on your part). If Clinton's efforts were "at best non-factors", then why did the GOP raise holy hell when the issues and votes came up. If you say they didn't, then you are a damn liar because I remember the broadcasts of the committee hearings on that part of the package. The elephant men were squealing like stuck pigs. If it was so inconsequential, why make a big deal about it and look like they are for the rich. OOOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSS, looks like Mr. W. just stepped in it big time, huh? WHAT!!!! on the Clinton set standards on corporate options? HOW??? I realize you have become familiar with Sapling trying to goosestep policy, but a US president has NO grounds on which to limit exercise prices, etc. IF you really believed in free enterprise you would know that. Funny, how the same people who think government is so bad and should stay out of business are the first ones to want them to perform illegal acts. I call you a HYPOCRITE on that point. Anyway, Clinton showed what a GENIUS he was in office by turning out the pathetic defiicit situation leftover from the Bonzo and Bush years. He presided over the greatest expansion in US history, only now ended by the most incompetent president in US history, Sapling. I won't go into the numbers, because you obviously don't have the math background to understand them.
