Ralph Naders Financial Holdings: Why he wanted, and needs Bush

[ShaneGR]

This thread is intended to present a theory on Nader's bizarre reappearance on the political landscape despite the horror of a 2nd Bush term. It shows that Nader had direct financial benefits from his first spoiler role in 2000, and will continue to prosper in the case of a Bush re-selection. Bookmark it, slam it in a Greenies face whenever they talk about virtue or ideals.

During the 2000 election Nader was forced to make a disclosure of his finances. This document, which I've been staring at for a while, can be found here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd1999/N00000086_99.pdf

Nader revealed that he owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares of Occidental Petroleum stock.

Lets introduce ourselves to the Occidental Petroleum company shall we?

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/colombia/663.html

(snip)
International rights attorneys filed suit today under the Alien Tort Claims Act against Occidental Petroleum and its security contractor, Airscan, Inc., for their role in the murder of innocent civilians in the hamlet of Santo Domingo, Colombia on December 13, 1998.

http://www.everyvotematters.com/boycott/ooo.html

(snip)
Gerald T McPhee, Washington, D.C., of Occidental Petroleum contributed $100,000 (the maximum allowed) to the 2001 Bush inauguration. If you have information on products and services, as well as alternative sources, please contact [e-mail].

http://www.corpwatch.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=5810

(snip)
According to the Bush Administrations draft budget request for 2004, the US would allot $110 million dollars to protect OXY's (Occidental) Cano Limon oil pipeline-- a $3 per barrel corporate subsidy paid for by US taxpayers and the lives of innocent Colombians. Should the operations of a morally bankrupt US oil company implicated in numerous human rights abuses related to the infamous Santo Domingo massacre receive a $110 million corporate welfare package (up $12 million from last year) for a project that protects pipelines, not people? According to community sources on the ground, US trained troops patrol within a few feet of the pipeline to keep the oil flowing.

But even if you ignore the Occidental link, the fund holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company!!! The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast.








So basically Ralphie enriched himself from a Bush Presidency, and he stands to further enrich himself in the event of a re-election. Heck, with his visits to Grover Norquist, who knows how many new stocks he's gobbled up. But go ahead Greenies... love him!

[pasadenaboy]

1. I don't think Nader is corrupt

Insane and wrong, yes.

Corrupt, no.

[Paragon]

2. Bleh

Yes, owning stock is evil. Thank you.

[WillyBrandt]

6. It wasn't stock in the Sweetness and Joy Company

of Greater Nantucket.

It matters.

[jiacinto]

7. It's hypocritical

Nader savaged Gore over that same issue vis a vis the U'Wa.

[jiacinto]

3. Good post

That fund also owns shares of Wal-Mart.

[Forkboy]

4. How'd your Enron stock do?

[jiacinto]

8. I lost my shirt on it

But see it's not an issue because I didn't attack someone else for owning stock.

[Forkboy]

10. What the hell are you doing now?

Just like the Repubs it's always different when YOU do it.

[jiacinto]

11. No you miss ther point

Nader attacked Gore for owning stock when he did himself. I am making an issue of his hyporisy.

[FDRrocks]

12. Was Gores stock owned through a mutual fund?

Just a question.

[SahaleArm]

29. Nader could have invested in socially responsible companies.

He didn't care; nothing but phony outrage.

[Forkboy]

30. That doesn't answer FDR's question

[SahaleArm]

35. Answers the implication that owning stocks through mutual funds is ok...

Nader can't claim ignorance on what stocks are owned by the mutual funds he invests in. They all give out a prospectus.

[Forkboy]

37. That doesn't answer FDR's question

[SahaleArm]

38. Sure it does, his question is rhetorical *nm*

[Forkboy]

40. "Was Gores stock owned through a mutual fund?"

That is not a rhetorical question.If you dont know or dont care just say so.

[SahaleArm]

41. Don't get angry at me for pointing out the obvious *nm*

[Forkboy]

42. You've pointed out nothing

just dodged.

and trust me,I'm not even close to angry :)

[SahaleArm]

43. I refuse to be baited into doing someone else's research.

:evilgrin:

[Forkboy]

45. I thought as much

[Forkboy]

13. and I'm making an issue of your hypocrisy.

[ShaneGR]

14. Uh, Jiaconto didn't help elect Bush in 2000

Nader did.

[Forkboy]

16. Jiacinto

like all the defenders of the status quo help NO ONE.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

20. I love you to

still being religious and thinking about smashing people with bricks?

[5thGenDemocrat]

21. That's spelled "too"

There. NOW you're perfect.
John
Greed is not a family value -- but self-righteousness, apparently, is.

[Forkboy]

22. awww John

thanks for correcting me...I guess you love me after all :)

[5thGenDemocrat]

23. Then kiss me

You know where.
John

[Forkboy]

24. that's not very religious of you

back to church for you :spank:

[Terwilliger]

26. what is a dink?

cultural reference?

[Forkboy]

28. I haven't heard that since Kindergarten

it's what little boys use when taking a peepee :D

[FDRrocks]

5. He claims his money usually goes towards...

his liberal groups. The first I read of the man in people a few years back showed a very modest upper-middle class house (which I feel he earned through his auto safety venture).

Is there much refutation on this point? I mean, the man does say things have to get worse to get really better, as I do. So why not work off of the worser times? Even though it is a mutual fund.

Disclaimer: I don't really give a shit about Nader other than the seatbelt has saved my life... but I do give a shit about the Green Party.

[FDRrocks]

18. Goddamnit reply.

[bluestateguy]

9. How much did he save on the Bush taxcut?

All of the candidates have promised to repeal at least the part of the Bush taxcut that goes to the rich. I wonder how much money Nader stands to gain by playing spoiler and swinging another election to Shrub.

[Terwilliger]

25. How much did rich Democrats save?

and THEY were the ones who helped him pass the cuts!!!

[fujiyama]

27. Most democrats voted AGAINST it

IIRC even Evan Bayh voted against them. A few DINOs did like Fienstien (no excuse), Breaux, Zell, and a few other southern dems...

I don't recall Nader ever attacking the Bush* tax cuts...Hmmmmm

[Terwilliger]

33. you should check it out

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/cf.crossfire/

MOORE: You know why the Bush tax cut hasn't worked? Because it hasn't taken effect yet. And the fact of the matter is, that 90 percent of the tax cut doesn't take place until 2005, 2006 and 2007. That was at the insistence of the Democrats. Now they are saying -- Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt are saying, repeal the tax cut before it even takes place. So how can it work if it hasn't taken effect yet?

CARLSON: And that's an excellent point. Mr. Nader, I doubt -- I know you agree.

NADER: I don't agree. I don't agree that the U.S. government should subsidize losses in the stock market. That's supposed to be against the libertarian viewpoint.

MOORE: Yes, but Ralph, if you have to pay tax on your gains, why shouldn't you be able to deduct your losses? I mean, tax fairness is tax fairness, after all.

NADER: Because one is capital losses and capital gains and the other is ordinary income. You can already deduct up to $3,000, but you want to deduct the losses of billionaires. That's the difference.

CARLSON: A lot of people -- a lot of Americans have...

NADER: Listen, this is not a slow -- this is not a slow talk program. For people who want more details, just log in MultinationalMonitor.org for the facts. And for the action, CitizenWorks.org. In other words, the case is clear. We're in a corporate crime wave.

CARLSON: Wait a second.

NADER: We don't need to keep belaboring it. It's time for the Democrats to draw a bright line, Paul, with the Republicans, for the election. Otherwise, they'll blur the issue on corporate crime. You've been arguing this.

BEGALA: I know.

CARLSON: Ralph, wait a second.

NADER: OK. Go ahead.

CARLSON: When you say we're in the middle of a corporate crime, and doubtless you have more Web sites to back it up. You can give us their directions in a minute.

NADER: Yes.

CARLSON: But I want to show you a poll that was just undertaken by Stan Greenberg and James Carville, an agency called the Democracy Core, and it asked Americans, how do you feel about various institutions, organizations in American life. I want to throw it up.

It's fascinating statistics. George W. Bush got 61. This is a thermometer poll. The higher the better. Sixty-one. The Republicans, 54. Democrats, 53.

Big corporations, 43. Green party -- Ralph Nader, that would be you, 39.

So the news here is: big corporations are more popular than you are.

NADER: Really? You want to...

CARLSON: They didn't ask about Satan, though.

NADER: Well, wait a minute. Tucker, you want to test that? Get Madison Square Garden full of people, randomly chosen, and have me debate George Bush or Al Gore or any corporate executive, and if I don't beat them 3 to 1, I'll come on this program even more.

CARLSON: Wait a second, wait a second. This is not -- this is not -- well, you are always welcome here. This is not a test of rhetorical skills, who's able better to demagogue an issue. But if you ask the average person, how do you feel about big business, you don't get a uniformly negative response. Whereas, you're not doing that well, to be honest.

NADER: Wait a minute. How about the "Businessweek" poll, which said 72 percent of the American people think big business has too much control over their lives? How about...

CARLSON: Even more feel you have more control over their lives.

NADER: How about all the people that have lost their pensions, who have lost their investments, millions of Americans, playing by the rules, losing trillions to corporations who escape to Bermuda, or buy-and-sell politicians in Washington? Come on, Tucker. Don't you see a corporate criminal when you -- don't you want him in jail?

CARLSON: Absolutely. They're going to jail.

[Terwilliger]

34. oh, and another one!

http://www.sfbg.com/nader/139.html

2/19/01

Tax fraud
Bush's tax cut plan shows he also has problems with "the vision thing."

By Ralph Nader


Bush's tax cut plan shows he also has problems with "the vision thing."

President Bush may not realize it, but moderate and liberal members of Congress could save him a lot of grief if they voted down or sharply modified the administration's proposal for a massive tax cut.

Fueled by the excess of campaign promises, the president's $1.6 trillion tax cut threatens to return the nation to the dark days of growing deficits, higher interest rates, and tightfisted public-investment policies which leave no room for dealing with the nation's most pressing social and economic problems.

Sadly, the president has put the plan forward with flimsy supporting data and with long-range, highly optimistic projections of budget surpluses that, if history is any guide, will fade under economic and political realities. The Congressional Budget Office, on whose projections the president hangs his tax cut hat, concedes that its projections are subject to wide-ranging variables that may or may not survive rising costs and unforeseen economic problems: for example, rising costs for health care or slower-than-anticipated economic growth.

<snip>

[Old and In the Way]

46. But Terwillinger-

There's no differences between a Democrat and a Republican.

Apparently, there are no differences between Democrats, Republicans, and Ralph Nader.

When are the Nader cultists going to get it?

[Terwilliger]

15. Damn Shawn, I know you realize that Dems wouldn't want their portfolios

blurted out for scrutiny

Nader doesn't attack corporations, he attacks corporatism. As do both your buddy Dean, and his cohort Wes Clark. BOTH of them have made statements about corporate crime and both of them have corporate ties.

[Paragon]

17. I assume you'll follow this up with a similar dissection...

...of the holdings of Clinton, Gore, and the entire field of Democratic candidates..?

Didn't think so. You'll find the same sort of evil capitalist ties to pretty much anyone who holds a significant amount of stock. And they all benefit from Bush's tax cuts, too.

Next issue.

[Tinoire]

31. Would you kindly do the same for Clark's portfolio

I am especially salivating to see Clark's.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00026187

From there you can click on the link in the left hand "Personal Finances". The stock portfolio is of particular interest to me- pre-election liquidation that is.

Greatly obliged.

[Sven77]

32. jeez talk about nitpicking

Like most americans, Nader was preparing for retirement by investing in a mutual fund. The Fidelity Magellan fund is one of the top ten biggest funds. if it makes you any happier the 5 Year return was -0.27 % as of 11/30/2003. Nader has done more for this country than your trolling. He did not cause Gore to loose the election. Gore lost the election because of the Florida election scandels and the Supreme Court.


FMAGX
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=FMAGX
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Fund/Snapshot.asp?Country=USA&Symbol=FMAGX&hsection=quote

Portfolio Analysis 09-30-03
Energy 7.4% of the fund, including EXXON MOBIL CORP

Fidelity Magellan FMAGX
YTD Return: 18.2%
How the 10 Biggest Funds Have Fared in 2003
http://news.morningstar.com/doc/article/1,,100577,00.html
http://www.fidelity.com/

[CWebster]

36. Why don't you save your venom for someone

who has spent a lifetime trying to destroy what Nader has worked to protect as a consumer advocate?

[jpgray]

39. Nader's just another politician--he's no ideal, he's no hero

He says the right things, but he seems to be more interested in making money than making a difference. At least, the results bear that opinion out. Refusing to allow his workers to unionize, using funds from his advocacy groups for stock adventures--he's just not any kind of pure leftist hero.

He's an oridnary ambitious guy that uses the left to make his money and to grow his fame. That's not any more hypocritical than your average Democrat, but Nader fans that have a holier-than-thou attitude are pretty silly.

[AP]

44. This is such weakly argued thesis.

You're arguing that Nader had a fiduciary interest in the outcome of the election because of one stock held by his mutual fund. That fund is one of the most popular funds in America. All candidates probably hold mutual funds. Furthermore, he owns the fund not the stock. What matters isn't how the stock did. It's how the fund did. And how did the fund do?

[uhhuh]

47. The Problem I see

Is that if you are going to be an idealist, and rail against the cozy relationship mainstream candidates have with corporations, and speak to the corruption and waste and destructive practices of these entities, you should make an extra effort not to do business with them even if you suffer financially.

I don't shop at Walmart because of their union busting and predatory business style. I would expect that Nader would take extra effort to make sure that his investments reflected his ideology over his desire to make a buck. It makes him less trustworthy to me if he is not willing to take a hit to stand up for what is right. He doesn't have to invest in mutual funds that have objectionable companies in them, he chooses to. That's where I see a problem. He should do better as a leader of a progressive movement.

I don't think he definately want's the chimp elected to make money, but I do see this particular situation as being hypocritical.

[tkmorris]

49. OK

You are saying quite clearly that you set a very high standard and expect Nader to live up to that. No problem. The only thing I would ask is that you demand the very same high standards of every other candidate.

It seems to me Nader gets used as a scapegoat more often than not, and as such any excuse to tear him apart is considered to be just hunky-dory. Treat him as you would any other candidate and we have no problem.

[uhhuh]

50. I hold him to a higher standard

Because he is one one claiming the high ground. If he wants to say the mainstream politians are all beholden to corporate interests, and that there is no difference between them, he better be able to show that he is different. I can get pretty words from any of them too. If he's the one who's different, he better have absolutely clean hands.

If he's not willing to walk the walk, I don't care what he says.

[ShaneGR]

51. Hypocricy

That's the main problem with Nader.

[sandnsea]

48. Gore owns/owned Occidental

That was part of the Green case against Gore in 2000. Kind of humorous, or not. We really need better researchers in the Democratic Party, this info should have come out in 2000.

http://www.ran.org/news/newsitem.php?id=306

[Q]

52. If you guys would spend only HALF of this amount of time...

...going after Bush*...then we might get some where.

[ShaneGR]

53. omg

Q, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.