George W Bush Early Investment Career?
In Stone’s film W there is a brief segment in which bush flamed out of an investment related position that is only described as “on Wall St.” I’m curious what it was that Bush actually did during this point in his youth. All of my google searched for Bush and terms related to Wall St relate to current activities or affiliations. Does anyone know what type of position Bush held on the street?
[quote=xbanker]
In Stone’s film W there is a brief segment in which bush flamed out of
an investment related position that is only described as "on Wall St."
I’m curious what it was that Bush actually did during this point in his
youth. All of my google searched for Bush and terms related to Wall St
relate to current activities or affiliations. Does anyone know what
type of position Bush held on the street?
[/quote]
What about Oliver Stone’s history as a film maker allows you to conclude that he is within the same zip code with honesty?
Why would waste your time, much less your money, with such drivel?
He was probably Wall Streets coke dealer.
...sorry i couldn't resistHere's a good one...on the Glenn Beck show this morning, he had an audio of a lady coming out of a polling place just overwhelmed with excitement. When they got comments from her,,this is what she said..."I've waited all my life for this, we finally have someone who will take care of us. I don't have to worry about paying for gas for my car or my mortgage...." WTF!! THe lazy asses are trying to get power....wake up....the lazy, uneducated, criminal and on the rolls are trying to take the country over...
I haven’t heard anything about a former career in investments.
However, I do think that Stone is an idiot. I have not seen W, nor will I, but I have seen previews. Just in those few minutes, they make him seem like a moron. I know the mainstream "media" likes to portray him as stupid, but that is just not the case. You don't get an MBA from Harvard if you are stupid, I don't care who your daddy is. I truly believe the historians will look back on W's 8 years as actually a pretty good presidency. Really, other than his inability to clamp down on runaway spending and steel tariffs, I don't really have a problem with him. Obivously, I was for the Iraq war.[quote=iceco1d]No, their kids are generally the most socially important and well connected - they need good grades so their mommies & daddies will continue to build library wings, and their kids can continue to grab up earmarked jobs @ Goldman Sachs. You can’t do either with D’s.
[/quote] Are these the same idiots that ran the financial system into the ground? Or are they the same idiots that called for oil to go $200? On a side note, I thought the whole Cornell thing on The Office last night was pretty funny.[quote=bspears]
Here's a good one...on the Glenn Beck show this morning, he had an audio of a lady coming out of a polling place just overwhelmed with excitement. When they got comments from her,,this is what she said..."I've waited all my life for this, we finally have someone who will take care of us. I don't have to worry about paying for gas for my car or my mortgage...." WTF!! THe lazy asses are trying to get power....wake up....the lazy, uneducated, criminal and on the rolls are trying to take the country over...
[/quote] So, what do you think that same woman is going to say 2 years from now when NONE of the campaign promises he's made have come to fruition. The Treasury is going to tell him he's smoking crack if he thinks he can spend the money he wants on his programs. Socialism isn't free. The local Fox radio station has been playing a clip of one of Osama's campaign experts who said that with the current economic environment, they may have to wait for a while to actually get some of those things into play. He said that it wouldn't be a good idea to raise taxes right now. Umm...hello...welcome to the Republican party! Glad you saw the light. I can't help but think that W is sitting in the Oval office right now just chuckling at the thought of Osama sitting there in a few months. He's going to have to deal with the buyout deal, huge national debt (that just got doubled because Freddie and Fannie are now gov't owned), Bin Laden still on the loose, economy in a panic, Iraq, oil/energy, etc. He's probably thinking, you can have the chair. I'm going fishing. Good luck to you. I wonder how Osama's going to feel about actually having to make a decision. According to his voting record, he's not really used to having to vote on anything. It's actually pretty shocking the number of things in IL that he hasn't been involved in. And he rarely say no. If he does vote, it's usually yes. And yet all those people out there want him in the most powerful chair in the country. Go figure.Media made President. I HOPE McCain Wins so the sorry main stream media has to cry like babies. If McCain wins, you can bet it will be a somber time on the Today Show.
[quote=iceco1d]That’s definitely not true now_indy. My wife, and my best friend, both went to private schools. They have both recited no less than a half dozen incidents where a particular classmate’s parents donated money to the school and got their child(ren) out of a bind. In fact, they even excused one individual from taking her finals because of a family emergency!
Aside from money, Ivy league school inflate grades. There are studies on this. 99% of the end of term grades given at Harvard from 90 - 99 were a "B" or higher. Yea, I know, someone is going to come up with the really sharp rebuttal to this..."but that's because they are Harvard/Yale/Princeton, their kids are the smartest!" No, their kids are generally the most socially important and well connected - they need good grades so their mommies & daddies will continue to build library wings, and their kids can continue to grab up earmarked jobs @ Goldman Sachs. You can't do either with D's.[/quote]You surprise me with this post, ice, as it makes you sound not much different from all those we hear from here who insist that the only ones who make it in this business are those who were handed an existing book or have rich family connections. Same with this all Ivy Leaguers were born with a silver spoon stuff. This may make some feel better to think this, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Bush’s one and only business success was as minority owner of the Texas Rangers. And even that is peppered with controversy. Bush invested about $600K with a contract to get a piece of any increase in team value within a set time period. Depending on who you talk to he was either a brilliant business man or a bungling son of a powerful texas family trading on family connections. Regardless of what side of that line you fall on the facts are the team’s increase in value was linked to the building of a new statium. No statium equalled no increase in value. A new statium was needed to attract the players, who were needed to attract the crowds and TV contracts. Rangers management threatened to leave Arlington unless a new statium was built. Bush’s role was, trading on family connections, getting the texas legislature to pass new eminent domain laws so the city couls get the land needed to build the new statium. The law was passed the land was grabbed, people were put on the street, Bush walked away with a $9,400,000 profit. End of story.
[quote=BondGuy]Bush’s one and only business success was as minority owner of the Texas Rangers. [/quote]
Which is really impressive compared to Obama’s business success.
Strangely, Bush’s only business success was acheived in the same way he governs the land - screw the little guy so the fat cats can get rich. Or in this case more rich. Gotta say, at least the guy is consistant.
Can't let a little thing like booting someone out of their home stand in the way of making a profit. Hey, many were poor people, so it's like it doesn't even count. It's not like they were like you, you know a real person who matters.I do remeber the AC deal to a point. First the casino developer, not sure if it was trump, was a prick. Because he couldn’t buy the house or take it through ED, he built around it. Essentially he walled this woman in on three sides. To her credit she didn’t budge. Years later a deal was reached and the house was sold.
Ice, the people were given fair market value, but hardly the point. A government man coming to your door telling you you've got to move because they want your land goes directly against the freedoms this nation was founded on. The government can't take your land, period! Then somewhere along the line ED laws were passed that allowed the government to take your property for a public purpose, highway, school etc. But down the slippery slope we went. Now developers look for land they want to develope, contribute to politicians, give the politician's law firms, consulting firms, family etc millions in contracts so that the politicians will grant ED to the developer on the prized property. The developer gets the property, the construction generates millions of dollars in revenue and profit for the politicians thru their affiliated firms and everyone walks away with a bundle of money in their pockets. Everyone except the original homeowner- they get to move from a home that might have been in the family for generations. It is a screw job period! What is public purpoe? It's whatever the politicians say it is. In Nj it's building new homes to replace perfevtly good older homes. That's how ridiculous it's gotten. Again in NJ, a developer wanted to buld a 1000 home developement in Camden. They called it redevelopement. Except, as bad as Camden is, this is one area that didn't need redeveloping. The developer went to the most powerful senator in the state senate to plead their case and get the ED law passed so the money making could begin. The senator played his part, created and then got passed an ED law that would allow the developement. 5000 people were about to lose their homes. All, in that senator's home district. And to top it of guess who got the multi million dollar contract to evict those homeowners? You guessed it, mr. Powerful senator. he was going to evict his own constiuents. A lawsuit was filed, usually a loser in these cases. But in this situation the homeowners prevailed. The developer gave up. good for the little guy! So, went you say,wait a minute those homeowners got paid for their property-far-very far from the amoral point of using ED to enrich those in power.Bondguy, I take it you didn’t sell any of the muni’s issued for the Rangers stadium, and you screen each and every issue (hospitals, turnpikes etc) to make sure no person was displaced. Right?
Ice, I guess i misread your intent. sorry about that.
I'm pretty much in the ED only for a very narrow use camp. It has been so abused and politicans can twist anything to make it sound like we need it. To the homeowner it ain't about the money. And paying double or triple on many large projects would hardly make a dent. Another ugly aspect to the Camden deal is that the homeowners weren't going to get paid enough money for their homes to be able to purchase the new homes being built. That it is largely a hispanic neighborhood is what saved their butts. They filed a civil rights law suit. It was brilliant move but an ugly situatioon involving greed and coruption at the highest levels. But, what goes around comes around- the state senator who had a hand in the deal is now on trial in federal court for fraud charges involving a no show job he took in return for passing taxpayer money to his employer. he should go down, but this is Jersey, so who knows?Man, that W is quite the enigma - clever enough to negotiate a brilliant sweetheart business deal for himself, single-handedly usher a new bill through the state legislature and then evict all those poor people from their homes and collect over $9 million, but too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, much less graduate from Yale and Harvard Business School without his Daddy’s help. It’s all so confusing to keep this straight.
But what’s the point of bothering to bash someone who isn’t even running for election this year? I’m still trying to figure out what has been your candidate’s most significant accomplishment as a businessman? Or if not as a businessman, then as an elected official? Or just generically as a leader of some sort? Surely he must have some significant tangible accomplishment to point to, right?
There must be something beyond the whole community organizer/ACORN stuff, right? There is, isn’t there??
Please tell me there is.
I read about the Bush-rangers dealings long before he ran for prez. It seemed very slimly to me. He made out but at the expense of the less fortunate.
When he first ran for prez thought Oh boy this is gonna be a mess. Well, that's after i thought why not run Jeb?He is about to be elected POTUS. I just threw up in my mouth a little.Man, that W is quite the enigma - clever enough to negotiate a brilliant sweetheart business deal for himself, single-handedly usher a new bill through the state legislature and then evict all those poor people from their homes and collect over $9 million, but too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, much less graduate from Yale and Harvard Business School without his Daddy’s help. It’s all so confusing to keep this straight.
But what’s the point of bothering to bash someone who isn’t even running for election this year? I’m still trying to figure out what has been your candidate’s most significant accomplishment as a businessman? Or if not as a businessman, then as an elected official? Or just generically as a leader of some sort? Surely he must have some significant tangible accomplishment to point to, right?
There must be something beyond the whole community organizer/ACORN stuff, right? There is, isn’t there??
Please tell me there is.
I may have to re-evaluate my entire life, I find myself in complete agreement with Put...[quote=xbanker]
In Stone’s film W there is a brief segment in which bush flamed out of an investment related position that is only described as “on Wall St.” I’m curious what it was that Bush actually did during this point in his youth. All of my google searched for Bush and terms related to Wall St relate to current activities or affiliations. Does anyone know what type of position Bush held on the street?
[/quote]
What about Oliver Stone’s history as a film maker allows you to conclude that he is within the same zip code with honesty?
Why would waste your time, much less your money, with such drivel?
[quote=BondGuy]Strangely, Bush’s only business success was acheived in the same way he governs the land - screw the little guy so the fat cats can get rich. Or in this case more rich. Gotta say, at least the guy is consistant.
[/quote] Blah, blah, blah "screw the little guy" blah, blah, blah....I'm unaware of any new legislation passed so that Arlington could redevelop a run down part of town with a new ball park as an anchor, but your horrible tail sure doesn't seem to ring true, especially given how the residents of Arlington enjoy their ball park. BTW, Bush was the managing partner, not a strap hanger along for the ride.[quote=BondGuy]I read about the Bush-rangers dealings long before he ran for prez. It seemed very slimly to me. He made out but at the expense of the less fortunate.
When he first ran for prez thought Oh boy this is gonna be a mess. Well, that's after i thought why not run Jeb?[/quote] As if you, a hyper-partisan Democrat, were ever going to consult a balanced source or view Bush in any manner other than the way you have.Whoa, I guess I should have expected that to be a bomb waiting to expload…
So does anyone know what Bush did on the street or that this position in the film did not occur?
Regarding my “belief” of Stone, I think similarly little of him as a political blow hard. I saw the film out of curiosity, not to watch in enjoyment as Stone attempts to “get in a parting shot.” All in all it was a mediocre piece of entertainment and subpar piece of history.
On a side note, not sure about the time of W’s enrollment, but here’s how Yale undergraduate admissions are processed today:
More or less 10% of applicants will be admitted, a high percentage of which will actually enroll. The pool is narrowed in “stages.” In the first of which, some characteristics can get someone in the “no” pile or “yes” pile, at which point upon receipt of a yes the application goes to a discussion among the members of the admissions department, perhaps with representatives from elsewhere including the faculty or student body. Repeat until the number needed to fill those anticipated vacancies is arrived at.
The legacies have an advantage in the above situation in that they automatically advance to the “group discussion” and can not be eliminated without this procedure, while an unaffiliated applicant may be denied admission at the earlier stage. The former director of admissions at Yale (now at Stanford) indicated that around eight applicants would bypass both sections of the review and get rubber-stamped based on information from the development (fundraising) office of the university.
There are about 6000 undergrads at Yale, necessitating around 1500 new enrollments as freshmen annually. In order to arrive at this figure, it is necessary to admit 2000 or so. (A wait list is often employed but not every year.)
With 8 out of 2000 student totally “walking” in and a little under half of the applicant pool (this is actually a DECREASE from earlier years) with at least single legacy status (both parents alum would be a double legacy although no further “formal” consideration for more than one) it would certainly make it increasingly difficult for one of the just under 20k applicants (more or less by year) to get one of 2000 offers of admission.
Legacy admission is alive and well and will not go away. Larry Summers indicated while at Harvard that he believed legacy was an integral part to maintaining school loyalty and culture although the argument can easily be made that it indirectly benefits white applicants. I am consistent in my opposition of both affirmative action and legacy admission. An appropriate resolution would be to ban the practice from public institutions and restrict federal funding to private institutions who wish to employ a legacy based admissions criteria.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/lounge/george-w-bush-early-investment-career