Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

The way I understand it these donations go directly into trusts/foundations, which have a certain charitable aim, but these trusts are still controlled by the families of the donor, even generations later. The proceeds of the donation are then used for the charity, but normally the capital stock is not touched, so only dividends and interest are spent. The family of the donor still have voting rights of the underlying stock/ companies, so they have control but no proceeds, although in general they can also be employed by the foundation and be given a salary (within reason though).
So while these billionaires give away half their fortune, they still have complete control over it. Mind you they could also use a trust/foundation construction to circumvent inheritance taxes (surely the democrats will put them back into place in the future?) and give next to nothing to charity, while still insuring that their fortune is there for their family. In the end its not completely altruistic, but I think it is a good thing.
 
Anderson Cooper has been covering this "terror babies" story the last couple of days. This is from tonights show. The rest isn't uploaded yet, but it's pretty much more of the same. He asks for evidence, there is none. Of course if YOU JUST TALK VERY LOUDLY THEN YOU WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVE WHAT YOU SAY.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHH_XufOC0[/youtube]
 
Good lord, that was terrible. He started right out of the gate, too.
 
Yeah, but worth it to do that!
 
Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

It's so fucking deperessing to read the voters pamphlet. Are these really the candidates I have for Senate? Really? Fucking really? AHHHHHHHH. I'm about to vote for a Democrat. Why? He's the only one tying a federal spending cut to reducing national deficits. Wait, cut spending. You do know you're running as a Democrat right? I mean....WHY ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?!?!!

I'd post some quotes but I don't feel like dealing with the counties piss poor .pdf formatting. I feel like I'm dealing with my incumbent Senator who will do anything to bring the pork home (and for my Euro friends, she's the one leading the charge to get Boeing the fueling contract), is full of ridiculous promises, and is just plain aggravating. Or - I can have some loony Tea Partier. Great. These are my choices. Oh wait, there's that guy who's lost twice now while running for Governor. Instead of rationalizing his platform and running a well thought out campaign he's decided to head right and introduce a world of volatility to the Republican primary for his own vanity. I HATE YOU PEOPLE. I'm about to give my vote to Mike the Mover. Seriously, legal name. Great guy if you ever meet him!

Fuck, I'm already that irritated and I haven't even moved on to my Congressman or state level officials. Sigh...
 
so vote for a democrat.... so what? does it matter which party he belongs to if he supports the same view as you have... that's kinda the point of representative democracy, you choose someone who shares your ideas...
 
Or who does not (well in all things) but who is honest, has some brains and is trustworthy. They must want to do the best for the country, ahead of their own personal interest.

Thinks, ? Oh I see what you mean - scrub that then.
 
Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

Damn it.

It's so fucking deperessing to read the voters pamphlet. Are these really the candidates I have for Senate? Really? Fucking really? AHHHHHHHH. I'm about to vote for a Democrat. Why? He's the only one tying a federal spending cut to reducing national deficits. Wait, cut spending. You do know you're running as a Democrat right? I mean....WHY ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?!?!!

I'd post some quotes but I don't feel like dealing with the counties piss poor .pdf formatting. I feel like I'm dealing with my incumbent Senator who will do anything to bring the pork home (and for my Euro friends, she's the one leading the charge to get Boeing the fueling contract), is full of ridiculous promises, and is just plain aggravating. Or - I can have some loony Tea Partier. Great. These are my choices. Oh wait, there's that guy who's lost twice now while running for Governor. Instead of rationalizing his platform and running a well thought out campaign he's decided to head right and introduce a world of volatility to the Republican primary for his own vanity. I HATE YOU PEOPLE. I'm about to give my vote to Mike the Mover. Seriously, legal name. Great guy if you ever meet him!

Fuck, I'm already that irritated and I haven't even moved on to my Congressman or state level officials. Sigh...

I am pretty sure that over the last 30 or so years Republican administrations have increased spending much more on average then Democratic ones. Spending as a percent of GDP has shot up a lot over the past 18 months but it was either that or Great Depression the sequel and we all know sequels are worse then the original.

usgs_linephp.png


fullchart.png


As you can see from the chart we haven't hit the same percentage of GDP that we hit at the end of the great depression during WWII to finally get us out of the Great Depression. That makes sense as this wasn't as bad as the great depression but it was close.
 
It's so fucking deperessing to read the voters pamphlet. Are these really the candidates I have for Senate? Really? Fucking really? AHHHHHHHH. I'm about to vote for a Democrat. Why? He's the only one tying a federal spending cut to reducing national deficits. Wait, cut spending. You do know you're running as a Democrat right? I mean....WHY ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT?!?!!

Like Cobol74 and Salle have said, if that democrat is the best choice, for whatever reason, just vote for him. If you are having troubles voting for someone who is not from your favourite party, even if you think it would be the best choice, then you are experiencing problems with democracy. No more a free citizen, but a fan, just like those supporting football or baseball teams. The worst result of massified, spectacularized, simplified politics.
 
Something that I have said over and over again is that republicans are too stupid to lead and democrats are too big of pussies to lead.

I missed this daily show last week when he put up a spoof add that said something pretty similar.


This was in response to the 9/11 first responders health care bill that Republicans voted down because the bill was paid for by closing a tax loophole for companies that used off shore tax shelters as headquarters. The reps then put a poison pill amendment in the bill that would have stripped any money for first responders who were illegal immigrants. The dems then used a procedural maneuver that required a 2/3 vote to keep from having to vote on the poison pill. The other side of that argument is that maybe just maybe the poison pill would have passed and actually stripped the money away form illegal immigrants working as first responders. Some people say it wouldn't other people say it would.

Either way it is playing politics during an election year to get votes recorded so they can run political ads saying, "so and so voted to provide health care for illegal immigrants."




Sorry for those of you outside the US can't find a non-comedy central version of the whole show.

Breakdown and transcript here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/5/890601/-Jon-Stewart-on-9-11-responder-bill-failing:-I-give-up.

Oh and at least one Democrat wasn't to big of a pussy even if maybe he went a little over the top.


REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D-NY): YOU VOTE YES IF YOU BELIEVE YES! YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING IF YOU BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT THING! ... INSTEAD OF STANDING UP AND DEFENDING YOUR COLLEAGUES AND VOTING NO ON THIS HUMANE BILL, YOU SHOULD URGE THEM TO VOTE YES! ... I WILL NOT YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN! ... IT IS A SHAME! A SHAME!! ... THE GENTLEMAN WILL SIT! THE GENTLEMAN IS CORRECT IN SITTING!

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0804/i-raw-anger-justified-weiner-explains-rant/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04weiner.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
 
Last edited:
I have no problem voting for someone with a big fat D next to their name. But to identify with a party that as a function of its platform supports greater spending against a party whom as a function of their platform supports reduced spending seems counter intuitive. I don't think my thoughts there were well translated by my typing.

It would be like someone with an R next to their name saying "I support gay rights, abortions, single payer health care, and an expanded federal pay roll focusing in social security and welfare administration" - you'd ask "are you sure you're a Republican?" That was more the focus of the statement, not some inner turmoil about casting a ballot just because of his selected party affiliation. Inflection should have been more about does he understand his party platform or public perception of his party platform.

If that makes any damn sense.
 
If you insist on tying someone to their Party in that way, then no wonder "all politicians are liars". Do you honestly think that every Senator, Congressman, MP, TD or even grass roots member believes in every single aspect of their Partys policy manifesto?

One of the bits I hate about the UK system (and prefer about the US system) is that the members do not ever deviate from the party line, even when they themselves don't believe in it. Robin Cook and Clare Short were anomalies in the last Labour Gvt - and even Short voted for things she was against and resigned later out of conscience. Meanwhile we are left with the likes of Hazel Blears who would vote for dropping the bomb on her own constituency if the Labour whips told her to do so.

It just can't be that black and white and you vote for the person who by words and actions best represents your views, regardless of the colour of the rosette or badge he is wearing.
 
Yeah, I know it's not black and white. I still have a lot of research to do on my candidates; finally have a chance with the end of school out of the way now. Count on more rants from me while I read ;)
 
I have no problem voting for someone with a big fat D next to their name. But to identify with a party that as a function of its platform supports greater spending against a party whom as a function of their platform supports reduced spending seems counter intuitive. I don't think my thoughts there were well translated by my typing.

It would be like someone with an R next to their name saying "I support gay rights, abortions, single payer health care, and an expanded federal pay roll focusing in social security and welfare administration" - you'd ask "are you sure you're a Republican?" That was more the focus of the statement, not some inner turmoil about casting a ballot just because of his selected party affiliation. Inflection should have been more about does he understand his party platform or public perception of his party platform.

If that makes any damn sense.

Why do you care which party they come from, if they support what you support then it seems like an easy choice to me.
 
German Goverment is about to start a little project to see if stripping Job applications of gender, age and name will reduce discrimination of women, old people and people with a family background in a foreign country (i?ll just call it "origin" from now on to simplify it) when they try to get a job here. 5 Companies have signed on for this project voluntarily. There are no plans to make this into law or something. This is just an expermient to see how this goes and to see if there is a significant amout of said discrimination going on.
Now the german lobbyist "employer organisation" (arbeitgeberverband) head-person has now given an interview in wich he states that "of course" discrimination of such sorts would be bad and that the members of his organisiation are keen on fighting such discrimination ... but, the project the goverment is doing is bad, because (if this would perhaps become law) this would mean that there would be much more efford involved in filtering the the aplicants without name, gender or origin.
What he basically said there, is that the members of his organisation want to filter out people because of gender, age and origin ... and that if this became law, it would be much harder to do so ... wich leads to the conclusion that not only are they discriminating bastards ... but such a law would actually work and make discrimination of job-aplicants harder.

Lobbying-fail.

(for people who speak german)
http://www.abendblatt.de/politik/de...ent-Hundt-lehnt-die-anonyme-Bewerbung-ab.html
 
Last edited:
Top