|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 7, 2013 16:38:22 GMT
More pay-offs to the multi Billionaire liberals for ALL their money sent to Obama. Isn't it odd how Obama demonizes the Republican billionaire donors, but never says a word about his own! That's why I laugh each time he does it.
"Colleen Bradley Bell, producer for soap opera production company Bell-Phillip Television Prods., has been nominated as ambassador to Hungary, becoming the latest of President Obama’s campaign supporters to be tapped for foreign posts.
Bell’s nomination must be approved by the Senate. She raised more than $500,000 for the Obama campaign, according to its disclosure of campaign bundlers. According to the New York Times, the actual figure was more than $2.1 million by the fall of 2012.
She and her husband, Bradley Bell, executive producer and head writer for “The Bold and the Beautiful,” hosted Obama at a fund-raising event at their Holmby Hills home in February 2012."variety.com/2013/biz/news/colleen-bell-nominated-by-obama-as-ambassador-to-hungary-1200802945/
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 12:08:08 GMT
LOL - This has been going on since the founding of the United States by all political parties. Ambassadorships are often given to the major supporters of a presidential candidate as a reward. It is really a ceremonial position as the actual embassy staff does all of the work.
I've actually joked about running for president but the campaign finance laws would prevent it. If there were no campaign finance laws I'd have my campaign donors write what presidential appointment they wanted in the "memo" section of their check. For example they could choose "Ambassador to France" and make a donation. If their donation was the "highest" donation for that appointment position then they'd get it. If not (i.e. two people donated and wrote in "Ambassador to France") then the other receives a "Thank you for your donation" letter.
Presidential political appointments of campaign supporters so well known and has been going on for so long that objections to it really are moot. I don't even know why it's illegal under our campaign laws because everyone knows that it's going on in every administration. While not an ambassadorship former President Bush appointed Michael Brown to head FEMA in 2003 and no one could have been less qualified for the position. Brown's only notable past achievement was as a the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association (IAHA) prior to becoming head of FEMA.
This is really a laughable issue to even bring up because its so commonplace in American politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 8, 2013 15:59:22 GMT
Did Brown give Bush millions???
Speaking of that.....you know there are a LOT of fat-cat liberals. And yet....isn't it odd how Obama never goes out and publically demonizes them? NEVER does he publically call in to question their 401(c)(4)'s. He never even mentions his fat-cat multi-Billionaire George Soros and what he's doing in politics, does he? Never questions where his money comes from, does he? NAH.....what Obama does is to go around and demonize American citizens....creating his bogeyman; the Tea Party........to give his supporters a group to hate. It's what Democrats/liberals do. Because they don't think they can win on ideas; they only believe they can win by playing dirty.
And so much for the "there are no blue states; there are no red states; there is just the United States of American" bull crapola he tried to feed us......it, too, was all a lie coming from him, in order to fool enough people to get elected. It worked on a lot of Sheeple.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 16:57:53 GMT
Multiple points.
No, Brown wasn't a billionaire but then again he wasn't made an ambassador either. He was a major Bush supporter though and received his political appointment based upon his political contributions as a Bush supporter and not because he was in any way qualified for the appointment.
I don't support Obama because in a real sense he's like the Tea Party. He gives lip-service to a problem and then ignores the cause of the problem. For example he condemns "unfair taxation" but doesn't propose eliminating the Capital Gains Tax that is the primary cause of unfair taxation in the United States.
As I've repeatedly stated I oppose both Democrats and Republicans when it comes to 501(c)(4) tax exempt charities because I believe they're being used as a cover-up for donors funding political action. My simple solution is to require all 501(c)(4) organizations to publish the names off all donors that contribute more than a fixed amount like $2500 for all immediate family members. I support political activity but believe that the American People have a right to know who's paying for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 8, 2013 18:47:28 GMT
I just don't understand Libertarians, then.....because what they say and what they do seems to be two very different things.
I would think a libertarian would not be for picking winners and losers; that's what Obama does and he's VERY liberal; probably Socialist.
A Libertarian, I would think, would not believe that the federal gov't should punish those who played by the rules, achieved the American Dream, and give MORE than their "fair" share of taxes to support others. But like a liberal, it seems that YOU want to "punish" the rich.......even those who didn't just get it handed to them.
Like liberals, it seems to me....based on all our previous discussions and debates....that you ask nothing of those at the lower levels who are being supported by the middle and upper classes. For instance.....did you support Bill Clinton when he made work requirements for those on Welfare....OR did you support Obama for lifting those requirements?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 8, 2013 20:20:13 GMT
There is a problem when the rules are unfair.
I've pointed this out before. In 2011 my federal tax burden (i.e. tax rate on income) was over double Mitt Romney's federal tax burden and he had well over 220-times the income I had. I had a very good income in 2011 and paying my federal taxes didn't cause me any loss in my standard of living so why didn't Mitt Romney at least pay the same tax rate as I did?
How anyone can claim that a person with 1/220th of the income of another person is subjected to double the tax rate is "fair" is beyond me.
If we fix our tax codes (which I've proposed) so that the "rules are fair" then it changes the whole dynamics of the economic growth in America. Instead of the top 1% reaping 95% of all the income from the GDP growth since the end of the recession the other 99% might actually be able to at least stay even but that isn't happening in America today.
My tax proposal isn't even an "attack" on the top 1% because a CEO with a million dollar a year salary pays over double the tax rates on his income when compared to an investor. The top tax rate for the CEO is 39.6% plus Social Security (with a cap) and Medicare (no cap) taxation on top of that. The investor has a 20% maximum tax rate, doesn't pay any taxes on at least the first $70,000 in income, and only pays very small "tax" to fund "Obamacare" of less than 4% on income over $350,000 today. The CEO, because they're a 'worker' in America, is getting screwed under or tax codes just like a minimum wage worker and that CEO with a million dollar a year salary is in the top 1%.
There is unfair taxation at both the state and federal levels of taxation because of the tax codes and those need to be fixed so the "rules for all Americans" are fair.
Libertarians want to reduce the size of government by addressing the problems.
If we're not involved in foreign military interventionism it eliminates 99% of the international terrorist threat against us. Huge savings if we can reduce the threat of international acts of terrorism being committed against the United States.
If were not involved in foreign military interventionism we don't require 1.5 million Americans serving on active duty in the US military to defend us nor do we require 13 carrier fleets to patrol every ocean and sea on the planet. We can actually have the finest military in the world for about $250 billion/yr if all it was responsible for was deterring any foreign attack and defending the nation in the event that any country was foolish enough to ever attack us.
The Libertarian Party does want to reduce welfare spending by the government in two pragmatic ways. First is to address poverty because by reducing poverty it reduces the need for assistance. Next is to transition to private charities and as they are more able to carry the financial burden it requires less government assistance.
The Libertarian Party really hates Social Security and Medicare but it doesn't go far enough in it's proposals IMHO. It calls for partially privatizing Socials Security and trying to reduce Medicare spending while I propose fully privatizing Social Security and completely eliminating Medicare.
Libertarians do want to reduce the size and cost of the US government but they want to do so in a pragmatic and responsible manner.
Finally Libertarians are fiscally responsible which means that the government must collect enough in taxes to pay the authorized expenditures of government even if we disagree with the expenditure. We'll work on pragmatically and responsibly eliminating unnecessary expenditures in the future but in the meantime all expenditures have to be paid for.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 9, 2013 2:11:35 GMT
You say you want to "reduce poverty." So do I. Reducing poverty means creating jobs that those in poverty can get hired to do. The Keystone Pipeline, for instance would produce a LOT of jobs at that level......but the president is blocking it due to his being beholding to his political base. With him, it's about keeping power; even to the detriment of our country. Another thing he could do is to untie the hands of business that he has strangled through massive regulations. When he called Corporate leaders into his office and asked how he could help.....regarding jobs.....that was their Number ONE thing they told him; eliminate or at least reduce all the red tape and regulations that are strangling them. To my knowledge, he had yet to heed their calls. BUT he has given some Unions bailouts on Obamacare. He plays favorites and he play politics in almost everything he does. And that's why we can't fully recover economically.
You say you want to shift to private charities. We have them now....and in addition to private charities, Pres. Bush.....through his Faith-Based Inititatives....wanted to allow churches to be able to distribute help to the needy locally because it could be done more efficiently than the federal government bureauracy. I think that was a good idea too. Another way to accomplish that goal is to allow states Block grants of funds for the same purposes......to use to more directly help those at the bottom who are in need.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 9, 2013 13:57:57 GMT
You say you want to "reduce poverty." So do I. Reducing poverty means creating jobs that those in poverty can get hired to do. The Keystone Pipeline, for instance would produce a LOT of jobs at that level......but the president is blocking it due to his being beholding to his political base. With him, it's about keeping power; even to the detriment of our country. Another thing he could do is to untie the hands of business that he has strangled through massive regulations. When he called Corporate leaders into his office and asked how he could help.....regarding jobs.....that was their Number ONE thing they told him; eliminate or at least reduce all the red tape and regulations that are strangling them. To my knowledge, he had yet to heed their calls. BUT he has given some Unions bailouts on Obamacare. He plays favorites and he play politics in almost everything he does. And that's why we can't fully recover economically.
You say you want to shift to private charities. We have them now....and in addition to private charities, Pres. Bush.....through his Faith-Based Inititatives....wanted to allow churches to be able to distribute help to the needy locally because it could be done more efficiently than the federal government bureauracy. I think that was a good idea too. Another way to accomplish that goal is to allow states Block grants of funds for the same purposes......to use to more directly help those at the bottom who are in need.
Yes, creating good paying jobs that provide enough income to live on is the solution to reducing spending on welfare assistance. Creating low paying jobs or no jobs doesn't accomplish that as those with low paying jobs (the vast majority of welfare recipients) or no jobs are the one's requiring the assistance. When these jobs are created then spending on welfare assistance will go down. That is ultimately the only solution to reducing welfare assistance regardless of whether it comes from the government or private charities.
President Obama did talk to large corporate leaders and union heads that DON'T represent the US economy because they're relatively small players in it. The vast majority of private sector jobs in America are in small businesses and typically a non-union work force. They are not Large Corporation jobs of Union jobs.
Yes, there is a lot of government red tape.... related to government contracts that many of the large corporations are concerned with. Basically we have many very large corporations sucking at the government teat that want the regulations associated with these government contracts (red tape) reduced. Of course many of these regulations stemmed from the fraud and abuse by large corporations involved in government contracts but we won't even go there. As also noted this doesn't have anything to do with most job creation in America because its such a small segment of the job market in private enterprise.
As for the small business owner producing the vast majority of jobs in America there is very little federal regulation that affects them. Some environmental laws do affect them like an auto shop can't dump used oil down the storm drain anymore but who would advocate allowing them to do that in the first place? If we looked at federal regulations that would in anyway affect small business owners at least 99% of them are necessary and justifiable. Even if we look at OSHA regulations, that many "conservatives" often complain about, virtually all of them were developed by private industry and then adopted by OSHA. Private industry figured out it wasn't "good business" to have unsafe work conditions and OSHA adopted the standards set by private industry.
"Over-regulation" is predominately a myth because there really isn't all that much unnecessary regulation to begin with. Should we weed out unnecessary regulations? Absolutely because the can impose unnecessary cost and hassle. At the same time we must also acknowledge that we also require additional regulation is some cases. Based upon what I know if we eliminated unnecessary regulations while adding new necessary regulations we'd actually end up with more, not less, regulation but it would be necessary regulation that really can't be argued against.
Keystone Pipeline keeps coming up. Yes, it would add about 10,000 short term jobs lasting a year or so and then about 250 jobs long term to maintain and operate the pipeline. The pipeline is really about the Canadian economy and not the US economy and doesn't even benefit the United States because the oil (or the net results of the oil increase) will be sold on the international oil markets. That's been happening with the increase US oil production. The oil traders sell it for a huge profit to the international oil market and then re-import it back to the United States taking another commission on that sale. I have a link to what's going on if requested (I've posted it elsewhere on this forum).
Back to the point that good paying jobs are the key to reducing poverty. As good paying jobs are created, and they're created by consumption and not investment, then we'll see a drop in poverty. The problem is that we're not seeing an increase in demand driven by consumption so what are Republicans proposing that will increase demand by increasing consumption? Once the "good paying jobs" return then the need for "welfare assistance" and "welfare spending" will go down. We don't need to cut the spending, we need to create the jobs.
****************
Yes, a transition to private charities would reduce the dependency on government welfare. People do contribute to private charities but we also need to understand that the "need" is currently the combined expenditures of private charities and government welfare. For example I support Northwest Harvest that is the biggest food bank in Washington. Even with SNAP in Northwest Harvest has a very hard time providing food for those that don't qualify for SNAP. If we address the need for food assistance alone in the United States it is represented by all of the food being provided for by food banks today PLUS the food being provided for under SNAP. Private charities that deal with providing food are as much as $80 billion short on donations when it comes to feeding America.
Federal funding the "religious" institutions doesn't reduce the spending. It just adds religious propaganda to the aid on the way to those in need. Instead of those in need thanking the "government" they thank the "church" instead because they obtain the aid from the church. We should learn from our "foreign humanitarian aid" that has been known to fall into the hands of al Qaeda groups that then distribute it gaining support for al Qaeda in doing so. If the government is going to fund private charities then they should be required to be secular as opposed to sectarian. I don't support using US government funds to promote religious beliefs that automatically occurs if a church distributes government aid.
Nothing wrong with "block grants" so long as they're large enough to fund the need. The problem is that every Republican proposal for block grants has been based upon reducing spending as opposed to providing for the needs of those living in poverty. The criteria for "poverty" is well established (even were we to disagree with that criteria) and it is poverty that needs to be mitigates with assistance. The funding has to match the need and cannot be arbitrarily established.
The best example today is SNAP which has increased spending almost four-fold since the recession. The reason it has expanded that much is because about four-times as many people have lost enough income to drive them below the "poverty levels" established by SNAP. It is poverty that is driving the spending so to reduce the spending we need to reduce poverty and not arbitrarily cut the spending. If SNAP was a "block grant" to the States set at $20 billion in 2007 then roughly 3/4ths of the people that require assistance wouldn't be receiving it today.
That's what Republicans propose though. The "spending" is all that's important to them and they refuse to address the "need" that drives the spending.
When private charities have enough funding to meet the "need" then we can logically end government welfare. As long as the need exists and isn't being met by private charities they the necessity for government welfare continues to exist.
Here's the real kicker though.The only way we can actually balance private charity with the needs created by poverty is by creating new good paying jobs that dramatically reduce the amount of poverty. That isn't happening.
New good paying jobs are the result of supply and demand for labor that is driven by "consumption" of goods and services. The Republicans have yet to make any proposals that will increase "consumption" which is overwhelmingly driven by the bottom 95% of Americans and the lower the income of the person the greater the percentage of their spending is on consumption.
|
|
