"I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund" 1
Well I'm not entirely sure I was right. It seems shes just a greedy pig.
Its been revealed that she omitted the Clinton family charity on her Senatorial financial disclosure forms. It was an oversight her aides say, isn't it always. But you know what... Ill give her the benefit of the doubt on this one as those forms are kind of tricky just as it's tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that's right on time...it's tricky.
Hell between you me and the lamppost I leave a lot of shit off my financial disclosure forms -- to our first time readers at the IRS I should inform you that this blog is satirical in nature and all characters -- animal or otherwise are fictional and not based on real life people... now beat it ya pencil pushing taxman.... um I mean Mr Nice Pencil Pushing Tax Man.
But now that this has been revealed what I find most troubling is that the Clintons were able to....
"write off more than $5 million from their taxable income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period, the newspaper reported." 2
Math was never my strong point but Ive got to believe that getting back quadruple what you gave out doesn't exactly seem fair now does is it?
Actually now that I think about it I had it right on both counts... shes a greedy socialist pig.
Since it was her sloppiness that brought this to the public's attention what I would like to know is... what kind of admin costs are involved, who is on the charity's payroll, any family members on paid staff, what is their salary, who are the recipients of their largess etc etcetera.
Then again what should I expect from the same fine folks that stole the White House furniture when they left office (not to mention the W's on all comp keyboards -- which actually was pretty frickin' hilarious)
EE-Aw!!!
GAMING UPDATE:
...speaking of pigs. A while back I put up a link (filed under: Pigs) to an online version of the classic parlour game "Pass The Pigs" As some of you might surmise -- I very rarely leave home without dice... I'm a frickin' shooter what can I say.Well as the Fly can attest to, back in the day it was The Pigs. They were always a hit and like any dice based game -- great for spontaneous gambling. Well I'm happy to announce that I recently picked up a replacement set and although I'm not too happy with the new carrying case (they fuck up the line on my Double B suit) the Pigs are making a comeback and I'm bringing the double leaning jowlers with me.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a set, they cost around 10 bucks. Tell 'em Donkey sent ya -- that should confuse the hell out of the sales clerk.
EE-Oink!!!
13 comments:
i'm shocked, SHOCKED i say, tithing-hue, that you have not heard the old adage: Charity Begins At Home.
I dont think the Clintons are doing anything that most high income people don't do and they are not singlehandedly responsible for the tax rules they take advantage of- are they?? I sure dont know anyone who ignores the loopholes and tax advantages available "on principle" while other people do it in between throwing their stones. So only poor martyrs that live like monks can exercise free speech about their opinions of oil or anything else?
I mean, why is it so outrageous when Clinton does it but not anyone else? Have a problem with the tax system why not do what other people do and actually talk about it?? What's your issue? The charitable contribution guidelines?
Its like pointing out one person's airplane miles over another's or one person's large square foot home compared to somebody else's.
What the hell does that accomplish? The world is about more than a few celebrities and elites who are about .000001% of the population. SO why focus on THEIR hypocrisy and habits??
OH, LOOK AT THE AIRPLANES FOR THE EARTH CONCERT! EWWW. But anyone in the real world knows most airline traffic is commercial and I'm pretty sure businesses can also have their meetings using a satellite and screen just like you suggested for the musicians. Oh but they arent Hollywood scum right? Free pass on Aurora scrutiny.
I am not sure why pointing out these things gives strength to your arguments on policy matters. Is pollution really all about Al Gore? All about what his house is run on? Can you make one solid argument for why exactly one person's carbon use is a public policy matter? A matter for the taxpayers? But its easier to attack people over ideas and positions. Point out the rainforest activist who has a mahogany coffee table! Oh snap told them! That hurted! Hilarious! Let me write it in my journal after the entry on Bono's Terrapass!
But it supports NOTHING.
It gives strength to an argument that person A or B is an asshole, but how useful is that? We get that you think everyone is an asshole,hypocrite, commercialized, opportunistic hack. Mission accomplished.
Celebrities use private jets, they suck, their carbon ratio compared to average Americans is 100:1. Does that really make a point about environmental policy?
All you have done is pointed out that the CLintons behave like every well off family in America and play the same games.
Frikkin SO WHAT.
If Clinton is a socialist for making that remark, what do you call a person who gives public land to a company for free to make profit by selling that resource to Japan? Enlighten us with your label expertise. Whats that called? A wacky form of eminent domain?????
When their opinions are only given a .000001% voice then I will let them slide, until then they can suck a big bag of dicks.
I personally could care less what the individual does but dont fucking preach to me as policy what you are unable to do yourself. When they accept their office, what they do affects us all and there must be accountability.
Its funny eb how many times I have read posts and comments by you using this exact same argument against conservatives and clergymen when caught with underage pages, crack whores, and gay masseuses. How many times have you railed against the corrupt Abramoffs and Cunninghams, but now that its on your side its the "system's fault.
Im sorry that you feel a need to get defensive as I know youre a utopian idealist (not intended as a whack) and I know how much it pains to you to realize that your side is as full of shit as you think mine is, and you want answers. Well Virginia, Santa is just a make believe fat guy in a red suit.
...I guess youre new here, so Ill explain. Aurora's mission is not to re-write tax code but to throw the bullshit flag on all things wrong and hypocritical on the left. We makes no bones about being attack dogs of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I never made a comment about Cunningham or Abramoff. I am not sure if I made a remark about a crack whore, probably.
I think that talking about whether or not the under age page concern was handled appropriately is a legal matter, not a partisan matter. I dont recall what I said that could be construed as stone throwing on these things concerning left or right. Maybe I did but I dont typically weigh in on alot of those things just like I hardly ever talk about Bush as a "king" or whatever.
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Sex with a minor is against the law no matter who does it. Taking bribes to screw the public is wrong on both sides.Both sides do it.
I fight with my own just as much as I fight with you guys,because I have issues with things you both say. My issue with the left is the unrealistic attack on profit, my big issue with the right is secularism.
On the post: Socialism?
I think the right intrude on personal lives too much, the left too much on freedom to make money. You BOTH are into over-reaching, over stepping feds. Politically speaking, the desire to take profit for "public good" is just as fucking lame as using public resources to promote the Church's agenda for "public good" in the form of legislating morality.
The issue is really if *IF* oil companies are given public subsidies in various forms and whether or not -*if so*- the public can or should expect recovery or reimbursement. That is the real question on the "profit taking" debate since we live in AMERICA. We dont just grab money. (wait, is Hillary Hitler too? I'll check with my peeps)
There is no basis for just wanting to "take" because a corporation has deep pockets, I am not sure on what basis Clinton made her remark but if its just to view Big Oil as a source of cash, she needs to make a better case or it IS socialism.
The issue is the BASIS. If I picked apples every day from a tree I planted on Anita's land and sold them on the corner, I dont owe Anita my profits and I should not be punished but it would be fair to pay Anita a little bit for the use of her land.
Some say that the public should seek to recoup some of the input cost reductions.
Thats the only way I can explain it in a non partisan way.
I don't know how this got apple picking, but the donkey is right. If you're going to preach to me and tell me my house will be under water in a hundred years if i don't reduce my energy use, you can't be using 20X my yearly electic use in a week.
In fact, i would say that would be ok if in fact you've done everything you can to reduce it and that's just how much it takes to run your big ass house, but algore is a billionaire! Does he have solar panels? Does he have a windmill? Does he drive a hybrid car? NO.
Hillary wants to preach about taxes and then she cheats on her taxes! she's fair game!
The point of this post is that how Hillary uses or abuses tax law is pertinent as she is in a postition to raise my taxes and when her personal life contradicts her policy life its important as it is indictative of her character or lack there of and worthiness of the public trust in the office she holds and seeks.
Just as I told Bloomberg he was full of shit (in slightly nicer terms) for smoking a cigar after I was told to put out a cigarette at a party during the RNC.
I think absolutely that Gore could do more "personally" but I dont think whether or not you CARE or beleive your house will be under water pertains to his solar panels.
He can be a jerk but be telling you the truth about your house. Or not.
The place to look at to discern whether or not you 1(think the ocean will rise as he indicates and 2)what if anything should be done about it
are questions that in and of themselves do not pertain to Gore's use of electricity at all.
You can say "well he's no frikkin spokesperson" but the debate is about the issue, not the mouthpiece!
And Rhino I realize that historically its always been a stretch to use analogies with you but I think the average individual can and DOES understand how an analogy relates to a point.
Using an apple or a widget in an explanation does not mean I think oil and apples are the same. Wake up.
It is not about Al Gore being a jerk. Its about an individual of great influence trying to implement policy that he himself does not believe in strongly enough to follow.
Donkey logically that is like saying that a smoking parent that says you shouldn't do it is wrong just because they do it, ignoring the facts. They are not wrong, they are hypocrites,which has no bearing on whether or not smoking is a good or bad idea. It either is or it isnt but the facts dont change because the messenger is a hypocrite. You have to look at the question and evidence. Then light up, and take responsibility for that choice and blame only yourself.
Now it gets tricky with "collective" choices and who should decide what is good for America or the world. But the hypocrisy logic still holds.
Why does HIS buy in or belief relate to whether or not a policy or action is good for the public? It is or it isnt.
Is the argument in favor made well or weak? What do we look at to know?
Like I said at TBR Donkey its not about the messenger, its about the merit of the message. Not necessarily who talks. It can be Crusty the clown, really.
I think the debate is important, the more participants the merrier, and hopefully people can make up their minds about what they hear regardless of the square feet of the speaker's home or their windmill.(or lack of)
Everyone is a hypocrite about something. Even the most committed treehuggers have their vices, just as devout people sin and vegetarians sometimes wear leather. I dont think the content of the QUESTION rests on these details though to the extent that you do.
Even people who fixate on hypocrisy (like your Zappa) make money by the existence of said hypocrisy thus making them..hypocrites too.
I'll actually concede that point as it was a pretty good one --finally.
However there is a big difference between a parent looking out for their childrens best interest and a public official that openly breaks the same rules that he implemented and expects you to follow.
on a side note, i heard that crusty the clown has enrolled in a graduate program at the university of maine's climate change institute at orono. so be careful before you bash old crusty.
www2.umaine.edu/graduate/content/File/factsheets/QCSpdf.pdf
Finally? Whatever Donkey. And so it goes.
Always an insult.
I couldnt concede completely. Take the small victories when you get em.
Post a Comment