१९ डिसेंबर, २०११
The problem with relying on private charity.
Criticize government spending all you want, but the right-wing preference for private citizens making decisions about where to make their altruistic expenditures has never impressed me. It's stuff like this. Of all the problems to throw $4.5 million at, this guy chooses panda fucking. Look. Deal with it. The pandas have lost the will to live. Yes, they look cute to us, because we mistake the black fur around their eyes for huge eyes. But from the inside, it's grim. They don't want babies. Don't force it on them. Keep your charitable hands off my panda body. The pandas have said no. What part of panda no don't you understand?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२२ टिप्पण्या:
I'd be willing to bet that there are government programs doing almost the exact same thing but with your money instead of his.
Pandas reproduce at a decent rate in their natural habitat, the problem is that much of that habitat has been lost.
Peter
I hope that was a failure to be funny because it's idiocy. $4.5 million is a roundin gerror on government waste for similar causes.
It's a free country. If you can watch pron, then this guy can fund panda pron with his hard earned dollars.
Makes more sense than Obama spending millions to celebrate Christmas in the Islands, or spending/losing billions to breed SF bay bait fish (Delta Smelt).
The Smelt aren't even cute...
We should pass a law to force people to only give to/start charities that do practical things!
When you kick government out the door, someone lets it in through the window.
I suppose I should have added a "sarc" tag to the first part of my comment. Well consider it added.
So,your beef with private charity is that you aren't in charge of where the money goes? When, if you didn't donate, you have no skin in the game?
If so, you should be really angry about tax dollars spent that way on sillier shit than pandas.
When the govt propagandizes that only the govt can solve big problems, then why donate to awesome charities? Doesn't the govt already have that covered? (And if not, obviously there's nothing that private citizens can do to help solve Big Problems.)
"I want more, you have more" is simply a more basic way of saying "you aren't spending your money right, it should be spent on things I want you to spend it on."
I'm just beating Hoosier or Pogo to the punch.
Skadoosh.
Anything like this supported by private citizens doesn't have to be supported by tax dollars. Win to the DC area and everyone who visits and win to taxpayers.
Plus, Pandas are cute!
Nobody spends all their money on 'worthy' causes. All of us waste it in small or large ways.
Pandas don't get laid much because they dress like fools. Money always makes fools sexier.
What the very first comment said- government does the same thing but with other people's money.
How much money does one panda need? Erm, two pandas.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
People should have to have their donations approved by Community Philanthropy/Charity Boards. If the board doesn’t approve the donation it can’t occur. These boards need to be public/private partnerships, that are ethnically, socio-economically diverse, representing the community, in a gender-neutral, sexual orientation neutral manner…with an emphasis on the under-served and marginalized voices of the society. Thank you.
I wonder how much money it would take to get these two to fuck?
Hey panda, I'm a woman and I don't need to hear you bearsplain this.
What would happen first?
Pandas successfully fucking
A Madison school teacher actually being sick on a capitol protest day.
I guess it figures that David Rubenstein, a former President Carter aide, would give money to a cause like this.
There's so much wrong with this post that I don't know where to begin. Is this too-subtle Althouse sarcasm again?
The idea that this man shouldn't be able to use his own money for whatever he wants is offensive.
The notion that a study of an endangered species' breeding habits is merely "panda-fucking" is even more offensive and stupid. Unlike the thousands of government bumblings in the affairs of endangered species, this study in no way impairs anyone else's ability to make a living.
The implication that the government can spend money more wisely than the owner of the money...well, that's just embarrassing naivete and I can only assume that this is Althouse sarcasm. Or you've had some sort of brain injury recently.
I think I recently read an article about all the investments in new-agey holistic medicine (curing cancer with crystals and shit) for which the federal government was handing out 6-figure grants.
And speaking of unconventional medicine, if, at some point 10 years from now, you use a new miracle hemorrhoid cream that contains panda bear spit, I hope you apologize for this post, Althouse.
At least with private charity:
A) The government doesn't retain 35% as an administrative fee (no, I don't have a link for that stat).
B) When the private giver sees he is wasting his money, he can cut it off. Ever try to cut off a gov't program?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I might add, that any man who has $4.5 million to give to PANDA’S is paying too little in taxes! Raise taxes on the rich, they have too much cash just lying around, going to silly things, like pandas! Really this guy is a Poster Boy for Conspicuous Consumption…I say we tie him like a millstone, around Boehner’s and McConnell’s necks!
What you describe as the problem with relying on private charity would be more properly characterized as the problem with freedom.
Those other people keep doing what they want to do, not what I want them to do.
Yeah, it's a big problem.
Why do we have the poor?
So we are not damned.
That's not possible when the state takes over kindness. Then we are damned, whether we have poor or not.
Too much gunfire.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
It's stuff like this
Ironically, for the "stuff like this" line, the charity money is going to the National Zoo.
The Smithsonian Institution, which runs the zoo, will spend about $11.4 million of its $25 million in stimulus funding at the National Zoo and the zoo's research center in Front Royal, Va.
While I agree with you this specific donation seems a waste and silly to boot I really don't get how you can find fault with "private citizens" making decisions. Do you believe a government job or elected position makes a person wiser than a private citizen? More intelligent? More thoughtful?
Agree that there is ample reason to fear discretionary private charity leaves huge holes in the social safety net.
In the good old days Ron Paul likes to talk about, charity was general, not focused. Now it is targeted to donors for charity only to specific things that the donors are manipulated to feel a strong emotional need to give to. So the drive in modern private charity is that the pandas get 4.5 million, while an old lady with MS is foreclosed on because she can no longer work. Less sexy to the rich than a new Panda enclosure (where the Chinese, by display rights contract, automatically own any Panda born in any other country)
Huge eyed animals BEG YOU in pictures to give!!! Hundreds of Millions goes there, even 10% directly to the huge eyed animals after the cream is skimmed by charity organizers. Less attractive animals, not so much.
Cute little white girl born with multiple birth defects needs a heart, lung, and instestine transplant..donors rush in. Hispanic kid with same affliction is lucky to get a tenth as much money donated.
And there is all the "private charity for the well-heeled" - scam. Same tax deduction as for having a homeless soup kitchen goes to a consortium buying a 4.5 million Picasso drawing for a museum so the rich can adore it and one another at an invitation only celebration before it goes from view for conservators to have.
We can't rely, at this time, solely or predominantly on private charity but this isn't one of the reasons we can't (google: government waste).
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Do you believe a government job or elected position makes a person wiser than a private citizen? More intelligent? More thoughtful
Uh yes, because there are committees and meetings to review decisions and actions, so that silly thing like this aren’t approved…and the money wasted.
I would rather have clowns like this spend their money on crap like this than have the government take my money and spend it on crap like this, or worse. Donate your money where you like. It's called Freedom, and it's pretty cool.
That's funny. The lefties were clutching their pearls over polar bears earlier this year.
Panda Fucking that's hilarious.
Criticize government spending all you want, but the right-wing preference for private citizens making decisions about where to make their altruistic expenditures has never impressed me
Um, ok.
So you're opposed to the federal government funding a national zoo then, right?
Because your example really doesn't correlate well here...
".. Skadoosh..."
Heh.. I loved that movie.
I think this post is a subtle joke about internet trolls.
"I'd be willing to bet that there are government programs doing almost the exact same thing but with your money instead of his."
More of your money, actually, and that's just the direct expenditure part, not the indirect costs of re-introducing endangered species that are no longer viable without extreme human intervention. These costs can be enormous.
Just one example:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070808215527/http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/cacondor/FAQ.html
Heh.. I loved that movie.
I picked up the sequel for the missus. She actually asked for it, along with "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs" for Christmas.
alan markus,
I guess it figures that David Rubenstein, a former President Carter aide, would give money to a cause like this.
It figures even more that Ann would blame the right.
What doesn't figure is how she ever got a right-wing label from anybody,...
"... Criticize government spending all you want, but the right-wing preference for private citizens making decisions about where to make their altruistic expenditures has never impressed me..."
I'm not sure private citizens really care what impression their charitable donations make on you.
What a private citizen does with his money is his business. What the government does with my money is my business.
Palladian - "The idea that this man shouldn't be able to use his own money for whatever he wants is offensive."
No, the right of the wealthy to escape taxes through wasteful and ridiculous "charitable deductions" currently allowed is offensive.
We need to cut back on what is allowed to be cut from taxes so the wealthy can do ostentatious displays on how wonderful they are to have a new Panda pen built in their name. Or a firm that just saved 30,000 in taxes by buying a 100K piece of hideous abstract modern art scupture made by the CEO's daughter-in-law that is in front of the corporate HQ of the donor, but technically owned by the public.
As for spending money outside charity..yes, in principle it should be "their money" provided it is not under some tax dodge or other government benefit.
Recognize too that the public support for the rich to spend as they please with lower taxes than the wealthy in almost every other country pays erodes when they spend it on wasteful things and ostentatious displays or spend it on "cake" while the masses are hungry for bread.
Same with estate taxes. While the Freedom Lovers can say that there is nothing that says Freedom! more than having no estate taxes so the rich can give it to a pack of stray dogs to dine on filet mignon untile the money runs out, in certain cases - if too many wealthy pulled that stunt - support from voters dining on macaroni and cheese out of necessity would dry up very fast and a 50% estate tax would be back on the table.
According to their financial statement, the World Wildlife Fund got over $40 million in federal grants and contracts last year. The panda is their logo.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I think this post is a subtle joke about internet trolls
Well I don’t see the joke, and I like a joke as much as any man…
Criticize government spending all you want, but the right-wing preference for private citizens making decisions about where to make their altruistic expenditures has never impressed me.
Property rights don't gain their validity from your being impressed by how people use those rights.
Blonde to the bone.
Keep your charitable hands off my panda body. The pandas have said no. What part of panda no don't you understand?
Where did you say you're from?
Central Planning?
Oh, that's right - an Academic Expert. Of course.
But I suspect you're just trying to stir things up to get attention.
Well I don’t see the joke, and I like a joke as much as any man…
...come to think of it, most people enjoy a joke more than I do.
(didn't we just do this recently?)
...the right-wing preference for private citizens making decisions about where to make their altruistic expenditures has never impressed me.
So you prefer taking money from people at gunpoint? How is that morally superior?
Uh yes, because there are committees and meetings to review decisions and actions, so that silly thing like this aren’t approved…and the money wasted.
You are crazy if you think the government doesn't approve this kind of expense every day.
Faulty assumption. Right Wingers like to kill and eat animals not lavish ridiculous sums on making them breed. Unless, of course, you can breed them for the meat.
Hossier Daddy - "I'm not sure private citizens really care what impression their charitable donations make on you.
What a private citizen does with his money is his business. What the government does with my money is my business."
==================
Bad thinking.
What is allowed for charitable deductions is everyone's business because it is tax policy and money avoided going to the state for Panda centers or paying a NGO to have a dancer covered in Chocolate perform at a swank party to escape 30,000 in taxes in corporate income - that has to be made up from other quarters.
It may be in the public interest to greatly limit what is a tax writeoff...getting rid of many hobbies of the rich getting big depreciations, business writeoffs for their horse stables in the country, charitable deductions for things like museum pieces they "donate" but still keep in their own homes or executive corporate offices.
The wealthy want to spend money - great. Spend it with no tax writeoffs.
BTW why is panda reproduction a horrible thing?
American zoos have paid millions of dollars per year to the Chinese government, for pandas to display. The display of pandas helps to support zoos.
Zoos help to educate children. Pandas pay for zoos, but pandas are also a revenue source for an oppressive regime.
So, if we can produce our own pandas in the US, zoos can get more revenue and continue with their missions, and we will send less money to the Chinese governent.
$4.5 million for panda reproduction supports education for our children, and removes millions of dollars in support for an oppressive regime that murders dissidents.
It's actually a donation that is worth more than the amount, in all seriousness.
How, exactly, is this a "bad" way to spend that money?
If you're going to bash someone's charity, you ought to at least try to do it without being ignorant about the subject in question.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
...come to think of it, most people enjoy a joke more than I do.
(didn't we just do this recently
Yes, but when the ball is set by the net, how can you pass up the chance to spike it again?
BTW here's a cite for the money that goes from US zoos to the Chinese government: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/national/12panda.html
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
You are crazy if you think the government doesn't approve this kind of expense every day
Sure it does, examples, please…look there are meetings, sub-committee meetings, and then review and appraisal, plus the quarterly and annual reports…GOVERNMENT is much less likely to spend the money in a frivolous and socially negative manner than Private persons…and this case is a prime of that…
And I agree with Cedarford, too often we don[t look at the “intent” of the donation…sure charity is nice and all, when it supports societally-approved goals, but was that the INTENT of the giver? If it wasn’t it wasn’t really charity/philanthropy. I think that we need to examine donations very closely…I think it’s easier to raise taxes, though.
So, if we can produce our own pandas in the US, zoos can get more revenue and continue with their missions, and we will send less money to the Chinese governent.
I'm not sure we get to keep them if they successfully breed, though. I think they still belong to China.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Bad thinking.
What is allowed for charitable deductions is everyone's business because it is tax policy and money avoided going to the state for Panda centers or paying a NGO to have a dancer covered in Chocolate perform at a swank party to escape 30,000 in taxes in corporate income - that has to be made up from other quarters
EXACTLY, DOUBLE-PLUS UNGOOD THINKING….I agree entirely, your money impacts society and how your money is spent impacts, ME…and so how you spend your money impacts my life and my taxes, and I deserve a say in how you spend your money! If this guy doesn’t spend his money wisely, my taxes go up to support Lesbian Interpretive Dance…THINK OF THE PAPIER MACHE PUPPETS, PEOPLE1111Eleventy111
Ann's conclusion sounds a little like Willie's rationale for not pushing a middle class tax cut, "Ah'd lahk to give it to y'all, but Ah cain't trust y'all to spend it raht".
It's his money. And, if we have the Feds funding cowboy poetry, we almost certainly fund panda sex.
The worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary led to the celebration of romantic love and marital choice. The experience of casting bronze for church bells gave Europeans a leg up in the development of cannons. You can never tell where sanctimony will lead. Perhaps a breakthrough in panda fucking will lead to useful knowledge that will allow bored, overweight Americans to have hot sex.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
What gets me is so many are in the Althousian Vortex, but can’t figure out why the room is spinning so rapidly…..
I'm not sure we get to keep them if they successfully breed, though. I think they still belong to China.
If a panda pair breed in the USA and we're forced to send the cubs home, do we get to brand MADE IN THE USA on their asses first?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
If a panda pair breed in the USA and we're forced to send the cubs home, do we get to brand MADE IN THE USA on their asses first
Are the Cub’s “Natural Born” and can they run for the Presidency, that’s what I want to know?
He could have died and left the money to his cat.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
One of the problems J and Cedarford have, with charity, is that the Zionist-Imperialist-Jewish Banking Cabal that control 75% of financial institutions are the ones making a disproportionate contribution…and everyone KNOWS that Jooos, are notoriously “tight” and so the expenditure of this money must somehow advance Hidden Joo-ish, and hence NEFARIOUS, Ends…like Israel or the Trilateral Commission. Charity=The Protocols of the Elders Zion, 111111ELEVENTY1111Sheeple Wake Up!
Earlier this year, there were news reports showing shrimp, on a tread mill, running, paid for by the American taxpayer. 'Nuff said.
If we REALLY want to save the Pandas (or any endangered species) We would make legal to eat, and promote them as gourmet/health food, or make wearing their fur a fashion necessity.
We'd soon have farms breeding thousands of them.
Yeah, I'll join the choir by saying Althouse's tantrum over $4.5 million in private money going to the zoo against her wishes, while $40 million in extorted tax money went to the same damn thing last year, is almost the height of lunacy.
The actual height of lunacy, is calling the charity of former Carter administration advisor David Rubenstein a right-wing preference.
Very strange evidence private charity doesn't work. Who do you suppose spends more on pandas, governments or private charity? Only by cherry picking individual spends can you arrive at such selective outrage.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Earlier this year, there were news reports showing shrimp, on a tread mill, running, paid for by the American taxpayer. 'Nuff said
And valuable data was collected from that, what’s your point?
We would make legal to eat, and promote them as gourmet/health food, or make wearing their fur a fashion necessity
Meat is Murder and I’d rather go naked than wear fur….so your answer is more animal cruelty? No wonder this country is so F*cked…you probably vote Rethuglikkkan don’t you?
A native American woman delivers her newly born son to her husband for naming. The husband proclaims "My son, I will name you "Red Hawk." A sibling brother asks, "Father, why do you name my little brother Red Hawk?" The father responds, "My son, it is customary in our tribe for fathers to name their sons after the first thing they see after the baby is born. Why do you ask, Two Pandas Fucking?"
I don't understand why "Panda fucking" didn't make the cut as a tag for this post. It's a phrase people won't forget. On the other hand, it could give rise to unspeakable thoughts...
Sounds like pandering to me.
Ann, the argument you advance here puts you in agreement with those on the left who not only want to see more governmental involvement in social support but also support ending the tax deduction for charitable giving.
Their position is that government, being representative of the people as a whole and having greater resources than individuals, is far better suited than individuals to select the correct and most deserving charitable and social organizations. So we should discourage private giving and expand the government's role in it.
I point out to them that Democrats will not always control the Congress and the White House and how would they like to see more $ given to, say, government programs to buy guns for poor people? I think they think that once you get enough people dependent on the government the Democrats will never lose power again.
If a panda pair breed in the USA and we're forced to send the cubs home, do we get to brand MADE IN THE USA on their asses first?
Elian Pandazales.
This isn't as silly as many gov't. programs. Let the foolish contributor do what he wants. Otherwise, we start sounding like the nanny-state people who know what is best for everyone.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Sounds like pandering to me
Oh, No, THIS is why we need government control of the intarwebz….that was AWFUL. It’s comments like this that will spark a panda-mic of puns….
I don't know if anyone else pointed it out, but from the article:
Among other things, the new agreement lowered the annual cost of leasing the pandas from $1 million to about $500,000 — still a substantial sum that the zoo was struggling to raise in difficult economic times.
Cedarpoint said:
What is allowed for charitable deductions is everyone's business because it is tax policy and money avoided going to the state for Panda centers or paying a NGO to have a dancer covered in Chocolate perform at a swank party to escape 30,000 in taxes in corporate income - that has to be made up from other quarters.
The default fate of money someone has earned is not "goes to the state". It's "spent on whatever the person who earned it damn well pleases." The State's job is to live within it's means, not to decide what to spend money on and then take whatever it pleases at gunpoint.
Joe tUCJ, thank you for your service here. I've been stunned to inaction by Cedarford's target-rich posts.
Earlier this year, there were news reports showing shrimp, on a tread mill, running, paid for by the American taxpayer. 'Nuff said.
Carnifex, any links? Not that I think you're bullshitting; I believe you. I just really want to see a shrimp running on a treadmill.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
You are too kind, Joe…Let me point out, RubinSTEIN….do we need to say more?
Meat is Murder
1) Murder is a legal term describing the illegal intential killing of a human being. You cheapen the value human life when you equate the consumption of an animal to murder.
2) If man was not intended to eat meat, we would not have been given teeth designed to eat meat, whether by God or nature.
3) If you are sincere and logical in your beliefs equating the consumption of meat to murder, than every predator is guilty of murder. Just how do you intend to prosecute wolves, lions etc? And once you do, how will you punish them?
Shrimp are no stranger to exercise. Pepe from the Muppets is a real-go-getter.
Rubenstein is President of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors with direct ties to the Bush family (President George Herbert Walker Bush is on the payroll as is former British PM John Majors.) They got 45-50 billion in contracts for the Irar/Afghanistan War.
Yes, Rubenstein and all the Freedom Lovers!! that support this as a tax deduction - are glad to know he can afford to pay the Chinese panda-tenders after the loot he raked in for the wars.
Meanwhile the rubes that see the Rubensteins of the world as the indispensible Jobs Creators and John Galts argue that if we did not tax subsidize the rich in certain frivolities - why the dang gummint would do it anyways!
Yeah, tax money spent on National Palestinian Radio is much more laudable than this guy basically stuffing singles in panda g-strings. The zoo should turn it down! It probably wasn't even that high on their priority list. I'm sure none of the zoo directors have been taking the donor to dinner or anything, or inviting them to zoo-sponsored events. Charities never entice people to donate to things they deem a high priority! This guy probably made it all up out of left field. (Jeez Joe you're catchy)
Cedarford: The Carlyle Group is not a defense contractor. Get a fucking grip.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
1) Murder is a legal term describing the illegal intential killing of a human being. You cheapen the value human...
A Rat, Is a Pig, is a Boy…you can take the Speciesism right on out the door.
2) If man was not intended to eat meat, we…
Meat is an ecologically destructive, economically skewed anachronism that we can no longer tolerate….
3) If you are sincere and logical in your beliefs equating the consumption of meat to murder…
Humans have arrogated the “law” unto themselves…plus please note that wolves do not cage chickens for eggs….
Cedarford said...
Rubenstein is President of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors with direct ties to the Bush family
Hilarious.
Here is what Caryle does:
Carlyle’s 84 funds, which own all or part of 270 companies and properties around the world, including Asian forests, a Brazilian lingerie firm, rental car company Hertz, Nielsen and rest stops along Connecticut highways.
Since its inception in 1987, the firm has generated a 31 percent annual return for those investors, which include pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and wealthy individuals, firm officials have said.
That isn't what you said.
They got 45-50 billion in contracts for the Irar/Afghanistan War.
Um, no, no they did not.
Why are you lying?
Or are you that uninformed about these things?
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Rubenstein is President of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors with direct ties to the Bush family (President George Herbert Walker Bush is on the payroll as is former British PM John Majors.) They got 45-50 billion in contracts for the Irar/Afghanistan War.
Yes, Rubenstein and all the Freedom Lovers!! that support this as a tax deduction - are glad to know he can afford to pay the Chinese panda-tenders after the loot he raked in for the wars
Cedarford makes the point well, see the Joos are EVERYWHERE…even a good Protestant, Texan like George Bush is influenced by them….We need to INVESTIGATE not Laud, Mr. RubinSTEIN…we need to TAX Mr. RubinSTEIN, that money he made, where did it go? Certainly not to State/Local?Teacher’s Employee Unions, like the Stimulus Money, certainly not to Food Stamps and Unemployment Cheques, which every EXPERT KNOWS, are the major impetus for job growth in America!
No that Hooked-Nosed Semite Mr. RubinSTEIN took that money and INVESTED it….and everyone knows INVESTMENT, doesn’t make jobs, except for Zionist Financier-Imperialists and their little Eichmann comprador friends.
Cedarford said...
Rubenstein is President of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors with direct ties to the Bush family
Um, Rubenstein was a domestic policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter.
Thanks for participating.
Go easy on C-4. Anything involving the Joooos messes up his mind.
I've created a series of Denver Broncos/Tim Tebow themed t-shirts at Zazzle.com My plan was to design the shirts, sell them, and give the royalties to charity.
I got word out via blogs, forums, and Twitter.
I've sold way more shirts than I thought I would. Now, I'm getting into the territory where there will be a 1099 and taxes to pay on my royalties.
So, instead of giving ALL of the money to charity, now I get to give a lot less since I have to cover taxes.
So, basically, success plus taxes guarantees less charity. Awesome.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Um, Rubenstein was a domestic policy advisor to President Jimmy Carter
SEE, Carter-Bush…they are ALL a part of the scheme to pollute our Precious(Aryan) Bodily Essences! I bet Rubinstein is a member of the Trilateral Commission and/or the Bildabergers!
Nice try. Heres more on Rubenstein and the Carlyle Group.
http://www.carlylegroup.net/thebigguys.htm
BTW - Rubenstein employs well-connected people from both parties. Not just the USA, both parties in several nations. Get a lot more contracts that way. Kissinger is good. Kissinger + Tom Daschle = even better.
============
As for the smug defenders of the rich, no doubt counterparts of yours found the situation right before the French and Russian Revolutions similarly amusing...Or right before FDR hammered the well to do with a 90% income tax rate.
Cedarford said...
Rubenstein is President of Carlyle Group. Carlyle Group is one of the nation's largest defense contractors with direct ties to the Bush family
Also direct ties to George Soros - one of their investors.
Shrimp are no stranger to exercise. Pepe from the Muppets is a real-go-getter.
Pepe is not a shrimp! He is a king prawn!
Donating to NPR, MOMA, or any of the arts should be viewed through a similar lens as this.
Of all the problems to throw millions at, this guy chooses:
1) Panda fucking
2) a film about Panda fucking
3) news talk about Panda fucking
4) a sculpture of pandas fucking
5) a painting of pandas fucking
Look. Deal with it.
Cedarford: "As for the smug defenders of the rich, no doubt counterparts of yours found the situation right before the French and Russian Revolutions similarly amusing...Or right before FDR hammered the well to do with a 90% income tax rate."
Are "defenders of the rich" smug because Carlyle is NOT a defense contractor?
BTW I will happily take the FDR 90% tax if we get the same juicy deductions available then.
PS There will be no revolution. The people are too fat for a revolution, too devoted to their flat screen t.v. sets and their reality shows and their yummy fatty foods.
Cedarford said...
Nice try. Heres more on Rubenstein and the Carlyle Group.
http://www.carlylegroup.net/thebigguys.htm
BTW - Rubenstein employs well-connected people from both parties. Not just the USA, both parties in several nations. Get a lot more contracts that way.
The Carlyle Group is not a defense contractor.
You are beclowing yourself by continuing to suggest that they are.
Cedarford said...
As for the smug defenders of the rich, no doubt counterparts of yours found the situation right before the French and Russian Revolutions similarly amusing...Or right before FDR hammered the well to do with a 90% income tax rate.
Notice the language, "hammered"!
It isn't about economics for you and your class envious ilk. It is about punishment.
I'm sorry you're poor. But this rhetoric is pathetic.
BTW I will happily take the FDR 90% tax
I'll go for that too with a return to the Fiscal Year 1936 budget level.
Or right before FDR hammered the well to do with a 90% income tax rate.
And the number of those "hammered" that actually paid all 90% given all of the loopholes, shelters, and deductions was...?
People and their damned free will.
It's stuff like this.
Oh please professor. For every one seemingly stupid charity there are hundreds of even more stupefying, government bottomless money rat hole programs. (or is it money pit?)
Unless this some kind of test.
"Of all the problems to throw $4.5 million at, this guy chooses panda fucking. ... The pandas have lost the will to live. "
Yes, you're quite right. At least he could have donated the money to encourage Europeans to reproduce as they, too, seem to have lost the will to live.
The debt crisis in Europe has been presented as a financial crisis, but it's also a demographic crisis. After all, who's going to pay that debt, if there are no new Europeans?
Of course, many would argue that Europeans are not worth saving. After all, they're responsible for many historical wrongs (and few of them are cute). And, surely, it would be species-ism to prefer our own kind over another species. Such as Pandas.
But if Europeans don't reproduce themselves, then who shall we use as the scapegoat for us, to carry all the sins of the world?
But if Europeans don't reproduce themselves, then who shall we use as the scapegoat for us, to carry all the sins of the world?
Carnies.
Thinking about NK, and at the risk of sounding like a I know what I'm talking about.. I believe it is freedom that makes us what we are.. and what we are is ultimately better for it.. better with more freedoms.
Freedom demands excellence.. or Excellence is the price of freedom.. or something Thoreau might have said..
Again, I think the professor is trying to muddy the waters ;)
Ask, and Ye shall recieve.... Ladies, and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, I present... "shrimp on a treadmill"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTJAzz2Is0s
And for Joe, yes they proved categorically there's one born every minute. didn;t they?
@Joe
I always wondered why nobody did that shrip in slo-mo set to the Chariots Of Fire theme.
And then maybe the professor is referring to some extreme "conservative" element that proposes to do away with all government programs and just rely on private charity.
As our government is constituted now.. I believe this would be practically impossible.. Its in the realm of fantasy.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I always wondered why nobody did that shrip in slo-mo set to the Chariots Of Fire theme
Vangelis is a real stickler for ASCAP/BMI, that’s why! “Vangelis” sounds Joo-ish, if you ask me….
@Peter
You're either a homsexual, or haven't seen the Swedish Bikini Team. I take exception to the statement Europeans aren't cute. Decidedly some very much are! :-)
Speaking of government money wastage. here's MY health care plan. Every person in America recieves $1,000,000 dollars upon birth. That's it. It sets in an account for medical usage only. period. dot. end of sentence. At the end of the persons life, any money left over gets divided up among inheritors. Equally, no skin in this game.
The last census puts the US population at 307,745,538. So total start up cost would be a little more. But afterwards, it sails along nicely at .95 percent growth which DECREASES the budget.
Admit it. This is much better than Obamacare.
Vangelis is a real stickler for ASCAP/BMI, that’s why! “Vangelis” sounds Joo-ish, if you ask me….
There's a rule in there somewhere that you can use whatever you want if you don't play it in it's entirety. I don't recall the exact language, but it was the reason we could use anyone's music without authorization for bumpers coming in and out of breaks, music beds under our own breaks, etc, in radio.
Sent you an email re comments, btw.
So, basically, success plus taxes guarantees less charity. Awesome.
Your ostentatious display of wealth is unbecoming. However, you can be saved from yourself.
According to Ann and Cedarford and others, you can sleep well knowing A. that was the government's money, not yours B. it will likely go towards worthy causes like handouts to large, poorly-run corporations (Obama donor GE and the incandescent bulb 'ban', GM and bank bailouts, etc etc.), studying the size of gay men's wankers, and allowing SEC workers to relax on the job by watching porn (human-kind, not panda).
If that's not enough, rest assured that a good chunk of your tax dollars will be skimmed off by layers of bureaucrats before one dime is spent on the above-listed causes, all of which are better than the charity of your choice, likely one involving guns, God, and bitter clingers et al.
Would anyone care to make a contribution to my church before the years end? Right wing, center or left it doesn't matter. I promise you it will be spent more wisely than the government.
Government spends money on these things too.
Any horrible idea that private charity spends money on... government that spends money on charity will also.
Carnifex, great video. Thanks for the link.
That shrimp is a wimp, though. The treadmill is in water! If I were the benefactor of buoyancy like he is, I could run a frickin marathon on a treadmill.
Isn't individual dignity great?
As for superior or exceptional dignity:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/14/nih-funds-million-study-prostitutes-china-drink/
Then there is the trillion dollar annual expenditures to the authoritarian ventures epitomized by the American welfare system, which has served to undermine the character development of both the intended beneficiaries as well as the service providers. We are not even feigning an interest to distinguish between cause and effect.
And, before we forget, the billions of dollars squandered annually to model an incompletely and, apparently, insufficiently characterized Earth system.
Keynes was right about the extraordinary value derived from the market. One of the few responsibilities that should be afforded to government is to promote the conditions for full employment. It is the authoritarian's primary role to provide oversight of a free society.
@Joe (The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew) and Calypso Facto,
Your deleted comments are over HERE where, if you are interested, we can discuss why I took them down.
I'm a huge fan of Blog Althouse, but I have to admit that this argument is presented poorly, at best.
First, the thrust of the argument for private altruism being superior to government altruism isn't that individuals will universally steer clear of silly pursuits; it's that private altruism overall can and would do a better job than the government, despite the fact that it would have less money.
That you can find someone who poured a large sum of money into a silly pursuit does not really have any bearing on the argument for the superiority of private altruism. Of course some people will choose silly pursuits over useful altruism, but that's their prerogative. Also, it's worth noting that government engages in *lots* of silly pursuits, many of which are as silly or even more silly than this one. And, we (collectively) pay for those silly pursuits by compulsion.
"Cedarford: Get a fucking grip."
He's got a grip, every night when he JO's himself to sleep in his flophouse room.
Ann, that ill-considered something, I would expect from the Tenured Radical. Is she getting to you? Or are you feeling sisterly?
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/6946d43b-bccf-4579-990e-15a763532b40.html
Yeah. Government is a much better collective decision maker. Maybe they should pick which blogs succeed or not. After all, we might have blogs that write about silly and mundane things and waste people's time and our collective resources.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा