Reason Morning Links: Jobs Bill Gets Through Senate, the Billionaire Giveaway, Chicago Hits Travelers With Taxes


NEXT: The Unaffordability of Endless War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yum, head.

    1. you don’t need the images if the guy’s subdued …. But having them would prove whether he brought the explosives onboard himself versus whether they were planted there by some other party. Is that what this is about?

      Planted explosives… Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  2. Larry Ellison, 39 other billionaires pledge to give away half their wealth.

    Meh. I’m giving away the whole country’s wealth.

  3. To piggyback on the title of Chapman’s post: The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

  4. I wonder how much stock they are legally allowed to sell in order not to dupe other shareholders. It might take 50 years or so in order to give away all that wealth in an orderly fashion.

    1. Or 10 or so hummers!

    2. They can sell as much stock as they want at whatever rate they want. Shareholders have zero obligation to other shareholders to sell their shares in an orderly fashion. It may be in their interest, so as not to cause the stock price to crater. Besides, Oracle’s average daily volume is 35M shares, even Ellison’s 1.1 billion(!) shares is only 33 days of that. That could be cleared out in 6-9 months.

      1. Actually, there is the issue of insider trading, which makes any large stock transactions difficult for insiders.

      2. Actually, there is the issue of insider trading, which makes any large stock transactions difficult for insiders.

      3. I was under the impression that under both securities law and common practice, large ‘inside’ shareholders (which all these guys would have to be) need to make a public divestiture plan. (The google guys, for instance, sell a few million dollars worth each month to diversify their holdings and have spending money for whatever bling they want)

        Otoh, I’m also under the impression that the wealth giveaways are often in the direct transfer of stock, e.g. the Gates Foundation.

        1. A mere stockholder who does not hold corporate office is not an insider, AFAIK.

          Now, under common law, a majority stockholder may owe fiduciary duties to other stockholders by virtue of the control that a majority stake gives.

          But Larry Ellison? No fiduciary duties under common law. He is, however, the CEO of Oracle, so he is an insider for that reason.

          1. Insider trading is defined by the information not the person. If the information being traded on is not public knowledge and you trade on it you are committing insider trading.

          2. I’d thought the threshold was 4% of outstanding shares, but actually, it’s 10%. If you hold that or more, you are considered an “insider”, whether or not you are invited to attend board meetings, etc.

            However, the SEC document says “10% of a class” of equity. I’m not sure if this includes holders of preferred stock, which wouldn’t make sense in most cases since they seldom have voting rights.

            1. There’s difference between the commonly used phrase for the act of trading on information that is not public, and the term used to describe officers, owners, directors and such that own large portions. I delineated between the two below.

              It is only based on A class.

        2. They only need to make public divestiture plans if they plan to divest while in their role as an executive or board member of the company. However, that has nothing to do with a fiduciary duty to shareholders and is just an insider trading thing. If Larry Ellison stepped down from the CEO and Chairman spot of Oracle, he could throw a billion shares on the market for S&Gs; if he wanted to (though there’s probably some 6 month to a year cooling off period re: his inside info).

          They could do it Warren Buffett style and pledge a billion a year in stock. Once that stock is pledged to an organization, like the Gates Foundation, that organization has no duty to anyone, except itself, to sell them in any organized fashion.

      4. Define a large sale? People like Gates sell off big chunks once a month for pocket money.

        Sales by directors and owners require a SEC Form 4 be filed stating the relationship of the seller/buyer to the company and the change in the stock.

        On top of that you can donate stock without having to liquidate it.

        1. I should note that Finviz calls the page insider trading in the sense that Kolohe is using (officers,directors,owners) and Dean is using it in the sense of a criminal act per the SEC.

  5. Does the troll masturbate as he posts his one-joke banalities? I’ll bet he does.

    1. No, she doesn’t. Thank you

      1. So – what is the deal then? Have a opinion on something in the blog post? so far, I don’t see that (over numerous blog posts).

        1. Compulsive masturbation is a disease, so I suppose the troll must be pitied.

  6. My Grandmother was raped by a kid’s lemonade stand!

    1. Your’s too? I thought it was just me.

    2. Well, look how she dresses. What did she expect?

  7. August brings the first story of an overactive bureaucrat shutting down a kid’s lemonade stand.

    They are behind schedule this year.

    1. Figures that it happened in Oregon. Now California will see what they are missing and stomp on all of the kids and their sugar water.

  8. God damn it what the fuck is wrong with Japanese people.

  9. Larry Ellison, 39 other billionaires pledge to give away half their wealth.

    They are all giving it to private charities. Why aren’t they giving it to the government?

  10. The lemonade-stand incident occurred in Oregon.

    I checked the Oregon Bill of Rights to see if there was anything which might protect the kid – the most relevant thing I could find was:

    ‘Section 30. Emigration. No law shall be passed prohibiting emigration from the State.’

    1. But where does she go? Nanny-staters have a way of being everywhere.

      1. Montana, where everybody desperate to be free goes.

        1. Vere are your papers, mizz?

          1. My older sister has them and she loves cops! She will be along in a moment. (slips across border quickly)

        2. I bet if you scratch the surface, Montana has their own nannies. Not living in cabins on the side of a mountain but somewhere in a city council.

          1. The cabin people have the high ground and better rifles. Balance of power.

          2. Lots of Nannies if you are in Missoula (the blue island of MT), may as well be in San Fran or any other liberal Mecca. outside of Missoula its pretty free…

  11. It amazes me that while the mother in the lemonade story was rightly upset over the beauracrat’s actions, she was so eager to apologize for them and justify their existence.

    When she complains about the health inspector, Fife reminds her that the woman was just doing her job.

    No, not amazes, disappoints.

    1. She doesn’t want the next visit from them to be in the dead of night.

      1. Maybe the little girl has a dog mom is trying to protect.

    2. Ah, the Nuremberg defense. Just following orders.

      How does shelling out $120 for a permit protect public health, exactly?

      1. It helps some bureaucrat buy nutritious food, which prevents rickets.

        1. …but I’m pining for a rickets outbreak amongst the bureaucrats…no fair!

  12. Call me a cynic but I don’t view these guys giving their money away as good news. It is their money. They can do what they like. But lets be honest, that money will go to any number of leftist organizations that will do untold amounts of damage to the country. I would rather they give the money away to people wanting to start businesses or do something productive.

    1. Hmm, perhaps in some kind of… lending arrangement. With interest, perhaps. It might even… increase wealth by enabling entrepeneurs?

      Never mind, that sounds like economic sorcery. Back to the stimulus – now that’s economic sorcery I can trust!

      1. That got me a look from my boss when I snorted. +10

    2. You’re correct John. May “charities” are thinly disguised (some not even that) lobbying organizations.

      Whether it’s environmental groups whose entire income goes to lobbying Congress to increase spending on “nature” or poverty groups whose entire income goes to lobbying Congress to increase spending on “poverty”.

      Some of the technicalities some of them use to keep their IRS tax deductible status are astounding.

      1. How long until it is revealed in a divorce case that one of them gave half their money to an escort called Charity?

        1. Slurp slurp

    3. Better some of the loot goes to potentially “good” charities than to the wasteful, inefficient, confiscatory government through estate taxes.

    4. I’d rather them capitalize the fuck out of Kiva or some other microfinancing outfit.

      It they want to do something great for humanity, advancing the cause of the greatest improvement in man’s quality of life – free-market capitalism – in the world’s more fucked-up locales would do so much more than letting the Joyce foundation waste it on gun control bullshit.

      But then, your progeny doesn’t get to become American royalty except by empowering the big left with your leftover billions.

      1. “Whatever benefits come from the philanthropy of a Carnegie or a Gates are marginal. Our focus should be on the primary act of generating wealth. We must learn the importance of celebrating the virtue of productivity. Our future as a productive nation requires it.”….._ctrl=1021

    5. But they want to build a more just and verdant world, John.


      1. By destroying the very system that allowed them to make their money.

    6. Private charity, now suspect on the right! Compassionate conservativism is sooooo yesterday. Get lost Olansky!

      1. What’s funny is when we discuss health care everyone says “charity, charity!” When we discuss charity everyone says “puke.” Aren’t we rascals for thinking you guys disengenuous on the first topic?

        1. Depends on the charity. Habitat for Humanity, so far as I know, just builds houses for poor people, and doesn’t engage in lobbying.

          Specific to your criticism, several Christian charities help people with their medical bills. Once again, they don’t engage in lobbying (AFAIK). The 7th Day Adventists come to mind. Despite my atheism, I would happily contribute to them if I could.

          However, the sad fact is that a lot of “charities” are fucking scams, and you have to research them like you were investing in stock or else you will either 1) get ripped off or 2) invest in a political cause dressed as a charity.

          1. We give a lot to Catholic charities for that reason. It also helps if you go with local orgs so you can visit the joint and see where the money goes. New shiny buildings are kind of a hint.

        2. Hey, leave me and other libertarians out of this. You’re arguing with John and only John here. I think it’s great they’re giving away their wealth.

      2. You know what private charity I would think was cool?

        If someone stepped up to send every SNAP recipient in their state $100 at Christmas.

        I would say, “Wow, how cool of them.”

        But handing over a billion dollars to NGO’s generally serves only to provide nice titled little sinecures for leftists, to keep them well supplied with tofu while they’re busy not actually doing any real work. And this enables them to serve as a vast reserve army of statism.

        1. But think of the stimulation of jobs in the tofu sector fluffy! Sans subsidization how will those jobs be maintained? You heartless bastard…

        2. Forget it Fluffy. I have tried to have the conversation with MNG before. He really knows nothing and likes it that way. He honestly thinks that everything that that calls itself a “charity” is actually doing great work and is non political. Thinking anything else is just beyond his capabilities.

          1. Shorter John: Government? Leftist taint! Private charity? Leftist taint!

            Mormon church? Judgment reserved at present…

          2. Shorter John:
            Government? Leftists! Private charity? Leftists!

            Mormon church? Judgment reserved at present…

          3. Government? Leftists! Private charity? Leftists!

            Mormon church? Judgment currently reserved…

          4. Leftists under every bed!

            1. Listen to NPR for two hours. Write down the name of every foundation named as a supporter.

              I can pretty much guarantee you that they will staffed by leftists and will function in practice as hippie life support.

              1. Hippie life support. I like that. Also don’t forget the trust fund left who spend their lives living on mommy and daddies money generally causing mischief.

          5. +100 John to Fluffy comment.

        3. Fluffy Johnson is right. And there’s a new sheriff coming to Rock Ridge.

        4. If I were one of these billionaires, I would just give grants to people who seemed like they might do something interesting with it and then let them do whatever they want with it. I thought that this would have been the best use of the stimulus money too.

    7. Point taken, John. And I agree to some degree.

      OTOH, charities and charitable giving are necessary components to a libertarian society. Despite what Rand would say, the act of giving should be celebrated and encouraged. In that sense, what these billionaires are doing is a huge step in the right direction.

  13. Democrats … move forward a $26.1 billion package of aid to U.S. states. … Altogether, the states face a $12 billion deficit if the funding is not eventually approved.

    To summarize:
    If funding is *not* approved, $12B deficit.
    If funding *is* approved, $26.1B deficit.

    1. In statism, a $14 billion larger deficit is a win-win.

    1. Relying on people to turn in their neighbors online is “Orwellian,” said Gaurav Mishra, chief executive of 2020 Social, a social business consultancy based here.

      That word keeps popping up. Is it more lately or am I just being overly sensitive?

      1. You’ll learn to love it.

        Hey, check out my Facebook pages!

      2. There is no god but Statism and Orwell is its profit.

        1. That was eloquent.

        2. He might even be a prophet.

          1. Don’t ruin the beauty of his irony.

          2. Son of a bitch. I’ll be in the corner chopping off my typing fingers.

            1. I withdraw eloquent.

    2. NYT, so the link may not work.

      Yeah, it’s their fault when links fail. Mkay.

      1. I’m on a university campus and behind a proxy wall that let’s me into certain paid sites that others can’t get to even when I link them correctly.

        1. That is your ‘splanation of the intergalactically famous linking technique? FAIL!

  14. Does charity include foundations led by their heirs? I don’t think this a big deal.

    1. Good point. There was a study that came out a few years ago about heirs running businesses. Turns out that turning your business over to your heirs is about the worst thing you can do. It is cheaper just to pay them off and let someone else run the business. Taking half the money and letting the idiot son run a charitable foundation and keeping him away from the business is actually a pretty good business decision.

    2. That’s what most do. Give to their charitable trust or Bill and Melinda’s trust and then sit on the board.

  15. Cops shoot and kill 72 year-old man at Costco – because he was carrying concealed.

    1. Excuse me – I misread – the 72-year old mand was a witness. The guy the cops killed was 39.

      1. I was going to make that correction.

        Still an outrage, no matter how old the victim was.

    2. Just a guess, but when confronted with armed police, they guy probably reached into pull his gun out to throw it down. The man wasn’t suicidal. There is no reason to believe he planned to die in a gun fight with police. So after he was confronted he reached for the gun to show he wasn’t a threat.

      The cops of course being untrained lawless baboons murdered him for it.

      1. That was my thought, too, John. And so we learn the valuable lesson to never, never, assume that cops are anything but untrained lawless baboons.

        1. +1

          Let’s hope for a budget crisis in that town to be solved by letting the force go like that post the other day. I honestly think cops are nearing that point where they do the average person more harm than good.

        2. …never assume that cops are anything but untrained lawless baboons.

          Oh, I don’t know. I usually assume they’re sociopaths.

      2. Disclaimer: I get as pissed off as anyone by stories of police abuse. But if three police order you down on the ground, you should show you are not a threat by reaching for your weapon ?

        1. It was clearly a mistake. But perhaps the police have the responsibility to you know maybe not just shoot the guy. They are supposed to protect the public. That means taking a risk now and then.

          1. Jeebus, you aren’t gonna make me defend the cops, but this situation seems a little more complicated than one of the “furtive movement” shootings or “I thought the cell phone was a gun” shootings. The guy actually did have a gun, and he (according to the witnesses, not just the cops) made a move for it.

            1. Not to be harsh, but their job is to sometimes die so that citizens don’t have to. So that means, yes they wait and let the guy draw the gun and shoot first. If that means a cop has to die, that is part of the job and why it should be considered a noble profession.

              1. I’m not trying to be harsh either. I don’t think the man deserved to die. But there’s plenty of very clear cut cases to be outraged over, this one just seems a little more complicated.

                Also see my post to Brett L below.

        2. I don’t think the police are supposed to escalate a non-violent situation into a shooting. God forbid the cops just walk in and ask the guy what he’s doing instead of all that fucking tac-team movie bullshit about clearing the store.

          1. Fair enough. But seriously, trying to pull your concealed weapon in that situation, just seems like he bears at least some responsibility for making such a dumb ass move.

            1. Some states require you to notify and indicate to law enforcement in every interaction if you are carrying concealed. Again, the police were supposed to be the pros here.

              1. Absolutely correct. My point was simply this. Regardless of the unprofessional police, speculation that the man was reaching for his weapon to show that he was not a threat is just that, pure speculation. And even accepting that was his motivation, it was a dumb thing. I carry concealed, too. And I’ve thought it through that if ever I’m interacting with the police, for any reason, my hands are not going anywhere near my weapon. Notify, yes. But to even touch it, let alone draw it ? To show that I’m NOT a threat ?

                1. How about the report that police had claimed he was acting crazy and irrational, flipping out, when all of the witnesses say no he wasn’t?

                  I’m wondering if the Costco had security cameras that caught it on tape. Which, of course, might suddenly malfunction and that 90-second section of tape might now mysteriously be blank.

    3. Moral: don’t reach for a gun when confronted by the police. Just put your hands up and kneel down (lie down if ordered). Tell them you’re armed and complying.

      Maybe the cops overreacted to this, I don’t know. But the guy earned his Darwin award by pulling out a gun in front of the cops so no sympathy here.

      1. Agree with your first paragraph. Not letting the cops off the hook for overreacting, but since we know they do that, and anyone with a concealed carry permit should know it for this exact reason, should not go for his weapon unless he plans to shoot something or plans on being shot. I’d rather they find the gun in it’s holster when they cuff me than shoot me which I expect them to want to do because as someone noted above, they may be sociopaths.

  16. The Venture Bros. Season 4.5 Trailer

    “I once jerked off twelve times in one day just to see if I could!”

    1. Hey, me too!

    2. Sounds like the title of a JournoList thread.

      1. Coolest Johnny Quest parody ever!

        1. They need a “Haji” character.

  17. average traveler pays the city $100


    1. Oddly, if you eliminate straight sales taxes (paid by everyone) Portland actually has the highest rate of “travel taxes,” or at least they did when I wrote about this a couple years ago.
      It’s just that everybody pays higher taxes in Chicago. Now who’s the suckers?

      1. Even gays pay straight sales tax? They should be outraged.

        1. Chicago levies an additional 6.9 percent tax on drag shows.

          1. Anxiously awaiting GaGa’s statement on this.

    2. Hey don’t knock the fleecing of out of towners via car rental and hotel taxes.

      Those are the proposed revenue streams for the new Vikings stadium here in Minneapolis. Because you know, that is just free money that can be skimmed off people who can’t vote local pols out!

      Who in their right mind could possibly object to making visitors to our fine city pay for a new playground for our billionaire real estate developer of an owner?

  18. Those billionaires’ grand noble gesture has inspired me to an even greater act of self-sacrifice.

    I publicly pledge to donate all the dust on the back of my monitor to the ? Foundation For Tax Jinkin’ And Shit.

    1. surely your genorosity knows no bounds

  19. Now who’s the suckers?

    Everybody inside the Chicago metropolitan area.

  20. I think Bill Gates should just put his money in a big pile, set it on fire, and dance around it shrieking, “Look at me! Look at me!”

    1. For full effect, he should do it naked but for a cane, top-hat and monocle.

      1. I would consider that a donation toward my happiness.

    2. I think that that would be much better for everyone than donating it to some of the “charities” it will end up empowering.

      1. Meh. The B&M Gates Foundation is doing a lot more good with a lot less state than pretty much every government in the world, so cut ’em some slack.

        1. Hey, don’t crap on the two minute hate dude!

        2. Having known little about what the foundation does (and does transparently) before I posted, I’ll accept the rebuke.

          I’m still skeptical of most foundations, though, especially those which garner attention from the ruling class and it’s cheerleaders.

          1. The Ford Foundation is a pretty good counter-example. You aren’t completely off base in the big picture.

    3. Bill Gates should just put his money in a big pile, set it on fire

      This would help rein in inflation.

  21. I bet if you scratch the surface, Montana has their own nannies.

    Very good. You win a cookie.

  22. If I had billions of dollars I would hold a press conference to announce that I wasn’t giving any of it away, and was going to try to keep adding to it and hiding as much of it as I could from taxes, so that after I trained my kid to be the anti-government Bruce Wayne he’d have lots of dough to fuck with people with.

    1. Then your kid comes out of the closet as the reincarnation of Patty Hearst after you die and gives all your money to Hugo Chavez in the name of “economic liberty and social justice for all.”

    2. Good luck with that. If you had that kind of money your kid would most likely turn into some whinny leftist “I feel so guilty for having so much while others have so little I need to snort some more heroin” bitch. Not that you wouldn’t try to prevent it. But, most kids of the super wealthy turn out that way.

      1. I’d foster him out to some Salvadorans and have him grow up as a street child. That way, he’d appreciate it if I took him back.

        1. That is a good idea. Maybe you could run commercials in Salvador to get people to foster stupid American children.

          “Here is little Holden. He has lived his entire life going to the best schools, having all the best toys and his every whim taken care of thanks to the wealth of the capitalist system. Sadly little Holden doesn’t understand where these things come from. He has already asked his nanny to buy him a Che shirt. And is starting to read Paul Krugman columns. And he is only 12. For just a few pennies a day, you can take in little Holden into your home. You can teach him the value of work by making him stand in line every day at the community well. If he doesn’t work hard enough, you can beat him (God knows his nanny would like to). With just a few years of your time, you can teach little Holden the value of a good days work and the necessity of the capitalist system. And also add years to the life of your family’s donkey.”

            1. And bravo for the walk-off. That’s funny stuff.

          1. Last line = pure gold.

      2. I tend to think that happens mainly because those kids are ignored by their parents and grow up to resent them and/or act out to try to finally get some attention.

        My kid would get daily reinforcement that he was a demigod destined to lead a Glorious Revolution. Along with, you know, the weapons and unarmed combat training, and the team of tutors, scientists and linguists around him at all times, etc.

        1. Yeah. When he founds that compound in flyover country and gets murdered by the Feds, you’ll feel good about your investment.

          1. If he pursued that foolish a strategy I would really have a bone to pick with his military tutors.

        2. You and him could carve the word “ego” over a cave in which you’ve rediscovered the Promethean accomplishments of rugged individuals through man’s history!

          1. Or we could carve the word “Repent” into the facade of the Jefferson Memorial after our EMP attack takes down industrial civilization in North America.

    3. You miss the point, they are hiding it from taxes by giving it to charity, charities they decide not the government.

      A big problem however is that many of these billionaires have declared that there should be higher taxes at the same time they are hiding their money from taxes by giving it to their charities

    4. But why give it to your kid you sentimenal altruist? No cryogenics where you’re at?

    1. How proud the girls’ parents must be.

    2. You guys really go full retard sometimes don’t you. (Disclaimer: I know that Florida is a bit “different” to much of America.)

    3. That is some shoddy journalism. Not once in that entire story do they tell you if the girls are hotties or uggos.

    4. They were 15, and they looked 15

      Did the gas station have security cameras? I guess the owner would also be arrested?

    5. Clearly he should have asked for ID first.

      Also, shouldn’t everyone who drove by be arrested for viewing the incident?

    6. “…both were charged with Indecent Exposure in Public/Exposure of Sexual Organs.
      What the fuck? Don’t they teach biology in Florida?
      Happily, in my city, it’s perfectly legal to flash your tatas (except in establishments that serve liquor, which, I know, is a whole ‘nother “what the fuck?”

      1. Is it legal for minors to do so?

    7. I think the overlooked part of the story is that the girls were first spotted by the deputy’s wife.

      Do you really think Deputy Dawg would have busted the girls if his wife hadn’t been along? Or would he have snapped some pics himself?

    8. They were on a public street. They had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

  23. Just a picky note, the teaser line says Chicago is getting $100 per day, when it is really for a 3-day, 2-night average trip. I thought the number was a little high so I had to go check it. They are still highest – that part doesn’t change. But I thought Reason was not subject to arithmetic misinterpretation errors. I must say I am a bit disappointed. Hmmm, what other percentage and arithmetic mistakes do I now have to presume are hiding within their material. Nah, must be a one-off.

    1. Do we have to drink now?

    2. It is their pact with the government. Reason refuses to do real math until the government starts using real money.

  24. So a bunch of billionaires, many of whom have declared that the US needs higher taxes are going to put their money into tax exempt charities. Shouldn’t they be giving the money to the government taxman like they have said that everyone else should do?

    1. Pretty much what I was asking earlier.

  25. Chicago’s worth the taxes. Well, parts of Chicago, that is.

  26. Dems break filibuster, pass $26 billion aid bill to states to preserve teacher jobs, fund Medicare.

    What did they cut to meet the pay-go rule? What’s that? Nothing, you say?

    1. Why insist on pay-as-you go on this but not the tax cuts? Or the war(s) for that matter?

      1. I insist (or would if it made any difference) on pay-go for tax cuts and wars. Tax cuts are a bit tricky to value, though, as they do not correlate directly to revenues.

  27. Those billionaires should have given their money to right-wing periodicals and think tanks like any good American!

    1. But giving it to leftist organizations that do harm all over the world and help to weaken the very system that allowed those people to make that money is okay right? How about they just do something productive with it? Starting a business and creating wealth and jobs is the best form of charity there is.

      1. It’s not worth it, John. Let it starve, martyred in it’s altruistic struggle for equality.

      2. So look, are you against private charity now? It’s a bad thing?

        1. Depends on the charity. A lot of private charities are bad things. They advocate horrible destructive policies. They do very little good to solve the problems they are supposed to solve. And they seem best at providing high paying non profit jobs to people.

          Private charities do still do a lot of good. But not as much good as they once did thanks to people like you taking them over. Sadly, this money is more likely to go to the bad politicized ones than it is to the few remaining good ones.

          1. “Sadly, this money is more likely to go to the bad politicized ones than it is to the few remaining good ones.”

            Why in the world would you assume that?

            1. Because of the previous experience with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. And further other foundations like the Ford foundation that have inevitably been taken over by hacks and politicized. The charitable world is very politicized and very liberal. My wife works for non-profits. Nearly everyone she has ever worked with has been a far left liberal.

              1. Because we care more than conservatives John 🙂

                1. That is certainly true. You do care. But my dog cares a lot to. But I am not turning her lose with the checkbook any time soon. Caring doesn’t make up for your ignorance and destructiveness.

          2. “A lot of private charities are bad things. They advocate horrible destructive policies.”

            We call them “churches” where I live.

            1. Actually yes. Then National Council of Churches is one of the biggest offenders. Liberals own the big mainline Protestant churches lock stock and barrel.

              1. “Mainline denominations peaked in membership in the 1950s and have declined steadily in the last half century. From 1960 to 1988, mainline church membership declined from 31 million to 25 million, then fell to 21 million in 2005.[6][7] Today, they are a minority among American Protestants, claiming approximately 15 percent of American adults among their adherents.[8]”

                1. Yes they have. Meanwhile evangelical church membership has exploded. Why? Because liberals took over the mainline Protestant churches and politicized the hell out of them. So everyone who had any values beyond the political left.

                  1. 1. I’d like to see a ctiation for that.
                    2. Are you saying that conservative evangelical churches don’t push a political agenda?

                    1. 1. Go to any mainline Protestant Church and you will see what I am talking about.

                      2. Of course they do. And that is a good reason not to give them money if you don’t like what they are pushing.

                    2. John,
                      1. That’s not any kind of a citation.
                      2. I have all sorts of good reasons not to give conservative churches my money. I’m not sure that has anything to do with whatever point you were trying to make.

              2. MNG may revel in his own good intentions no matter which charity he gives too. So why be choosy?

            2. We don’t all live in Chicago, but Reverend Wright does get around.

              1. Wright is a member of the United Church of Christ. The UCC leadership is incredibly liberal. And that is why he was able to get away with running a black supremacist church for 30 years.

  28. “The old British aristocracy could at least truthfully say that they had physical courage and patriotism and cared for their shires and neighborhoods and served for free as justices of the peace. The old French aristocracy could at least truthfully say that had refinement and manners and a love for art and literature and sophistication and beautiful things. The old Yankee elite could truthfully say that it was enterprising and public spirited and willing to rough it and do hard work when necessary. This lot have little or nothing to be proud of, but they are arrogant as Hell”

    Quote of the day. Someone named Lexington Green talking about the American elite and ruling class.

  29. Gay book banned by County Library


  30. Has anyone seen this? If this happens, there is going to be a revolt.

    Main Street may be about to get its own gigantic bailout. Rumors are running wild from Washington to Wall Street that the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth.…..rom-obama/

    1. I did. I’m sitting at my desk blinded with rage.

      I paid off a piggyback loan about 6 months ago and was no longer underwater. not that it mattered, b/c I wasn’t selling. But silly me, I thought I’d clear a debt off the books. clearly, a sucker.

      1. I passed on buying a house when I moved here in 2007 because I thought that there was no way one would keep its value and I couldn’t afford it. Silly me. I should have bought one for $800 K and just gotten anything I couldn’t afford forgiven.

        When the people who are underwater now were making huge money in the early 00s and taking out home equity loans and moving up and bidding the price of houses beyond my range, they didn’t give me any of the money. But now that their bet didn’t pay off they want me to pay for their losses.

        Obama is so stupid he actually thinks this will help him politically. The majority of this country is not under water on their mortgage. And that majority is going to go ape when they find out they are paying everyone else’s mortgage. Obama really seems to be the least intelligent President in a very long time.

        1. Obama is not stupid, but disconnected from public opinion. But something?s going on, look at the RCP poll avgs.

          I?m baffled, my instinct says people during the summer are on vacation and disconnect from the news, you?d think that would improve his ratings.

          It would be interesting to know what proportion of people in negative equity is primary residence. If it is and you have no reason to sell it?s not such a big deal if your house price takes a dip. There is however a lot of negative equity in Florida (holiday real estate) and if it is a broad bailout of negative equity it wont be helping “main street”.

      2. It’s poor policy too. Let’s piss off of everyone by forgiving mortgages for some people so they are no longer underwater. Who knows what the market value will be in year. I guess we can just pay down the mortgage again.

        I shouldn’t be angry. I’ve got a good job and there a lot of people who are truly suffering. But this won’t help them one bit and just makes everyone else bitter.

        1. It just makes me more cynical. I am against forgiving student loans even though I have them and would benefit greatly from such a program. I have this weird idea that I should pay my own debts. Strange I know.

          But if they do this shit, fuck them I want my student loans forgiven.

    2. Exactly which mortgages? The ones that are part of RMBSs and CDOs that are sitting in Maiden Lane I, II, and III? The RMBSs and CDOs that are on the balance sheets of TBTF institutions that are “marked-to-myth”? Or is it just on the mortgages that are held by F&F?

      1. Untangling that mess is most likely impossible. My guess is they wouldn’t bother, do something populist, and deal with what ever happens due to the action by throwing more money at it.

    3. Since they took all my student loans away from Chase are they gonna forgive my debt too?

      1. eventually. grads are broke and defaulting on their debts so the loan/tuition ponzi is showing signs of imploding.

    4. Democrats are in real danger of losing the House and almost losing the Senate. The mortgage Hail Mary would be a last-gasp effort to prevent this from happening and to save the Obama agenda.

      “Last-gasp” is correct. Let the good times roll …

  31. After 20 minutes, a “lady with a clipboard” came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn’t have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine.

    on the bright side we have another little libertarian being born…

    1. the lil girl was in tears. i could see her developing into full-on anarchist.

  32. I love Drudge. The top headlines right now…..anish.html…..8m_in_may/

    The Obama’s truly have no sense of decorum or taste.

    1. I read about the Spain trip last night and nearly puked. A “private trip with her daughter” and 60 of her closest “friends.” What a load of crap. She isn’t a goddamn queen or princess. Her job is to suck the president’s dick, that’s it!

      1. Nah. They’ve got interns for that.

      2. In the middle of the worst economy in 70 years. It is disgusting. They started running the guillotine in France over this kind of shit. It is one thing when a private citizen engages in flaunting like this. But when an alleged “public servant” does it, you are doing real damage to the Republic. If we didn’t have a state coordinated media and entertainment industry, she would be excoriated over this.

        Remember how Nancy Reagan was killed for the 200,000 whitehouse China? That at least stayed with the White House and was used at official events.

        Michelle is basically squatting her big fat ass down and taking a shit on the country.

      3. Michelle is one gigantic Amazonian cow, so I doubt Barack can control her on this score.

        I bet she said, “I’m going to Spain. Youse gots a problem with that?”

        And Barack looked down at his shoes and said, “Yes dear,” while thinking Please don’t hit me any more, Giant Lady.

        1. She is a rather unpleasant woman isn’t she? She makes Hillary seem like a nice lady in comparison. Seriously, who would you rather be trapped in an elevator for two hours with? Granted it is not a good choice. But it is an easy one.

          1. Seriously, who would you rather be trapped in an elevator for two hours with?

            I’ll take Jenna Jamieson, Alex.

      4. I would definitely choose Hillary because I would talk all sorts of smack about Wellesley chicks and see if I could piss her off.

        If you did that to Michelle she’d raise one of her giant anime character fists and squash you like a bug.

        1. My wife worked for a women’s college for several years. She says that among the students being lesbian was a self defense mechanism. It was kind of like prison. Girls who were not normally lesbian became that way to fit in.

          I would totally ask Hillary about that and her days at Wellsley and any good girl on girl action she got.

    2. Michelle and Marie have one thing in common for sure. They are both butt ass ugly.

      Is that racist?

      1. Need you ask?

    3. Bad: the First Lady spending millions of tax payer dollars on a what amounts to an extravagant shopping trip.

      Worse: taking along dozens of courtiers, er, friends and spending our money on them, too.

      Worst: doing all of this in a foreign country.

    4. Let them eat free cheese.

  33. the Obama administration is about to order government-controlled lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to forgive a portion of the mortgage debt of millions of Americans who owe more than what their homes are worth.

    Depending on how bad they botch it, that could crater the economy. It depends on where those loans sit and who owns a piece of them.

    If the loans are wholly-owned by F & F, and not part of any derivatives deal, mortgage-backed bond, etc., then its just a big run of the govvernment printing press.

    If those loans are part of any deals, those deals are now dead, and the securities probably pretty much worthless. Since a lot of those securities are sitting in banks, pensions funds, etc., this would probably set off a stock market crash and a credit lock-up, in no particular order.

    1. I’ll be looking for someone getting a deal to live with for a year or two rent free. So I can get my deal…

  34. Larry Ellison, 39 other billionaires pledge to give away half their wealth.

    … by lowering combined fed, state, and local taxes below current levels?

    Probably not.

  35. “‘I will be calling the House back into session early next week to save teachers’ jobs and help seniors & children,’ Pelosi said.”

    How do the Martians manage convey all those different words from just a bunch of repeated Ack!‘s?

  36. Why insist on pay-as-you go on this but not the tax cuts? Or the war(s) for that matter?

    I have absolutely no problem cutting government spending whenever taxes are cut. And I would be delighted to see some government departments eliminated whenever we go to war.

    Whatever made you think otherwise, MNG?

  37. I think it is absolutely foolish for billionaires to give their money away to charity when they could give it to Uncle Sam to distribute. Warren Buffet, appaulled at how little he pays in taxes, should give his money to the gubment; you know, where it would do the most good.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.