Political Irresponsibility

Everything Political

Political Irresponsibility

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:06 pm

This is not about Obama or McCain, per se, so even though it follows on my recent thoughts to Torbjon's post, I did not think it fit in that thread. But please move as appropriate...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... y-in-debt/

According to an FEC report filed Wednesday, Clinton's debt as of the end of July stood at just under $24 million — a decrease of only $1.2 million since the end of June. More than $13 million of that total is owed to the New York senator herself, while close to $11 million is owed to individual vendors. Clinton has suggested she is not seeking to pay back the money she owes herself.


The only good thing about this is that last sentence... at least she is not looking for handouts to pay back her own money that she put on the line. Although I am sure that would be one helluva tax writeoff, eh?

The report comes as some high-profile Clinton backers have expressed disappointment Obama has not made more of an effort to help his onetime rival retire her campaign debt.

“He has provided her with a pittance compared to what the Clintons have given Obama,” prominent Clinton backer Lynn Forrester told the Times of London. “Her debt could have been cleared within 10 days. It’s ungracious.”


This right here shows the general political mindset that permits irresponsibility with other people's money. This is primarily a trait exhibited by Democrats, but Republicans are not immune to it either. "Ungracious?" Really!?!?! WHO was the person who incurred that debt? Are Clinton backers so much like the Clintons (selfish babies who insist on having it their way) that they want someone ELSE to pay off her debt that she incurred on her own? Again, this speaks volumes for how politicos look at money, and it honestly makes me sick to my stomach! It reflects the irresponsibility inherent in our society with respect to the mortgage bubble that burst. Again, do not paint me as denying that there were more than enough shady people/companies offering stupid mortgages, but the responsibility for incurring debt belongs with one person only... the person who made the decision to incur that debt.

According to Clinton's disclosure forms filed Thursday, she owes the most ($5.2 million) to her former top advisor Mark Penn's polling/political consulting firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates.


And this guy has recently been in the news with his memo that was pretty "politically incorrect". But look deeper and see the financial irresponsibility yet again: Clinton backers want Obama to help her pay off her debt... but why don't they want the idiot who, essentially, failed Hillary to simply write off that debt? Why are they not pushing him to retire that portion of her debt directly? The reason they do not, in my mind, is because they do not wish to hold Penn to any sort of financial responsibility for the money HE spent and how it did NOT do much for Hillary's bottom line campaign.

We have a disease in this country, and the politicians have the terminal version: Financial Irresponsibility is rampant and will be the death of this nation.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


More Political/Fiscal Irresponsibility

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:40 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/ ... index.html

The Federal Elections Commission has announced that each convention will receive $17 million in taxpayer funds, money approved by Congress as part of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

(snip)

"You have to wonder what that buys us," said Sheila Krumholz, who heads the Center for Responsive Politics. "The taxpayers are footing the bill for essentially four-day-long campaign ads for the parties and their candidates."


FWIW: I do not believe politicians who are doing NOTHING in Congress to solve the pressing problems of the day deserve ANY more money than they already extract from us through taxes!

In 1974, Congress approved the "checkoff" system, in which individual taxpayers could check a box on their tax form to direct $1 of federal funds to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

"With the checkoff, the concept is, only if citizens are actually willing to basically earmark at that time a dollar of their taxes to go to this program will it go there," Thomas said.


I have never checked that box. Nor will I until our spending disease in government is well under control.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:35 am

So here is more data on just how effed-up government is thanks to BOTH parties! This is not a McCain v. Obama thing, but what it does show is the level to which people who make up the Federal government think they are "the elite". (again, we see BOTH parties contribute to these stats)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422464,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service is trying to collect billions of dollars in late taxes from nearly half a million federal employees.

Documents obtained by WTOP radio through the Freedom of Information Act show the federal employees and retirees did not pay more than $3.5 billion in taxes owed last year.

The agency with the most delinquent employees was the U.S. Postal Service. Nearly 4.2 percent of its 747,000 workers are delinquent.

The IRS would not provide comparable data for the general population.

The Executive Office of the President, which includes the White House, has 58 employees who did not pay more than $319,000. More than 1,000 Capitol Hill workers are on the list.

About 152,000 of the delinquent federal workers have entered into payment plans.


I propose a new law! Citizens should be given a chance to avoid jail for tax evasion. But ESPECIALLY since the Feds are the ones who are supposed to be responsible spending our tax money, I say that ANY Federal worker who cannot or does not pay their taxes, should IMMEDIATELY lose their job AND go to jail!

Another piece of evidence how our system is beyond broken. And NO DEM or NO REPUB is capable of fixing it. KICK ALL THE BUMS OUT!

[smilie=real mad.gif]
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Re: Political Irresponsibility

Postby Access Denied » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:20 am

Hey Ray, I moved your post. This seemed like a good thread for this… Grrrrrrr is right! :)

Speaking of political irresponsibility, are you watching Glenn Beck’s new series Exposed: America's Broke! this week?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/

The spending has to stop… short-sighted politicians bent on being (re)elected have been getting away with passing the buck and driving this country into the ground for far too long. There ought to be a law!

Oh, and how do like the California Legislature’s “creative” way of reaching a budget agreement ("compromise")announced today… we won’t cut spending or raise taxes… we'll just borrow against next year’s income… WTF???
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Political Irresponsibility

Postby Access Denied » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:47 am

Access Denied wrote:we'll just borrow against next year’s income

Sorry, my bad on the proper spin terminology…

Lawmakers in California Reach Budget Compromise

The gap in the budget, now nearly 80 days late, would be filled with $10 billion in cuts and $5 billion in increased revenue from things like eliminating tax amnesties and other such moves bound to confound anyone but a budget expert.


[snip]

The negotiations were essentially a fight among three forces: Republicans, who rejected tax increases; Democrats, who wanted to stave off program cuts; and the governor, who wanted to reform the budget process and avoid borrowing.

In the end, there was a stalemate over $5 billion that became the subject of great haggling. The difference would be filled with one-time revenue increases like the suspension of certain business tax credits and tax amnesties and the acceleration of existing taxes and fees.

It’s an “acceleration” not “borrowing” you see...

[those outside of California and the US should note we already have the highest taxes in the country]
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Political Irresponsibility

Postby Access Denied » Wed Sep 17, 2008 7:33 am

OK that was quick... false alarm? Looks like the Terminator may finally be doing what he promised he would do when I elected him…

Governor Says He Will Veto Budget
http://www.knbc.com/politics/17487772/detail.html

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has rejected the budget sent to him hours earlier by the Legislature, criticizing it for failing to meet his reform demands and solving California's persistent fiscal problems.

The announcement marked the first time in modern history that a California governor would veto a state spending plan. It set in motion a historic showdown with the Democratically controlled Legislature, which has said it is prepared to override the governor's pending veto.

[snip]

He called the budget irresponsible and said the reforms it contained were phony: "I say enough is enough."

Lawmakers acknowledged the proposal would get the state through its current fiscal year by closing a $15.2 billion deficit but would not solve California's persistent fiscal problems.

"Let's be clear: All we've done is roll the problem over to the next Legislature," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, a Democrat who is term-limited out of office this year.

At a news conference Tuesday afternoon, Schwarzenegger said the budget would be like "kicking the can down the road."

[snip]

A portion of the revenue depends on increasing state income tax withholdings by 10 percent for working Californians, a move that would raise $1.6 billion. It also would require those who pay estimated taxes -- including corporations and wealthier Californians -- to pay 30 percent of their taxes in each of the first two quarters of the fiscal year instead of 25 percent. That move would generate $2.3 billion.

At some point, the accelerated income tax and quarterly payments would have to be repaid to taxpayers, potentially through refunds. The higher withholdings will mean less take-home pay for many workers, tax experts said.

Brilliant idea… you can “save” California by loaning the government some of your income interest free for a year… trust us we won’t blow it.

Of course on the other hand with this veto threat Arnold could just be setting the stage for a tax increase instead…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Google

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests