Archives for posts with tag: Contribution

Three examples today of how Libertarians and their wannabees amongst the Teabagging and “Republican” communities behave in real life when things don’t go their way:

Number A:

20140225-082439.jpg This unemployed Libertarian is crying because the safety net he voted against isn’t there when he needs it. Yes, he hated that big government and its handouts when he was employed, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, he wants Congress to “have a freaking heart”. Sorry about your luck, Chuck: next time you vote, maybe you’ll be the one to have a freaking heart.

Letter 2:

20140225-083859.jpg Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson has been an advocate for deregulating horizontal drilling and fracking everywhere in the United States. Until it affected him and other rich Libertarians, that is:

Instead, the suit claims, the water company began building a 160-foot water tank, calling it “this monstrosity” that will “create a constant and unbearable nuisance to those that live next to it.” The tank will be constantly lighted, make noise and “create an attractive nesting spot for invasive species of bird and other animals,” the suit says.
And then it adds that the water company will sell water to drillers for hydraulic fracturing, “leading to traffic with heavy trucks” on nearby Farm Road 407, and “creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards.”

Yep, deregulation for everybody but himself. Typical Libertarian hypocrisy.

Thirdly: We have the Libertarian’s fave “currency”, Bitcoin. This barely-regulated “money” appeals to the “ideals” of Libertarians, to the extent that the party now accepts them as campaign contributions. But now that the exchanges are collapsing due to the lack of regulation, investors of all political stripes are calling for, well, regulation.

When it comes down to it, Libertarians want all the benefits of the governments they pretend to despise: a safety net, clean air and water, and safety from criminals, to name but a few. They just don’t want to PAY for it, or to be bound themselves by “burdensome” regulations and laws. Hypocrites, in other words.

Screw all of those lying, smirking, two-faced, Libertarian sons of bitches. They should reap what they have sown, and learn the hard way that government is not always the problem (as their Saint Ronnie of Alzheimer claimed): sometimes, government can be a good thing. Let ’em deal with its absence and see how they like it.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

As stated in a previous Schrödinger’s Court post, we cannot really know what is happening inside the Supreme Court, because their deliberations are (mostly) private.  From the way the “box” has been shaking and rattling of late, we know something is going on inside. It seems to be at worst (in the words of Miracle Max) “mostly dead”, and perhaps at best somewhat alive. Time will tell.

Having said that, Mr. Blunt and Cranky has noticed that there is a new box in town, created by this Court: let us call it “Schrödinger’s Cash”. Like the Court, we cannot see what goes on inside the box, but can see what happens outside of it as result of what is happening inside (yes, he knows that the physics analogy is breaking down here). The Court did not say that it was building a secretive new world of quasi-legalized Congressional and Presidential bribery, and indeed may not have intended to do so, judging on its writings. But that is what has been created by their Citizens United ruling.

In a virtual box made out of loopholes, hundreds of millions of dollars flow in and out; from and to hidden people in hidden places, beholden to hidden organizations with hidden agendas.  A few people are trying to open this box, and so far getting nowhere. Because, really,  the questions of what the box is, how big it is, where it is, how much is in it, and what is happening  in there are as opaque to us as are the most quantum of mechanics.

Secrets beget secrets: that is not a new observation, of course. And now we see the get of a secretive Court, and the part of the resulting spawn that hasn’t slithered its way inside the box is observably vile and corrupt. Leaving us to wonder, just how much more revolting is the part that is hidden? Pretty darned, one would expect.

This writer would like to end the Schrödinger-esque experiment by opening the box. He figures that would kill off whatever slimy critter lives therein.  After which he’d borrow a VW Quantum from a mechanic, and crankily run the box over, smashing it to bits so that it could never again be closed.

Mr. B & C

In Mr. Blunt and Cranky’s July 3rd post, he said that foreign individuals and organizations were buying the loyalties (such as they are) of U.S. officials.    It was pointed out to him that there was no evidence that anyone without U.S. citizenship was listed in the story, and it was further posited that the B & C premise du jour was fatally flawed. That impression was entirely due to this blogger’s having had a bad writing day, and he accepts the forty lashes via keystrokes that he quite justifiably received.

Note that he does not consider the premise itself to be incorrect. There are a goodly number of examples of U.S. citizens who have made money overseas and then contributed large sums towards American election efforts, oftimes with the tacit or active support of their overseas employers. Google “Adelson Macao” for one representative case. So, even if you cannot prove that a specific Yen, Dinar, Pound, etc. from a personal or business account was converted to a Dollar to be part of a specific contribution to a campaign fund, we can see that these individuals and entities make money overseas and then contribute via channels various and sundry to American candidates.

Thus the “what”. But the “why” is always the more important bit. So, why do businesspeople and businesses spend money? Obvious answer: to earn a profit

For-profit businesses, foreign and domestic alike, exist to be profitable. Even socially-responsible for-profit businesses must make a profit if they are to do the “good works” to which they aspire. This means that handing out free money is unethical for a for-profit entity.  Understand this well: if a business spends money, it is ALWAYS looking for a return on its investment (ROI, in business jargon).

 American politicians provide a fantastic ROI for the savvy investor: a few tens of thousands of dollars can provide millions in return. Look at some of the no-longer-required tax breaks for oil companies, for instance: once justifiable due to market conditions, they are actually working against the overall market in the current day and age. But they remain in place because of campaign contributions (bribes, by any other name) that buy the votes of the politicians who receive these funds. Very profitable, sometimes a several-hundred-percent ROI or better.  Quite the good investment (for the investor, of course. For the rest of us, it can cause great financial pain).

So, back to Barclays U.K. and its apparently legal fundraising employees. What’s their ROI for being the ninth-largest source of funds (so far) to the Romney campaign? In a word, deregulation of its U.S. interests and trading partners.  Romney has pledged to roll back post-crash regulations, and Wall Street (and its international analogues) loves them some de-regulation. Bigger bucks can be made when no one is looking (or even allowed to look). Well worth finding a way to funnel money across the pond.

If we get hung up on technicalities, we run the risk of missing the big picture: that being the ever-increasing influence of financial globalization and economic interdependence on the conduct of American electoral politics and the related financials.

In fine: businesses are after profit. They are investing in Romney so as to make a profit. If he wins, the investors will make out like bandits. And many of the rest of us will wind up with what is called a “negative ROI”; AKA, our loss.

Mr. B & C