T1B

Or so Barbara Bush believes.

What a slime. We should take her off the $1 bill.

Disaster Relief money spent on friends of Washington's ruling elite?

How shocking......

I'm sure they're all doing this with the highest regard to keeping costs down. Look at the bright side, there's always The Red Cross to help keep this all in check.....

Much as I would LOVE to bash Barbara Bush, I just can't in this instance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her earmarking her money. End of story.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Or so Barbara Bush believes.

What a slime. We should take her off the $1 bill.

If its her money then why shouldn't she have a say in how it's spent? What the fuck have you done to help those affected by Katrina?

Loser.

BSmack wrote:Much as I would LOVE to bash Barbara Bush, I just can't in this instance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her earmarking her money. End of story.

that wasn't her money, once she gave it. and it sure as hell wasn't a gift.

Former first lady Barbara Bush gave relief money to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from her son Neil's company.

The chief of staff of former President George H.W. Bush would not disclose the amount earmarked for purchases from Ignite Learning.

Since Barbara Bush's gift, the Ignite Learning program has been given to eight public schools with high numbers of Hurricane Katrina evacuees, the Houston Chronicle reported.

this looks like laundering of a sort. i can't quite put my finger on it, but something looks wrong with this.

if you give money to someone, you no longer have the right to tell them how to use that money... and you certainly don't have the right to tell them they have to use the money you are donating to buy shit BACK from you and yours.

if it was important that her son Neil's company (wasn't he a Keating 5/S&L asshole from the late 80s? the fuck? :? ) donate money to these 8 public schools, then why didn't Babs just BUY THE DAMN THINGS FROM HER SON HERSELF and make a private donation, instead of forcing this organization to buy from her son?

If it was so important, why didn't her son MAKE THE DAMN DONATION HIMSELF INSTEAD OF HAVING THE SHIT BOUGHT FROM HIM?

you see where this is heading? and why i say it looks like some kind of money laundering, of a sort? Babs was forcing a relationship upon the Bush-Clinton organization..... and it's not going to be reported exactly how that relationship came about, only the end result of it:

a) the Bush-Clinton organization gave software to these schools
b) the donated software came from Neil Bush' company.

nowhere will it state that this organization had to BUY this software, and that it was stronghanded into that buying by the wife of one of the men who controls it, who is also the mother of the man from whom this software will be bought.

It wasn't a gift. It probably wasn't even her money, if we dig deep enough, beyond the fact that once you give it away it's gone.

but you of all people, B_Smack, see nothing wrong with this? :? :(

no wonder these people advocate not relying upon the government. they know themselves they aren't going to do a damn thing to help you, if it doesn't involve helping themselves first.

R-Jack wrote:

Risa wrote:if you give money to someone, you no longer have the right to tell them how to use that money...

Yes you do.

No, you don't.

I don't get to tell the government 'you can't spend the tax money i'm forking over to you on defense spending.'

I can't tell the Red Cross 'you can only spend the money I'm giving you in
Punchadonkie Parish, LA'.



A gift doesn't come with strings attached, it's a gift.

When strings are attached, it's no longer a gift -- it's a contract. At least, to me. The attorneys here can shoot as many holes as is legal in the distinction I've tried to make just now, however. It's cool.


My biggest problem is with her telling this organization it has to buy shit from her son... and everything that suggests.

R-Jack wrote:

Risa wrote:

R-Jack wrote: Yes you do.

No, you don't.

Every charity I have given to I have earmarked the money to go to a specific place or service.

what charities do you give to? and how were you able to earmark it?

Risa wrote:

R-Jack wrote:

Risa wrote:if you give money to someone, you no longer have the right to tell them how to use that money...

Yes you do.

No, you don't.

I don't get to tell the government 'you can't spend the tax money i'm forking over to you on defense spending.'

I can't tell the Red Cross 'you can only spend the money I'm giving you in
Punchadonkie Parish, LA'.

Actually, once again you are poorly-informed.

The United Way specifically allows donors to choose to either have their donation spent as the UW sees fit or earmark the donation (specific region, specific organization, or to even exclude a specific organization, like Planned Parenthood). Furthermore, many college and universities (like my alma mater SUNY/Geneseo and the University of Rochester) allow alumni donations to be earmarked for specific departments (for example, I choose to have my alum donations given to the biology department). Sometimes alumni leave bequests with "strings" attached. happens all the time.

Your personal feelings about "earmarking" don't change the fact that it IS standard practice and has been prior to Barbara Bush.

Give the Bush family a break here. At least they didn't profit from a disaster of their own making this time.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Actually, once again you are poorly-informed.

The United Way specifically allows donors to choose to either have their donation spent as the UW sees fit or earmark the donation (specific region, specific organization, or to even exclude a specific organization, like Planned Parenthood).

The United Way? the organization notorious for spending more money on overhead and administrative than on actual programs?

Do they have an option for 'i want zero percent of this donation to go towards paying your president's salary'?

Furthermore, many college and universities (like my alma mater SUNY/Geneseo and the University of Rochester) allow alumni donations to be earmarked for specific departments (for example, I choose to have my alum donations given to the biology department).

an alumni donation is not anything close to the same animal as a disaster relief donation. it's booster money.

Your personal feelings about "earmarking" don't change the fact that it IS standard practice and has been prior to Barbara Bush.

kinda like the standard money laundering practices Tommy Delay and that dumbfuck Abramoff engaged in?

Loopholes exist to be closed, not exploited. Just because the loophole is there doesn't make it right to use it.

In the Bush case, you're saying it's standard practice for someone to say 'here's $10,000 -- you can only use this $10,000 if you buy can openers, and not just any can openers (even if you can end up getting better quality and/or more quantity elsewhere) you have to buy from my cousin Sal's Can Opener Emporium'.

Again, why make the organization the middle man? Why not just you spend your $10,000 to buy can openers from your cousin Sal? or better yet -- why isn't Sal donating said amount?

you've just forced a business relationship on the middle man. i'm saying that's not a gift. that's a contract.

Risa wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Actually, once again you are poorly-informed.

The United Way specifically allows donors to choose to either have their donation spent as the UW sees fit or earmark the donation (specific region, specific organization, or to even exclude a specific organization, like Planned Parenthood).

The United Way? the organization notorious for spending more money on overhead and administrative than on actual programs?

Red herring. You stated plainly that you can't earmark money to a charity. Now, instead of admitting you're wrong, you're now attacking a specific charity I named.

How 'bout "Save the Children?" They also allow you to earmark where your funds go. I'm sure a short Google search would turn up others.

Face it, you once again posited an unsupported argument as if it were a fact and got caught. Again.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Furthermore, many college and universities (like my alma mater SUNY/Geneseo and the University of Rochester) allow alumni donations to be earmarked for specific departments (for example, I choose to have my alum donations given to the biology department).

an alumni donation is not anything close to the same animal as a disaster relief donation. it's booster money.

Coming from someone who tried comparing tax money to charitable giving:

Risa wrote:don't get to tell the government 'you can't spend the tax money i'm forking over to you on defense spending.'

..it's sort of a "stones and glass houses" bit on your part. I was being kind in not skewering you for stupidly comparing money you are REQUIRED BY LAW to turn in to the government with a donation.

Risa wrote: Loopholes exist to be closed, not exploited. Just because the loophole is there doesn't make it right to use it.

In the Bush case, you're saying it's standard practice for someone to say 'here's $10,000 -- you can only use this $10,000 if you buy can openers, and not just any can openers (even if you can end up getting better quality and/or more quantity elsewhere) you have to buy from my cousin Sal's Can Opener Emporium'.

Sure, why not? If it's her money, she can give it as she sees fit and with any strings she chooses. It's not for you to judge the nature of her giving. At least she's giving something.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Risa wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:Actually, once again you are poorly-informed.

The United Way specifically allows donors to choose to either have their donation spent as the UW sees fit or earmark the donation (specific region, specific organization, or to even exclude a specific organization, like Planned Parenthood).

The United Way? the organization notorious for spending more money on overhead and administrative than on actual programs?

Red herring. You stated plainly that you can't earmark money to a charity. Now, instead of admitting you're wrong, you're now attacking a specific charity I named.

It is related. You say you can earmark it, and I'm saying how much of that request is actually followed through upon. If I give $100, but only $5 finds its way to the organization I requested, the letter of the request/law may have been followed but not the intent.

That's with United Way.

I was thinking more along the lines of a Red Cross or a Salvation Army, myself. I don't consider United Way a charity organization; it's business.

But you did try.

How 'bout "Save the Children?" They also allow you to earmark where your funds go. I'm sure a short Google search would turn up others.

Is that the organization that got in trouble years ago because people thought they were giving money to specific children in like, bangladesh and Cuba and places, and come to find out, all that money people thought was being sent to specific adopted children never saw those children -- who were just farmed out photos anyway? the money went to help people (and that's a good thing), but in more general ways than represented by literature and come ons?

Face it, you once again posited an unsupported argument as if it were a fact and got caught. Again.

Unsupported by what? I wasn't aware I could request exactly where, how and to whom my donated moneys could be used. That has not been my experience.

Life Experiences are not a Google search, Mike.

Thank you for attempting to address the gaps in what I know, though.

Coming from someone who tried comparing tax money to charitable giving:

Risa wrote:don't get to tell the government 'you can't spend the tax money i'm forking over to you on defense spending.'

..it's sort of a "stones and glass houses" bit on your part. I was being kind in not skewering you for stupidly comparing money you are REQUIRED BY LAW to turn in to the government with a donation.

The 16th Amendment was never ratified. Neither here nor there, right?

More importantly, I'm a taxpayer and a citizen... that money is not given to the government to do whatever they want with it. It's money given to the government so that the government uses it as it's citizens wish it to be used. There's a problem when the government is in the business of shaking down it's citizens for money to do what the government wants and not what the shake down victims want.

I guess you can make the argument that we make our decisions when we pull levers, push buttons, write in at the voting booth. Wouldn't it be more efficient to take an actual count of those pay, and say 'when you fill out your tax form, you can also check these boxes regarding how you want your money spent, in the general'.

It's already done for campaign and wild life funds -- which I guess bolsters yours and RJack's arguments about choosing what one wants done with one's 'donation'/'gift' whatever, and I apologize for forgetting those two examples here during tax time -- why not go for the whole shebang? Instead of this dollar and that 3 dollars for what's basically feelgoodism...... why not 'i want my money to go here and here and here; i don't care what you do as long as not a dime to goes here'?

Sure, why not? If it's her money, she can give it as she sees fit and with any strings she chooses. It's not for you to judge the nature of her giving. At least she's giving something.

She's giving her son a cash influx on top of some feelgoodism for the stockholder's paper at the end of the year 'this year we worked with this organization to provide software to 8 schools'...

no, you didn't. it was a shakedown.

i guess what i'm really trying to say with all this, is that these charities are just ways for the rich to redistribute wealth among themselves. and that burns me up, considering how much the rich get back when it comes to bogus charities during tax time. and that's what most disturbs me about this whole Bush thing. it isn't real. it's a redistributing, and you shouldn't be able to twist arms when it comes to charity in order to enrich yourself and family.

but just because something shouldn't be doesn't change that it is, right? :?

Risa wrote: I wasn't aware I could request exactly where, how and to whom my donated moneys could be used. That has not been my experience.

Then you should have checked your facts before making the statement.

Risa wrote:Life Experiences are not a Google search, Mike.

I realize that this is just a web board, but making statements on a topic as if you have data or supporting evidence, when all you're basing them on is "life experience" is what gets folks nailed to a wall around here.

Risa wrote: The 16th Amendment was never ratified. Neither here nor there, right?

Correct, as courts have upheld time and again.

Risa wrote:More importantly, I'm a taxpayer and a citizen... that money is not given to the government to do whatever they want with it. It's money given to the government so that the government uses it as it's citizens wish it to be used.

As your representatives choose to use it, after considering the weighing the wishes of their constituents, parochial and national interests, as well as a ton of info that the "great unwashed" don't have the clearance, education, or interest to know about.

I guess you can make the argument that we make our decisions when we pull levers, push buttons, write in at the voting booth. Wouldn't it be more efficient to take an actual count of those pay, and say 'when you fill out your tax form, you can also check these boxes regarding how you want your money spent, in the general'.

That is, hands down, one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard and it puts waaaaay too much faith in a set of folks that make a proud point of being ignorant of science, math, history, economics, etc. I sure as hell don't want Goober, Gomer, or Cletus deciding where federal tax money goes.

The U.S. government is not a direct democracy and never should be. It's a republic. Deal with it. Federal funds are not disbursed on a referendum basis. Nor should they be.

Taxes are not a donation given out of the goodness of its citizens. They are a necessary evil collected in order to pay for the stuff that government is supposed to deal with as well as the frigging incessant and ever-growing demands of the folks who want a piece via their "entitlements."

Donations are given by folks to be used as they request. if an organization doesn't like the conditions imposed, they're free to not take the money. That's it. Game over.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:

Risa wrote: I wasn't aware I could request exactly where, how and to whom my donated moneys could be used. That has not been my experience.

Then you should have checked your facts before making the statement.

Trust me, that is never going to happen.

Risa,

I've known Mike for over 20 years, and I am absolutely certain that on his worst scotch and Labbats soaked day, he is still smarter than you will ever be. Seriously, just sit down, read some of his posts a few times for context, let the ideas sink into the part of your head previously occupied by thoughts of missing children, maybe think things over a bit, and then don't bother posting. Because I am certain that you are incapable of coming up with a well reasoned or coherent response to what Mike is saying.

Risa wrote:if it was important that her son Neil's company (wasn't he a Keating 5/S&L asshole from the late 80s? the fuck? :? ) donate money to these 8 public schools, then why didn't Babs just BUY THE DAMN THINGS FROM HER SON HERSELF and make a private donation, instead of forcing this organization to buy from her son?

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the people managing the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund might have a better idea where these resources could be utilized best than an 80 year old former First Lady?

Trust me, her tax deduction and Neil Bush's cut are the same no matter which way she allocated that money.

And with that, I am done with you today.

BSmack wrote:Risa,

I've known Mike for over 20 years,

... so? what?

so you're butt brothers.

Look, man: I can only come from where I'm coming from. My original post and every post after is from that place. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's still my place, at the time I wrote it. That place can change, when it is wrong or I'm just not feeling it anymore. If he's the catalyst of it, good for him, and good for me, and good for all in the end.

If you're trying to tell me don't come at all, however, you may plant your lips on my prodigious sweet black ass.

i can't quite put my finger on it, but something looks wrong with this.

Try pulling your finger out of your asshole and stick it in your mouth and you may begin to have a hint of a clue.

Derron wrote:

i can't quite put my finger on it, but something looks wrong with this.

Try pulling your finger out of your asshole and stick it in your mouth and you may begin to have a hint of a clue.

i have an allergy to latex and should just drop the extra dough for that saran wrap shit?

you never struck me as the safe sex type.

risa,

If you just give someone money, with no stipulation, I agree, you haven't the right to demand how they spend it. But, how in the hell can you not agree that if someone decides, I want to help these folks by giving them money to do (fill in the blank), then the giving person can damn well expect, even demand that it happens.

This is common sense. Unfortunately your complete hatred for the entire Bush Clan clouds your vision on this very simple matter. It must really suck to go through life so bitter.

Risa wrote:... so? what?

so you're butt brothers.

That homosmack angle just didn't work out very well. Try again.

Good to see Diego holding his own in ths thread.

TenTallBen wrote:Good to see Diego holding his own in ths thread.

Go smoke a pack or four.

Sure, one can designate where their donation goes, but to do so in a way that directly benefits a family member is pretty shady. EOS.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

TenTallBen wrote:Good to see Diego holding his own in ths thread.

Go smoke a pack or four.

Sure, one can designate where their donation goes, but to do so in a way that directly benefits a family member is pretty shady. EOS.

You are a fucking idiot. Have you even had enough money to donate some to people who actually needed it? You are a fucking hayter. Just admit it. Your life is sad. Keep complaining about shit you have no control over......loser..

TenTallBen wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

TenTallBen wrote:Good to see Diego holding his own in ths thread.

Go smoke a pack or four.

Sure, one can designate where their donation goes, but to do so in a way that directly benefits a family member is pretty shady. EOS.

You are a fucking idiot. Have you even had enough money to donate some to people who actually needed it? You are a fucking hayter. Just admit it. Your life is sad. Keep complaining about shit you have no control over......loser..

Keep drinking your spiked koolaid, dumbshit.

Risa wrote:The United Way? the organization notorious for spending more money on overhead and administrative than on actual programs?

Don’t know how they run the United Way where you live, but around here 87% of the money they raise goes directly to funding programs. 4% goes to administration and 9% to fund-raising.