AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

..There definitely is a Soros connection here and this would be the same George Soros who has contributed heavily to groups and organizations who have heavily supported Obama...

so then you have the same problems with Richard Mellon-Scaife ?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

I have a problem with government giveaways no matter who gets them, and I have problems with our elected leaders misrepresenting why they give away what they give way. I have problems with our government dispensing special favors to those who contribute the most to political campaigns. And that's no matter who is involved. And I have problems with elected leaders who don't act according to their stated convictions and principles no matter who they are.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

yes, yes.... but about mellon-scaife?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

I don't know a great deal about him other than he had more money than God and used it to support conservative causes and groups. I am unaware of any direct financial benefit to himself due to his activities but if he did receive government favors or payoffs for his efforts, then that would be wrong.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

There can be little doubt that Mellon Scaife got millions in tax cuts for his efforts. That sounds like a payoff to me. And it exceeds anything you can point to for Soros.

1 Reply

Source: Albuquerque Journal, 22 August, 2009, page A1

1 Reply

@parados,

And of course, it isn't just Scaife. Bradley has poured in even more money than Scaife. Then there's Coors and a very long list of others.

And, they've been doing it for decades.

Any argument for equivalence is just outright stupid or dishonest.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter

Re the 21%...yesterday, Matt Yglesias said:

Quote:

The most striking thing to me about Barack Obama’s slipping poll numbers is that they come in the context of GOP approval ratings that appear to be stuck near some kind of theoretical minimum...
Twenty-one percent have confidence in congressional Republicans! Relatedly, twenty-one percent of Americans believe in witches. Twenty-one percent believe they can communicate with the dead.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/a-nation-of-haters.php

1 Reply

@blatham,

At least only 6% don't think Hawaii is part of the US.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html

0 Replies

@blatham,

The question is not the amounts given. Nobody can fault anybody for giving to whatever with no concern for personal benefit other than personal satisfaction. And that would include George Soros.

The question is what does the donor expect or how does he/she individually benefit from government actions and/or the public treasury in return for his/her donations? In a quick scan of information on Mellon-Scaife, I saw no allegations of such government action or payoffs from the public treasury.

Obviously in the case of the Petrobras deal, George Soros stands to benefit enormously. And that's what makes that deal stink to high heaven. I don't care how 'safe' an investment it is for the USA. And if this deal was as good for America and would save American jobs like those promoting it claim, I think I know President Obama well enough to know that he wouldn't pass up a chance to heap such glory on himself and take credit for it.

We have small businesses in the USA who are starved for cash right now and people out of work because small business is starved for cash, but the government doesn't seem to think it important to make $2 billion available for them to borrow. But then they don't funnel millions and millions to groups like Acorn, Mediamatters, and Moveon.org or channel millions to Democratic candidates or support for leftwing initiatives either. It is reported, for instance, that Soros has provided $5 or more million just to promote Obamacare.

As Soros will make hundreds of millions from the Petrobas deal, it just looks fishy.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well it may be much to do about nothing and perhaps Freeduck and DTOM's sources are accurate, but so far I haven't found anything other than from those benefitting from the deal who think it is appropriate. Most of what I have run across reads more like this admittedly not-that-objective piece:

Not objective and based on a demonstrably false premise: that these are "taxpayer dollars" being lent to Petrobras and that this was Obama's decision.

Larry Clifton wrote:

Turns out Obama is going to lend billions of taxpayer’s deficit dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

As Ex-Im bank themselves say (and it should be easy to verify if you don't believe it's true) they are self-sustaining and not funded by tax dollars, and their Bush-appointed board of directors made the decision.

Ex-Im Bank wrote:

Charge: The U.S. government is giving away more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to Brazil’s largest oil and gas company to drill for oil in Brazil.

Fact: The Bank has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Petrobras for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company. Of note, the Bank is self-sustaining and no taxpayer dollars are involved.
...
Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

I'm curious who these people are who are so upset about it and so eager to drill offshore. I wonder if they aren't also people who stand to benefit from offshore drilling and who are trying to drum up support and pressure to get the government to let them do it. Seriously, who else would really care about this?

I think you're being played like a fiddle.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I think I know President Obama well enough to know that he wouldn't pass up a chance to heap such glory on himself and take credit for it.

Interesting.

Just curious, Foxfyre, had you ever heard of the US Export-Import Bank before the WSJ op-ed?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Even read the other day that AIG was returning some of the bailout money.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think I know President Obama well enough to know that he wouldn't pass up a chance to heap such glory on himself and take credit for it.

Interesting.

Just curious, Foxfyre, had you ever heard of the US Export-Import Bank before the WSJ op-ed?

Yes, and I know it is a federal government agency, and therefore to assert that it is 'self-sustaining' and therefore 'no taxpayer dollars are involved' is a bit disingenuous. It is like saying that the U.S. Post Office is self sustaining or Social Security is self sustaining or Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae are self sustaining. Whenever any of these become 'non self sustaining', it is the U.S. taxpayer that will be obligated to make up the difference.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Well, actually everything which is an government agency is paid by the taxpayer - especially the Ex-Im Bank's foreign offices which are either consulates-general or embassies.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

That's my point. A bureaucrat in a government agency who presume that 'tax payer dollars are not at stake' is a bureaucrat who has forgotten what the United States of America federal government is intended to be. He sees himself as an employee of a business and not as a public servant.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

... A bureaucrat in a government agency ...

have you ever worked in an office?

0 Replies

In my paper, there's a lot of news about the CIA using Blackwater (quasi-military contractors, now trading under a different name) to carry out illegal operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and also to murder individuals who were cooperating with goverment investigations into this.

1 Reply

@McTag,

there's been enough going on with that bunch that they've changed their name to Xe. but a rose by any other name.

there was an investigation last year where prince's brother was caught up in funneling work to them from the bushy bunch.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

a country is a business. a very big business. don't fool yourself that it is anything else.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know