[liquiddrewl]

"Newport Beach billed President Obama's campaign for police security at a fundraiser. The Secret Service says that security is its job, not the campaign's, but that it can't reimburse the city."

Romney paid his fundraising bill after 1 month, Obama's bill went out in May and still no money.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/30/...l-20120730

[UgSlayer]

Imagine being the collection agency rep making that call.

[Tuthmosis]

Fuck Newport Beach. It's the only city in California that could get away with the kind if rich-people bullshit that it does. If you've flown out of the nearby John Wayne Airport, for example, whose flights go over its airspace, you don't know what I mean:

Your plane takes off at the highest angle allowable angle by the FAA. It's uncomfortable, actually, for the passengers. The engines roar nasty and you get crushed into your seat by the G forces. Then, in the middle of ascent, the pilot turns off his engines, so as to not disturb the residents of the $6.5 million Garage Mahals below. Keep in mind, the airport--and its flight paths--were there first. Then, once well past their homes, they fire them up again. Those assholes got that shit passed through legislation.

These guys are just complaining about paying for security because they can. They have money and don't like to spend it, especially on no Obama. You have no idea how much money is concentrated down there. That shit is no joke. The city should provide security for a presidential visit, even if he did only go down there to withdraw money from his ATM (Southern California).

[UgSlayer]

(07-31-2012 10:41 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Fuck Newport Beach. It's the only city in California that could get away with the kind if rich-people bullshit that it does. If you've flown out of the nearby John Wayne Airport, for example, whose flights go over its airspace, you don't know what I mean:

Your plane takes off at the highest angle allowable angle by the FAA. It's uncomfortable, actually, for the passengers. The engines roar nasty and you get crushed into your seat by the G forces. Then, in the middle of ascent, the pilot turns off his engines, so as to not disturb the residents of the $6.5 million Garage Mahals below. Keep in mind, the airport--and it's flight paths--were there first. Then, once well past their homes, they fire them up again. Those assholes got that shit passed through legislation.

These guys are just complaining about paying for security because they can. They have money and don't like to spend it, especially on no Obama. You have no idea how much money is concentrated down there. That shit is no joke. The city should provide security for a presidential visit, even if he did only go down there to withdraw money from his ATM (Southern California).

So they deserve to get stuck with the bill because they're rich?

[Tuthmosis]

(07-31-2012 11:47 AM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

So they deserve to get stuck with the bill because they're rich?

Not just that, the city should be responsible for providing police protection for dignitaries and national figures. That's what society is: order and infrastructure. That's what you pay for. Despite the ultra-conservatives' fantasies, this ain't no third-rate foreign nation where everything is privatized and you have to provide your own everything, like security.

But, it goes both ways. This isn't just about who's rich.

When Michael Jackson died and there were massive crowds in Downtown Los Angeles for the funeral, some city council members tried to pull that bullshit--"the estate should pay." The mayor came back from some trip abroad and shut up that noise, publicly, saying that the city is responsible for that shit. I think he said, "we're a world-class city, not some small town." Despite the economic crisis, he wasn't going to nickel-and-dime a grieving family, just because the deceased happened to be a mega-star.

Not only is Newport Beach the city here, responsible for running things, they're a rich city. They should be responsible on both counts. This comes out of city coffers, not an individual's pocket.

[UgSlayer]

(07-31-2012 12:28 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 11:47 AM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

So they deserve to get stuck with the bill because they're rich?

Not just that, the city should be responsible for providing police protection for dignitaries and national figures. That's what society is: order and infrastructure. That's what you pay for. Despite the ultra-conservatives' fantasies, this ain't no third-rate foreign nation where everything is privatized and you have to provide your own everything, like security.

But, it goes both ways. This isn't just about who's rich.

When Michael Jackson died and there were massive crowds in Downtown Los Angeles for the funeral, some city council members tried to pull that bullshit--"the estate should pay." The mayor came back from some trip abroad and shut up that noise, publicly, saying that the city is responsible for that shit. I think he said, "we're a world-class city, not some small town." He wasn't going to nickel-and-dime a grieving family, just because the deceased happened to be a mega-star.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought u were about to go on some marxist tirade.

[rlongo924]

(07-31-2012 10:41 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Fuck Newport Beach. It's the only city in California that could get away with the kind if rich-people bullshit that it does. If you've flown out of the nearby John Wayne Airport, for example, whose flights go over its airspace, you don't know what I mean:

Your plane takes off at the highest angle allowable angle by the FAA. It's uncomfortable, actually, for the passengers. The engines roar nasty and you get crushed into your seat by the G forces. Then, in the middle of ascent, the pilot turns off his engines, so as to not disturb the residents of the $6.5 million Garage Mahals below. Keep in mind, the airport--and its flight paths--were there first. Then, once well past their homes, they fire them up again. Those assholes got that shit passed through legislation.

These guys are just complaining about paying for security because they can. They have money and don't like to spend it, especially on no Obama. You have no idea how much money is concentrated down there. That shit is no joke. The city should provide security for a presidential visit, even if he did only go down there to withdraw money from his ATM (Southern California).

Damn that sounds pretty scary. Isn't it kind of unsafe for the pilots to have to turn off their engines mid-flight? I'm surprised that's allowed by the FAA, considering how strict they are with their regulations.

[j r]

(07-31-2012 01:53 PM)rlongo924 Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 10:41 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Fuck Newport Beach. It's the only city in California that could get away with the kind if rich-people bullshit that it does. If you've flown out of the nearby John Wayne Airport, for example, whose flights go over its airspace, you don't know what I mean:

Your plane takes off at the highest angle allowable angle by the FAA. It's uncomfortable, actually, for the passengers. The engines roar nasty and you get crushed into your seat by the G forces. Then, in the middle of ascent, the pilot turns off his engines, so as to not disturb the residents of the $6.5 million Garage Mahals below. Keep in mind, the airport--and its flight paths--were there first. Then, once well past their homes, they fire them up again. Those assholes got that shit passed through legislation.

These guys are just complaining about paying for security because they can. They have money and don't like to spend it, especially on no Obama. You have no idea how much money is concentrated down there. That shit is no joke. The city should provide security for a presidential visit, even if he did only go down there to withdraw money from his ATM (Southern California).

Damn that sounds pretty scary. Isn't it kind of unsafe for the pilots to have to turn off their engines mid-flight? I'm surprised that's allowed by the FAA, considering how strict they are with their regulations.

That's the problem with regulations. If you have enough money and clout, even the strictest regulations can be brushed aside.

[Tuthmosis]

(07-31-2012 01:53 PM)rlongo924 Wrote:  

Damn that sounds pretty scary. Isn't it kind of unsafe for the pilots to have to turn off their engines mid-flight? I'm surprised that's allowed by the FAA, considering how strict they are with their regulations.

Here are a couple of articles on the matter. They include some pilots' take.

John Wayne Airport Named Among 10 Scariest

Pilot's Take on Takeoffs

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 12:31 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 12:28 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 11:47 AM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

So they deserve to get stuck with the bill because they're rich?

Not just that, the city should be responsible for providing police protection for dignitaries and national figures. That's what society is: order and infrastructure. That's what you pay for. Despite the ultra-conservatives' fantasies, this ain't no third-rate foreign nation where everything is privatized and you have to provide your own everything, like security.

But, it goes both ways. This isn't just about who's rich.

When Michael Jackson died and there were massive crowds in Downtown Los Angeles for the funeral, some city council members tried to pull that bullshit--"the estate should pay." The mayor came back from some trip abroad and shut up that noise, publicly, saying that the city is responsible for that shit. I think he said, "we're a world-class city, not some small town." He wasn't going to nickel-and-dime a grieving family, just because the deceased happened to be a mega-star.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought u were about to go on some marxist tirade.

Yeah, man, I was worried, too.

I for one believe that we should defend people like this to the death:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-14750.html

Anything else would be unamerican.

[durangotang]

(07-31-2012 03:21 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Yeah, man, I was worried, too.

I for one believe that we should defend people like this to the death:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-14750.html

Anything else would be unamerican.

You don't have the right to another's life, liberty, or property. Why does this bother you? Doesn't bother me.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 03:47 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

You don't have the right to another's life, liberty, or property. Why does this bother you? Doesn't bother me.

Where do you think that money comes from?

Those rich kids are spending taxpayer dollars.

Did you even follow the Bailouts?

[durangotang]

Mike, that's purely speculation. Their wealth could be derived from any number of sources. We don't know if their parents work for Goldman Sachs, or if they are invested in Stat Oil (Norwegian), or were successful entrepreneurs. Saying they are spending tax payer dollars in disingenuous and serves to contribute to people's feelings of jealousy, envy, and wrath - big vices. Statements like these are as un-American as the bailouts and serve to undermine what little free market capitalism we have left by fomenting class warfare.

Nobody has the right to someone else's property and that especially applies to crony corporatists who use government to get access to other people's property through tax payer funded bailouts. Those people should have been allowed to fail and now should be arrested. I share those sentiments.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 05:02 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Mike, that's purely speculation. Their wealth could be derived from any number of sources. We don't know if their parents work for Goldman Sachs, or if they are invested in Stat Oil (Norwegian), or were successful entrepreneurs. Saying they are spending tax payer dollars in disingenuous and serves to contribute to people's feelings of jealousy, envy, and wrath - big vices. Statements like these are as un-American as the bailouts and serve to undermine what little free market capitalism we have left by fomenting class warfare.

How many people with net worths exceeding 10 million dollars do you personally know?

Not read about.

Not heard of.

Not friends of friends.

But people who would take your call right now?

Let's assume you know several, because you must. Otherwise you wouldn't have an opinion, right?

How many of those rich people do not have politicians in their back pockets?

How many of those rich people do not lobby to receive tax breaks, taxpayer bailouts, and to enact laws that favor them at the expense of their competitors?

[UgSlayer]

(07-31-2012 03:21 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 12:31 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 12:28 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 11:47 AM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

So they deserve to get stuck with the bill because they're rich?

Not just that, the city should be responsible for providing police protection for dignitaries and national figures. That's what society is: order and infrastructure. That's what you pay for. Despite the ultra-conservatives' fantasies, this ain't no third-rate foreign nation where everything is privatized and you have to provide your own everything, like security.

But, it goes both ways. This isn't just about who's rich.

When Michael Jackson died and there were massive crowds in Downtown Los Angeles for the funeral, some city council members tried to pull that bullshit--"the estate should pay." The mayor came back from some trip abroad and shut up that noise, publicly, saying that the city is responsible for that shit. I think he said, "we're a world-class city, not some small town." He wasn't going to nickel-and-dime a grieving family, just because the deceased happened to be a mega-star.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought u were about to go on some marxist tirade.

Yeah, man, I was worried, too.

I for one believe that we should defend people like this to the death:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-14750.html

Anything else would be unamerican.

U Mad?

[durangotang]

One of my best friends has more than that amount. He is donating about $1000 for Obamas re-election because of gay rights and because his stock portfolio is up from 2008. I tell him he is a fucking idiot for wasting his money, but he doesn't have a politician in his back pocket. None of my rich friends do. You need a lot more than $10 million to have a politician in your back pocket.

I am a libertarian and quasi anarcho-capitalist my friend, I don't like the government because everyone wants to lobby or vote to take wealth forcibly from other people through taxation. Both rich and poor. Just because someone has money doesn't mean they got it from the bailout.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 05:16 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

U Mad?

Not mad an not jelly.

I just find it funny.

There are some guys here with decent net worths. They aren't usually the ones sucking off rich people and freaking out about "class warfare."

Because once you get some pocket change, you realize something very important about wealth creation in the United States.

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

So if the government taxes the rich, where's the injustice?

It's all a circular game of Peter robbing Paul.

[durangotang]

By raising taxes and engaging in class warfare, you make it harder for the middle class to succeed due to onerous taxation, destroy capital by transferring it from the wealthy and competent in the private sector to bureaucrats thereby enlarging government, and cement the poor to the bottom rung of society by making them psychologically and physically dependent on government services. Who wins? Mega corrupt capital, the .0001% who have access to politicians to secure their contracts.

Take a look at this article comparing Hong Kong and the United States tax and revenues.

Mike, if you have a substantial net worth is there a crime behind it? Do you work in the financial sector?

[Blackhawk]

(07-31-2012 05:06 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

How many of those rich people do not have politicians in their back pockets?

How many politicians does Danielle Steele have in her back pocket? None.
How many politicians does Larry Ellison have in his back pocket? None.
Larry Page, Sergey Brin? None.
Mark Zuckerberg? Marc Andreessen? Craig Newmark? None.
Steve Jobs? None.
and the list around Silicon Valley goes on and on.

When you get over to the Atherton crowd like Meg Whitman, she prides herself on being a political outsider and not having connections.

Your max campaign contribution is $400. And the Gallo family has all 16 family members, even 6 month old babies, make the max contribution to both parties each year. "To buy access." That's a total of $6,400 to each party. Big whoop.

Places like the http://www.lincolnclub.org/ try to sell their members they have access. In reality, they're just another overpriced TED conference, this time targetted for the political wonk set.

How many politicians does J K Rowling have in her back pocket do you estimate?

[UgSlayer]

(07-31-2012 05:26 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 05:16 PM)UgSlayer Wrote:  

U Mad?

Not mad an not jelly.

I just find it funny.

There are some guys here with decent net worths. They aren't usually the ones sucking off rich people and freaking out about "class warfare."

Because once you get some pocket change, you realize something very important about wealth creation in the United States.

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime."

So if the government taxes the rich, where's the injustice?

It's all a circular game of Peter robbing Paul.

What's "some pocket change"? Almost everybody I know personally (family friends) that has made their money has done it honestly with a small business they started from scratch. They go out to work 7 days a week all day. Their kids in most cases became well off by building on that success or becoming good at their professional careers. They may not be worth tens of millions, but some are. Almost all are immigrants who came to this country with close to nothing. Against All Odds and Forever 21 were created by Korean immigrants who I've personally met and they are most likely worth that much.

Of course I see your point about financiers and bankers making money by exploiting others, but they are far from representative of people who have become financially successful in this country.

[kerouac]

(07-31-2012 05:41 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Your max campaign contribution is $400. And the Gallo family has all 16 family members, even 6 month old babies, make the max contribution to both parties each year. "To buy access." That's a total of $6,400 to each party. Big whoop.

Where do you get $400?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citiz...l#how_much

Quote:

An individual may give a maximum of:

$2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.
$10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
$30,800 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.
$117,000 total biennial limit. This biennial limit places a ceiling on your total contributions, as explained below.
$100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument.

Furthermore, there are SuperPACS, which have way more lax contribution limits, hence the importance of Citizens United

But back to the point, I'm going to make a guess and infer that MikeCF finds it funny that so many "anarcho-capitalists", libertarians, and political-newbs are so quick to defend the people who get the most out of our system, while the rest of us lay around wondering wtf is going on.

Newport Beach showed itself for what it is (ie. GOP central) by taking this step to go beyond typical convention of a wealthy city to demand something that a proud city would never demand. Having a President come to your city is usually an honor, but in our age of childish partisanship, we have to watch tradition/culture break down over dumb games.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 05:41 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

How many politicians does Danielle Steele have in her back pocket? None.
How many politicians does Larry Ellison have in his back pocket? None.
Larry Page, Sergey Brin? None.
Mark Zuckerberg? Marc Andreessen? Craig Newmark? None.
Steve Jobs? None.
and the list around Silicon Valley goes on and on.

You're the guy who embarrassed himself in a San Francisco thread.

Stop beat yourself up by making provably false claims:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/2...JO20120725

(Reuters) - Google Inc, Amazon.com Inc, eBay Inc, Facebook Inc and other big Internet companies are starting a trade association to handle political and regulatory issues in Washington, a person close to the group said on Wednesday.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010...fundraiser

Google's Marissa Mayer is hosting President Obama for a Democratic party fundraiser tonight.

The event will be at Marissa's Palo Alto house, not her swanky San Francisco apartment.

Tickets are $30,000-a-head, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...06261.html

When President Obama broke bread with Silicon Valley leaders on Feb. 17, he had assembled a team of tech all-stars to hash out the White House's plan to encourage innovation.

But long before Obama called the country the "the nation . . . of Google and Facebook" and emphasized that "cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine" during his recent State of the Union Address, Silicon Valley's start-ups and stalwarts have been at the ready, hiring influential lobbyists in Washington to push their agenda on Capitol Hill.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 05:41 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

Your max campaign contribution is $400. And the Gallo family has all 16 family members, even 6 month old babies, make the max contribution to both parties each year. "To buy access." That's a total of $6,400 to each party. Big whoop.

Who are you, man? You post things with such confidence that are provably wrong.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contr...ion_Limits

[j r]

(07-31-2012 05:58 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Newport Beach showed itself for what it is (ie. GOP central) by taking this step to go beyond typical convention of a wealthy city to demand something that a proud city would never demand. Having a President come to your city is usually an honor...

Doesn't that depend on whether the President is there on an official visit or there for a fundraiser? I can't see why taxpayers should be proud to subsidize a politician's campaign activities.

[MikeCF]

(07-31-2012 05:58 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

But back to the point, I'm going to make a guess and infer that MikeCF finds it funny that so many "anarcho-capitalists", libertarians, and political-newbs are so quick to defend the people who get the most out of our system, while the rest of us lay around wondering wtf is going on.

Yeah.

They run around screaming, "OMG! We can't tax the rich! They are job creators!"

We're also told that anyone who wants to overhaul the tax system "hates success."

Well, those kids are the rich.

Republicans/conservatives/libertarians are agitating on behalf of the Paris Hiltons of the world.

That's really laughable.