This Piece of Orange Shit Belongs In Jail

[Minimalist]

It is very very simple.  "Small government" is a euphemism meaning that there is no effective government regulation of corporate criminals like the Koch Brothers.  If they are allowed to ride roughshod over the country they don't need subsidies.  All they need is no SEC, no EPA, no IRS, no FLRB, etc., etc.  The illusion of 'state regulation' wherein 50 states are supposed to control these corporate behemoths is just window dressing.

[vorlon13]

To me, small government is not having 43 different regulatory agencies responsible for trout.

Seems like we can machete out some of the duplication, waste, duplication, abuse and duplication and still keep the Koch brothers in check.

Hell, it might be EASIER and more EFFECTIVE to regulate Wall Street with a streamlined bureaucracy than a bloated one, maybe we otta give it a try ?

[The Grand Nudger]

To me, small government is not having 43 different regulatory agencies responsible for trout.

-and all of them underfunded, with none of them actually solving the trout problem, whatever that is. Cut those 43 agencies down to a single agency and give it the full budget of all the former satellites. Then, maybe then, see what it does and whether or not it can be done cheaper. Sure, it;ll upset some people, mostly those at the trough in 42 of the 43 agencies....but who gives a shit about their umbrage?

[Minimalist]

I can't find a list of - or any reference to - 43 trout agencies.

[vorlon13]

I can't find a list of - or any reference to - 43 trout agencies.

And you won't as the reality is worse than my simplistic reference.

Found this, and understand the implications:


As bureaucracy sprawls, nobody can say with complete authority exactly how many federal agencies exist.
The twice-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Deregulatory and Regulatory Actions, which compiles agency regulatory plans in the federal pipeline, listed 60 agencies in the Spring 2015 edition, a count that can vary slightly from report to report. The Fall 2014 edition that also contained many agencies’ Regulatory Plan also listed 60.
The Administrative Conference of the United States lists 115 agencies in the appendix of its “Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies, but notes: 
[T]here is no authoritative list of government agencies. For example, FOIA.gov [maintained by the Department of Justice] lists 78 independent executive agencies and 174 components of the executive departments as units that comply with the Freedom of Information Act requirements imposed on every federal agency. This appears to be on the conservative end of the range of possible agency definitions. The United States Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments. An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.gov, which lists 137 independent executive agencies and 268 units in the Cabinet.
In a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, one senator noted that “The Federal Register indicates there are over 430 departments, agencies, and sub-agencies in the federal government.” The online Federal Register Index depicts 257. The list below summarizes various tallies.
How Many Federal Agencies Exist?
Unified Agenda: 60
Administrative Conference of the United States: 115
FOIA.gov (at Department of Justice): 252
United States Government Manual: 316
Federal Register Index: 257
Regulations.gov: 89
If nobody knows how many agencies exist whose decrees we must abide, that means we don’t know how many people work for the government (let alone contractors making a living from taxpayers) nor know how many rules there are. But even when we isolate a given, knowable agency, the rise of “regulatory dark matter” may make it hard to tell exactly what is and is not a rule.
The sprawling bureaucracy, plus growing concern that issuing a rule may not even be necessary for agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to impose their will on the public calls out for congressional response.

[vorlon13]

And it probably gets worse:

is a department an agency ?

how about a bureau ?

what of a committee ?

or a board ?


"Agency" is just the tip of the iceberg.

[ScienceAf]

I hope his cell mate is a Mexican with an attitude and a big dick!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/us/pol...c=rss&_r=0

Donald Trump Used Over $250,000 From Charity for Business Disputes, Report Says

Donald J. Trump, already under scrutiny for how he uses his foundation, directed more than a quarter of a million dollars from the charity to settle legal disputes stemming from his personal businesses, according to a report on Tuesday in The Washington Post.

Sadly both candidates suck but have done nothing illegal.
Although it's borderline illegal.

[Minimalist]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/pay-for-...ng-groups/

Pay for play? Trump Foundation funds reportedly used to cozy up to right-wing groups

Donald Trump used donations from his personal foundation to establish relationships with right-wing groups ahead of his candidacy for president, says a new report. Individuals with ties to Trump say that he began making “strategic donations” as far back as 2011 in order to ingratiate himself to organizations that might be skeptical of his conservative bona fides should he make a presidential run.

While the report published Tuesday by Real Clear Politics was careful not to explicitly call the relationships a quid pro quo “pay-to-play” arrangement, Trump was using funds from the Trump Foundation in ways that may violate IRS rules.

[Mister Agenda]

To say that there's no percentage in libertarian policies for big business (koch merely being one example of the demographic), is, I think, a stretch.  Isn;t that one of the things that they proudly claim to possess?  They are good for business, right?  Having two options that are good for business (as they see it) and one option that isn't (as they see it) is a blunt skewering of potential outcomes in one's favor.  Doesn't take a conspiracy, just brute force of numbers.

In any case, the LP doesn;t get the support that the other parties do, that's for sure.  They won;t, until someone can show those backers how to monetize their policies - and no, not in the direct and obvious way in which those policies are communicated, lol.  For example, if getting rid of the doe beacme a liberatrian policy (and boy it;s a fan favorite, aint it) then private schools would be more profitable than they already are..should the LP be ensconced as a power player.  "School choice" would be the name of the LP sponsored bill...but it;s use would be in backhanded private school subsidies.  Now, right now, not only dos the LP not possess any significant political power, their policies offer no novel modification of that business model, and the religious right have a better pretext for their private schools..so if you were an interested backer, specifically in that industry, who would you give -your- money too?  

Or, as we might call it...business as usual.

How does having a 'good for the economy' alternative to Republicans benefit the Koch brothers? It potentially takes votes away from the Republicans they're backing. It's the opposite of skewing outcomes in their favor. And libertarians: still against corporate subsidies or any special privileges from the government for corporations. Rent-seeking behavior is not okay to libertarians. Speaking broadly, since libertarians are on a spectrum like any other relatively large group. The only thing the Koch brothers care about is making money, and Republicans serve them so well in that regard that they would be working against their own interests to back libertarian candidates. They'd be better off backing Democrats on the theory that their money will suffice to tug their reigns once they're in office.
The numbers don't work.

If I were an interested backer, I would give my money to Republicans. Giving my money to an LP candidate would not get me anything that I want (unless I voted that way for ideological reasons, i.e., because I was a Libertarian).

[The Grand Nudger]

How does having a 'good for the economy' alternative to Republicans benefit the Koch brothers?

Min gave ample examples, I gave an elaboration of a specific example.

It potentially takes votes away from the Republicans they're backing. It's the opposite of skewing outcomes in their favor. And libertarians: still against corporate subsidies or any special privileges from the government for corporations.

I know that libertarians think that, but the practical reality of libertarian policies is precisely opposite. While I'm not doubting the earnestness of any given libertarians ideology as they see it, ideology is one thing, reality is another. Yes, it potentially takes republicans away..but that doesn't matter, since you're talking about one useful party stealing something for itself from another useful party - either way that something ends up in a useful party. The potential to take dems away is also there, and useful...since it will force dems to drift towards your policies to secure and pick up votes.

Rent-seeking behavior is not okay to libertarians. Speaking broadly, since libertarians are on a spectrum like any other relatively large group. The only thing the Koch brothers care about is making money, and Republicans serve them so well in that regard that they would be working against their own interests to back libertarian candidates.

That;s exactly what I said, in the post you just quoted......

They'd be better off backing Democrats on the theory that their money will suffice to tug their reigns once they're in office.
The numbers don't work.

Negatron, the dems won't give them what they want. They'll play ball in ways that disgust you and I both, but there is an immutable core of opposition namely, repubs and libs -and big business- want government out. Dems want it in.  

If I were an interested backer, I would give my money to Republicans. Giving my money to an LP candidate would not get me anything that I want (unless I voted that way for ideological reasons, i.e., because I was a Libertarian).

Right, because the libs currently have no political capital to spend....we agree. What big business wants is less regulation, diminished ability to act against their interests. Is that not something that the libs would give them, if they could?

You gotta think like a robber baron, baby. That's who these fuckers dream of being at night. They want less regulations for all of the same reasons that those robber barons did. They don't care why you, or any specific libertarian wants it. They don't care why you or any libertarian would make it happen. They just want to see it done. When/if it is done, it's not going to pan out the way that libertarians have imagined it. Their practical use as voters and legislators has a life and use independent of their own ideological fantasies.

If you need evidence, btw, that the lib platform has been -very- effectively co-opted..just turn on am radio.