The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: TrulyStashin on July 10, 2013, 08:44:28 AM
-
Our esteemed [cough] Gov McDonnell (R) and his wife purchased 4 homes in 2005 and 2006 -- each valued at or near $1 MILLION. Two in Virginia Beach. One in Richmond. One in Wintergreen.
They had trouble covering expenses and had to take loans from friends and family in '07, '08, and '10. Then, in 2012, the CEO of a failing Virginia snake oil business "loaned" a big pile of cash to McDonnell's corporation to pay the costs of the houses that Gov. could not afford. No payments have been made, to date, toward repaying the "loan" which was not disclosed because VA law does not require disclosure of "loans" to corporate interests owned by elected officials.
The same CEO gave a $6,000 Rolex to the First Lady, at her request, so she could gift it to her husband (gifts from family need not be disclosed). The same CEO gave First Lady $15,000 worth of designer clothing and paid $15,000 to the caterer for the First Daughter's wedding (though McDonnell had signed the catering contract). None of this was disclosed.
Investigation by the Commonwealth and the FBI is ongoing.
And this is a man who campaigned on fiscal responsibility and reduced spending. Also a man who refused to expand Medicaid even though the impartial cost-benefit analysis done by the legislature showed a clear benefit to the state's economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnells-corporation-wife-benefited-from-120000-more-from-donor-sources-say/2013/07/09/79b29880-e5b4-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_2.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnells-corporation-wife-benefited-from-120000-more-from-donor-sources-say/2013/07/09/79b29880-e5b4-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_2.html)
-
I'd heard about part of this, but I didn't know he had four houses.
Like, what does one even DO with four houses? Two in the same location (Virginia Beach)? Doesn't he live in a governor's mansion right now anyway?
It will be very interesting to see what happens next... *grabs popcorn*
-
Keep the popcorn handy. The Attoney General, Ken Cuccinelli is running for governor this year and he has also benefited from the same CEO -- non-disclosed vacations at CEO's resort home -- and owned stock in CEO's company valued at over $20,000 which Cuccinelli never disclosed though he should have. He sold a portion of his stock at a significant gain (doubled his money) even though the company has NEVER been profitable.
Add to that, the executive chef at the Governor's mansion attempted to blow the whistle on the Gov's receipt of gifts from CEO and at roughly the same time, the AG's office indicted the chef for embezzling food from the mansion. Chef argues that he was told to take the food in return for catering events at the mansion for CEO and other non-state events (McDonnell's PAC events, GOP-related parties etc) for which he wasn't paid.
It all stinks to high heaven. Greed and lack of self-control.
-
Ha I saw that and had some serious schadenfreude. I bet those houses aren't worth anything close to what they paid for them now. I hope McDonnell and Cuccinelli get burned big time.
-
Like, what does one even DO with four houses? Two in the same location (Virginia Beach)?
Rent them out. The very article linked by the OP describes the two properties in Virginia Beach and the one in Wintergreen as rental properties, and the one in Richmond was the family home until they moved to the Governor's Mansion in 2010.
So I'm not quite sure why the OP (who presumably read the article) cast this as "anti-Mustachian". Buying rental property is actually quite Mustachian; it seems like the main problem is that McDonnell bought near the peak of the bubble, and got burned by the collapse. Stupid or risky perhaps, but not explicitly anti-Mustachian IMO.
-
What's funny is this sounds like what many people did (though on a much larger scale) at the same time. Borrowed money they didn't have in the hopes of becoming rich with home values that would continue to escalate forever. The 120k loan appears to be money to arbitrage the paper loss in value of the homes, until they regain enough value to dispose of.
All that being said, I'd hope that a governor who promotes a conservative / austerity platform would be smarter about guarding his own finances.
-
It's Antimustachian to buy things one cannot pay for. When you buy property in '06 and need a loan from family in '07 to meets costs, you're well deserving of a place in the Wall of Shame.
-
Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work.
-
Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work.
This guy disagrees:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x7LYhrTZzj4/UGmpF_Aqd7I/AAAAAAAAAHc/65IcXHGgnKc/s1600/BenjaminFranklin.jpg)
-
This guy disagrees:
Except that Franklin wasn't much of a politician, certainly not in the sense that he made a career out of running for office. From a quick search, the only offices he was actually elected to were the Pennslyvania Assembly, and (in his 70s) President of Pennsylvania.
Interesting to note that he was also a sort of Mustachian, having retired from his printing business at the age of 42.
-
Ben Franklin was No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)?
If you're going to say politicians are useless, have to live off others, etc. and then change what politician means when a counter example is given to be:
certainly not in the sense that he made a career out of running for office.
..okay?
Back then no one really made a career out of that, but I could put in other pictures of the founding fathers who were elected to multiple posts over and over and the argument holds.
A blanket statement that politicians are useless at anything but living off other people's work and have no skills in life just isn't true. How about the various military men who were president? Or businessmen? etc.
-
The Washington Post is channeling MMM. Face punch to Gov. McDonnel. Ouch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gov-mcdonnell-must-answer-questions-about-scandal/2013/07/10/9976ed92-e992-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gov-mcdonnell-must-answer-questions-about-scandal/2013/07/10/9976ed92-e992-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html?hpid=z3)
-
The Washington Post is channeling MMM. Face punch to Gov. McDonnel. Ouch.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gov-mcdonnell-must-answer-questions-about-scandal/2013/07/10/9976ed92-e992-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gov-mcdonnell-must-answer-questions-about-scandal/2013/07/10/9976ed92-e992-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_story.html?hpid=z3)
Now that was a good burn. I can't wait to see what comes out about Cuccinelli!
-
What an f'ing clown. This guy makes me ashamed to be a Virginian. Smh.
-
I was particularly amused by the large list of groceries that his college age children took from the governor's mansion back to their dorms. That's straight up theft of government funds.
I'm all for trying to be frugal by taking food from home rather than eating out, but this is like the worst version of mooching off of your parents. It's mooching off of the the taxpayers of Virginia.
-
Meanwhile, Gov. McDonnell's son was arrested yesterday for public swearing and intoxication in Charlottesville, VA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnell-son-arrested-on-intoxication-charge/2013/07/09/c30bf9c4-e8dc-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
-
Meanwhile, Gov. McDonnell's son was arrested yesterday for public swearing and intoxication in Charlottesville, VA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnell-son-arrested-on-intoxication-charge/2013/07/09/c30bf9c4-e8dc-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
Holy smokes. Perhaps it is time for the Commonwealth to prosecute him for embezzlement over the food/ items he took from the Mansion? I'm sure AG Cuccinelli will get right on that one........
-
If you're going to say politicians are useless, have to live off others, etc. and then change what politician means...
But I'm not the one changing what the word means, you are. If you look up the definition of the word, you find things like "A person who is professionally involved in politics", "a person who is active in party politics", "a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles", etc.
How about the various military men who were president? Or businessmen? etc.
I'd argue that many of them were not politicians, under the above dictionary definitions. As for example I wouldn't consider Eisenhower to have been a politician, while Roosevelt and Nixon were.
-
How about the various military men who were president? Or businessmen? etc.
I'd argue that many of them were not politicians, under the above dictionary definitions. As for example I wouldn't consider Eisenhower to have been a politician, while Roosevelt and Nixon were.
I think nearly every other person would, so again, I'd go back to you being the one changing the definition. I think every president and founding father fits the definition you quoted of "A person who is professionally involved in politics."
You may have a negative connotation with politicians and want to conflate that with what is commonly called a "career politician," but they are in fact different things.
Of course Eisenhower was a politician.
-
I think nearly every other person would, so again, I'd go back to you being the one changing the definition.
Sorry, but I'm going to stick with the dictionary definition.
I think every president and founding father fits the definition you quoted of "A person who is professionally involved in politics."
Nope. Most of the founding fathers weren't professionally involved in politics. To the small extent they were involved at all, it was as amateurs, and by necessity which the Revolution had forced on them.
Of course Eisenhower was a politician.
Sure. And just when did the US start electing military officers?
-
What is "professionally involved"? It was their profession for at least a time, no?
-
Isn't one of your definitions - "a person who is active in party politics"? And doesn't that apply to pretty much every single president ever?
-
The point being made is that some politicians come straight from the silver spoon fed cradle into the party machine, whereas others actually have a career/business in the real world (i.e. get their hands dirty experiencing life) before they enter politics.
edit: just reading the story now....nobody does hypocrisy like the GOP.
-
The point being made is that some politicians come straight from the silver spoon fed cradle into the party machine, whereas others actually have a career/business in the real world (i.e. get their hands dirty experiencing life) before they enter politics.
It shouldn't be that hard to understand the distinction.
I think that would be a pretty tough quiz due to the outrageous subjectivity of the quiz graders/makers.
All politicians are shitty people.
Ben Franklin was not a shitty person.
Therefore, Ben Franklin was not a politician.
Jesus Christ, got some denying-the-antecedent up in this house!
-
Right but the point was being made that all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work. When examples of politicians who don't meet that criteria are brought up the scramble to redefine what is a politician starts happening. Just admit that not all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other peoples work, even the right term for what is trying to be communicated was provided, a career politician, and even that is debatable as to whether they are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
I think we can all admit how useful the following phrases are -
All politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
All corporations are evil.
All government workers are lazy.
As in not useful at all because miss the nuance of reality.
-
Yes agreed. I did edit my post after rereading some of the arguments above. 2 clouds of smoke causing problems- nuance of reality as you said and nuance of internet debates!
-
I think nearly every other person would, so again, I'd go back to you being the one changing the definition.
Sorry, but I'm going to stick with the dictionary definition.
I think every president and founding father fits the definition you quoted of "A person who is professionally involved in politics."
Nope. Most of the founding fathers weren't professionally involved in politics. To the small extent they were involved at all, it was as amateurs, and by necessity which the Revolution had forced on them.
Of course Eisenhower was a politician.
Sure. And just when did the US start electing military officers?
The above is my take on the founding fathers too. The idea behind who would run the country was that it would be regular people--farmers, etc. Eventually, we came into having "professional" politicians, which I define as politicians who spend most of their time campaigning and serving in office.
Nerd Alert: I love to debate and discuss the meanings of words and phrases.
Side note: If you ask me, Jefferson was not that frugal. Wasn't he always asking Monroe for financial help?
-
Right but the point was being made that all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work. When examples of politicians who don't meet that criteria are brought up the scramble to redefine what is a politician starts happening. Just admit that not all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other peoples work, even the right term for what is trying to be communicated was provided, a career politician, and even that is debatable as to whether they are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
I think we can all admit how useful the following phrases are -
All politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
All corporations are evil.
All government workers are lazy.
As in not useful at all because miss the nuance of reality.
Since corporations are people, some of them are government workers. That means at least some are lazy. ;-)
-
The above is my take on the founding fathers too. The idea behind who would run the country was that it would be regular people--farmers, etc. Eventually, we came into having "professional" politicians, which I define as politicians who spend most of their time campaigning and serving in office.
That's dynamite, but they were still politicians.
We can talk about the difference between politicians and career politicians or professional politicians or whatever you want to call it, but the fact of the matter is that the latter two are subsets of the former.
Even they weren't a career politician by your definition, they were still politicians, and to say all politicians are useless parasites is ridiculously wrong hyperbole.
-
Right but the point was being made that all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work. When examples of politicians who don't meet that criteria are brought up the scramble to redefine what is a politician starts happening. Just admit that not all politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other peoples work, even the right term for what is trying to be communicated was provided, a career politician, and even that is debatable as to whether they are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
I think we can all admit how useful the following phrases are -
All politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
All corporations are evil.
All government workers are lazy.
As in not useful at all because miss the nuance of reality.
Since corporations are people, some of them are government workers. That means at least some are lazy. ;-)
Oh I think we can all find examples of lazy corporations. :D
-
Isn't one of your definitions - "a person who is active in party politics"? And doesn't that apply to pretty much every single president ever?
No, I don't think it does. Certainly not to Washington, who was very much against parties. I doubt it would to Eisenhower, who was pretty much drafted to run for the office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Eisenhower (Interestingly, both the Republican and Democratic parties were trying to draft him to run, so it's pretty hard to see how he could be said to have been involved in party politics.) I'm sure we could find other similarly non-political presidents if we looked.
The point being made is that some politicians come straight from the silver spoon fed cradle into the party machine...
Not even always from silver spoons. In recent years, Clinton came from a lower middle class background, Obama was upper middle class at best. Yet neither really had much work/life experience outside politics.
-
In recent years, Clinton came from a lower middle class background, Obama was upper middle class at best. Yet neither really had much work/life experience outside politics.
So you would argue that both of them have "no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work"?
-
The above is my take on the founding fathers too. The idea behind who would run the country was that it would be regular people--farmers, etc. Eventually, we came into having "professional" politicians, which I define as politicians who spend most of their time campaigning and serving in office.
That's dynamite, but they were still politicians.
We can talk about the difference between politicians and career politicians or professional politicians or whatever you want to call it, but the fact of the matter is that the latter two are subsets of the former.
Even they weren't a career politician by your definition, they were still politicians, and to say all politicians are useless parasites is ridiculously wrong hyperbole.
Sure. They would be politicians while in office and then go back to being a farmer, etc (that was the assumption anyway). Being a *life-long* politician is different.
Oh, I am not saying all politicians are useless. However, some of them do go astray when they gain power. IMO, a lot of the fraud and greed could be controlled somewhat by restricting every campaign to a $20 budget or no budget. Since campaign costs are so high, politicians are in more need of money. Because they are in need of money, they are more likely to strike back room deals with corporations and also with each other.
I am only semi-kidding about the $20 budget. I think the budget (cap, whatever one wants to call it) needs to be greatly reduced for all political campaigns.
-
Isn't one of your definitions - "a person who is active in party politics"? And doesn't that apply to pretty much every single president ever?
No, I don't think it does. Certainly not to Washington, who was very much against parties. I doubt it would to Eisenhower, who was pretty much drafted to run for the office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Eisenhower (Interestingly, both the Republican and Democratic parties were trying to draft him to run, so it's pretty hard to see how he could be said to have been involved in party politics.) I'm sure we could find other similarly non-political presidents if we looked.
The point being made is that some politicians come straight from the silver spoon fed cradle into the party machine...
Not even always from silver spoons. In recent years, Clinton came from a lower middle class background, Obama was upper middle class at best. Yet neither really had much work/life experience outside politics.
Bipartisan support does not necessarily mean that the Eisenhower was not active in party politics. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#Presidency_1953.E2.80.931961 - "'I have just one purpose ... and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it ... before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore.'" Now regardless of whatever your political leanings are and regardless of the fact that it is a rather centrist statement it is still a party statement.
And although there weren't parties as we know them in Washington's time he had political leanings in favoring Hamilton's policies over Jefferson's, thereby making him a politician.
-
Oh, I am not saying all politicians are useless.
That's basically what you are defending, because the original statement being refuted is that "Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work."
I agree with you that some get out of control. I'd take it further and say most. Overwhelmingly so. I'd agree with you that we need campaign reform.
None of that is being discussed, and is a red herring and irrelevant.
What is being discussed is the idea that "Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work." Jamesqf has fallen on the side of defending that ridiculous position, but that's not surprising. I had given you more credit, but are you really stepping up to agree with it as well?
Because to say that the Founding Fathers had no skills, Eisenhower had no skills, heck even some of the current ones mentioned like Clinton and Obama (that potentially ARE career politicians) having no skills in life?
You agree with that statement?
-
Oh, I am not saying all politicians are useless.
That's basically what you are defending, because the original statement being refuted is that "Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work."
I agree with you that some get out of control. I'd take it further and say most. Overwhelmingly so. I'd agree with you that we need campaign reform.
None of that is being discussed, and is a red herring and irrelevant.
What is being discussed is the idea that "Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work." Jamesqf has fallen on the side of defending that ridiculous position, but that's not surprising. I had given you more credit, but are you really stepping up to agree with it as well?
Because to say that the Founding Fathers had no skills, Eisenhower had no skills, heck even some of the current ones mentioned like Clinton and Obama (that potentially ARE career politicians) having no skills in life?
You agree with that statement?
??? You and Jamessqf are the ones debating and arguing.
Mainly, I wanted to point out that the Framers expected people would serve as politicians and then go back to their "real" jobs. I did digress by mentioning Jefferson and frugality and a few other things that were OT, but I am not agreeing with the statement James made.
So, you are arguing with the wrong person, amigo!
-
[quoting Jamesqf] The above is my take on the founding fathers too.
but I am not agreeing with the statement James made.
Hmm.. Head scratcher. Seems odd that you jumped in to agree with him, then say you don't agree with him. Whatever.
-
What is being discussed is the idea that "Politicians have no skills in life and depend on living off other people's work." Jamesqf has fallen on the side of defending that ridiculous position, but that's not surprising.
I am? I certainly never intended to. What I've been doing is disagreeing with your ridiculous position that anyone who ever occupied a public office, or participated in a revolution, is de facto a politician.
Because to say that the Founding Fathers had no skills, Eisenhower had no skills, heck even some of the current ones mentioned like Clinton and Obama (that potentially ARE career politicians) having no skills in life?
Sheesh, you sure need to work on your reading comprehension here. What I've been saying all along is that Eisenhower, Franklin, and most of the Founding Fathers were not politicians. Therefore, using them as examples to counter the argument that politicians have no useful life skills doesn't work. It's like trying to counter a claim that "cats can't bark" by pointing to a barking dog :-)
As for Clinton, Obama, and similar politicians - call them career politicians if you want - I do think that if they were somehow excluded from politics, and forced to find some useful trade, they would soon starve.
-
The founding fathers absolutely were politicians by your definitions and any reasonable person's definitions, even if they had other jobs as well, and even if they weren't primarily politicians.
"A person who is professionally involved in politics." - What does professionally involved mean to you? It was their profession for a time.
As for Clinton, Obama, and similar politicians - call them career politicians if you want - I do think that if they were somehow excluded from politics, and forced to find some useful trade, they would soon starve.
They couldn't fall back on law degrees? A Rhodes Scholar would literally starve?
Come on.
-
[quoting Jamesqf] The above is my take on the founding fathers too.
but I am not agreeing with the statement James made.
Hmm.. Head scratcher. Seems odd that you jumped in to agree with him, then say you don't agree with him. Whatever.
Could you show me where I said that I agree with James? I do not understand why you think that or what I said that led you to believe that.
-
What I've been saying all along is that Eisenhower, Franklin, and most of the Founding Fathers were not politicians.
You can add me to the side that finds this claim as definitely outside mainstream thinking or any reasonable definition of "politician." The founding fathers and head of the executive branch are somehow not politicians? Clinton and Obama would starve if denied being in politics?? Huh???
Meanwhile on the main topic, if the allegations about McDonnell's finances are proved true, then I think he's a disgrace. Saying "That's how it's always been done" rings very hollow.
-
The founding fathers absolutely were politicians by your definitions and any reasonable person's definitions, even if they had other jobs as well, and even if they weren't primarily politicians.
"A person who is professionally involved in politics." - What does professionally involved mean to you? It was their profession for a time.
As for Clinton, Obama, and similar politicians - call them career politicians if you want - I do think that if they were somehow excluded from politics, and forced to find some useful trade, they would soon starve.
They couldn't fall back on law degrees? A Rhodes Scholar would literally starve?
Come on.
In other news... Bill Clinton makes $500,000 for a 45 minute speech ($11,100 per minute):
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-paid-500-000-speaking-advance-45-minute-speech-earning-11-100-minute-article-1.1361928
-
[quoting Jamesqf] The above is my take on the founding fathers too.
but I am not agreeing with the statement James made.
Hmm.. Head scratcher. Seems odd that you jumped in to agree with him, then say you don't agree with him. Whatever.
Could you show me where I said that I agree with James? I do not understand why you think that or what I said that led you to believe that.
That was the first quote in the post you quoted. You, agreeing with him. How do you interpret quoting someone, then saying "The above is my take on the founding fathers too" other than agreement?
What I've been saying all along is that Eisenhower, Franklin, and most of the Founding Fathers were not politicians.
You can add me to the side that finds this claim as definitely outside mainstream thinking or any reasonable definition of "politician." The founding fathers and head of the executive branch are somehow not politicians? Clinton and Obama would starve if denied being in politics?? Huh???
Yeah. I completely agree with the idea that we have career politicians nowadays, and back then they had other jobs besides being politicians, but to say they weren't politicians is ridiculous, and to say all politicians are completely useless with no skills and would starve if they didn't get elected is equally so.
-
Yeah. I completely agree with the idea that we have career politicians nowadays, and back then they had other jobs besides being politicians, but to say they weren't politicians is ridiculous, and to say all politicians are completely useless with no skills and would starve if they didn't get elected is equally so.
I realize this is probably a minority opinion, since it's cool to hate on politicos, but I actually think career politicians are a good thing. It's a job that takes special skills that get better over time. Just like every other job. You get better at it the longer you do it. The last thing I want to see are a bunch of "Joe the Plumber" type amateurs creating policy for everyone.
However, the idea that those same skills wouldn't translate to other arenas is ludicrous.
-
In other news... Bill Clinton makes $500,000 for a 45 minute speech ($11,100 per minute):
And this proves what? Would anyone pay a dime to listen to him if he wasn't an ex-President? Magically remove him from the sphere of politics, and he'd be reduced to looking for a job as a sax player.
The founding fathers absolutely were politicians by your definitions and any reasonable person's definitions, even if they had other jobs as well, and even if they weren't primarily politicians.
"A person who is professionally involved in politics." - What does professionally involved mean to you? It was their profession for a time.
That's like saying that because I devote considerable time & attention to my garden, I must therefore be a professional gardener. Or that Bill Clinton is a professional musician :-)
-
You didn't answer what "professionally involved" means.
It is in your definition you quoted, then claimed that they didn't meet that definition. So why not, what does that phrase mean to you?
That's like saying that because I devote considerable time & attention to my garden, I must therefore be a professional gardener.
Was it one of your primary ways of making an earned income for years at a time?
If it was, I'd say yes, you were a professional gardener.
-
This guy disagrees:
Except that Franklin wasn't much of a politician, certainly not in the sense that he made a career out of running for office. From a quick search, the only offices he was actually elected to were the Pennslyvania Assembly, and (in his 70s) President of Pennsylvania.
Interesting to note that he was also a sort of Mustachian, having retired from his printing business at the age of 42.
Being elected has nothing to do with being a politician or not. He represented Pennsylvania in several meetings (most famously in the 2nd Continental Congress) was an Ambassador to France for like 10 years, spent 5 years in England representing Pennsylvania's political interests, and trying to remove the Penn family from power their (among other things) he was a Postmaster General, a councilman in Philadelphia in the 1750s and named President of Philadelphia when he was old.
From Websters
a person actively engaged in politics, esp. party politics, professionally or otherwise; often, a person holding or seeking political office: frequently used in a derogatory sense, with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming, opportunism, etc.
Also the idea the well educated, handsome, charming, cunning, egotistical men or women could not successfully turn those skills into a lot of money in the private sector is so absurd I feel like I'm wasting my time even addressing it.
-
As the person who made the comment that started this shitshow, I would like to collect my cookie now. :)
-
And this proves what? Would anyone pay a dime to listen to him if he wasn't an ex-President? Magically remove him from the sphere of politics, and he'd be reduced to looking for a job as a sax player.
I know you're choosing to ignore this because it's inconvenient, but he's a goddamn Rhodes Scholar. That opens a lot of doors for careers other than busking.
-
Oh, I am not saying all politicians are useless. However, some of them do go astray when they gain power. IMO, a lot of the fraud and greed could be controlled somewhat by restricting every campaign to a $20 budget or no budget. Since campaign costs are so high, politicians are in more need of money. Because they are in need of money, they are more likely to strike back room deals with corporations and also with each other.
I think members of Congress make a lot more money off of cushy jobs when they leave office and the immunity to insider trading laws that they get than from campaign contributions.
I am only semi-kidding about the $20 budget. I think the budget (cap, whatever one wants to call it) needs to be greatly reduced for all political campaigns.
All I can see that doing is permanently driving all campaign funding underground, into PACs and the like, and making it impossible to regulate. I think the goal is good, but there's no way it could be implemented.
-
And this proves what? Would anyone pay a dime to listen to him if he wasn't an ex-President? Magically remove him from the sphere of politics, and he'd be reduced to looking for a job as a sax player.
I know you're choosing to ignore this because it's inconvenient, but he's a goddamn Rhodes Scholar. That opens a lot of doors for careers other than busking.
I also think C's ability to work a room can't be undervalued. Obama could use some of that to be honest.
-
Oh, I am not saying all politicians are useless. However, some of them do go astray when they gain power. IMO, a lot of the fraud and greed could be controlled somewhat by restricting every campaign to a $20 budget or no budget. Since campaign costs are so high, politicians are in more need of money. Because they are in need of money, they are more likely to strike back room deals with corporations and also with each other.
I think members of Congress make a lot more money off of cushy jobs when they leave office and the immunity to insider trading laws that they get than from campaign contributions.
I am only semi-kidding about the $20 budget. I think the budget (cap, whatever one wants to call it) needs to be greatly reduced for all political campaigns.
All I can see that doing is permanently driving all campaign funding underground, into PACs and the like, and making it impossible to regulate. I think the goal is good, but there's no way it could be implemented.
Sure. Congress people--if they do leave office, haha--would be likely to make a lot outside of politics. My point was that those who need money to win a campaign are likely to be successfully courted by, say, a Monsanto than someone who doesn't need the money.
To your point, I think campaign funding HAS been driven underground. By "underground," I mean it is now more difficult to track due to recent laws. Yeah, you're right it would not really work. It'd be cool if it could though.
-
That's like saying that because I devote considerable time & attention to my garden, I must therefore be a professional gardener.
Was it one of your primary ways of making an earned income for years at a time?
If it was, I'd say yes, you were a professional gardener.
Quite the opposite: I have at various times spent quite a bit of money (sometimes several $K/yr, much more if you count the cost of land) on the garden. I think you could say the same of Franklin and many of the other founding fathers. They did not make their livings from their revolutionary/political activities. Most probably spent quite a bit of their own money on them.
And this proves what? Would anyone pay a dime to listen to him if he wasn't an ex-President? Magically remove him from the sphere of politics, and he'd be reduced to looking for a job as a sax player.
I know you're choosing to ignore this because it's inconvenient, but he's a goddamn Rhodes Scholar. That opens a lot of doors for careers other than busking.
Probably so, right after you graduate, but few people get very far trading on old collegiate successes. Most employers want to know what you can do for them today: the fact that you won an impressive scholarship 40-odd years ago isn't going to count for a heck of a lot. I'm sure no employer of mine ever asked or cared about the fact that I scored in the upper-90th percentiles on SAT & GRE, for instance; they were interested in the fact that I had demonstrated that I could do the jobs they wanted done.
-
http://www.fi.edu/franklin/family/lastwill.html
Just do a search within that page for salary. He'll mention which salary he was talking about (there's a couple). So he earned money from politics and was therefore a politician regardless of his spending.
-
but few people get very far trading on old collegiate successes.
This is purely anecdotal, but in my case my academic success (graduated 13 years ago) has been the primary driver of my professional career arc. I still get offered jobs on a semi-regular basis because of things that happened long before I ever had a real job.
no employer of mine ever asked or cared about the fact that I scored in the upper-90th percentiles on SAT & GRE, for instance
And I wouldn't expect them to. Also note that significantly less than a single digit percentage of the US student population are Rhodes Scholars.
For example, every year a handful of bright folks get perfect SAT score. Those folks, like Fullbrights and Rhodes and MacArthur recipients, have to fuck up pretty hard to not sail through the rest of their lives. Trust me, brilliance counts for something.
-
And I wouldn't expect them to. Also note that significantly less than a single digit percentage of the US student population are Rhodes Scholars.
Sure, but you should also note that the Rhodes Scholarships are pretty exclusive in ways that have nothing to do with one's academic ability. For instance the upper age limit of 24, which makes it just about impossible to qualify if you've done a stint in the military.
Those folks, like Fullbrights and Rhodes and MacArthur recipients, have to fuck up pretty hard to not sail through the rest of their lives. Trust me, brilliance counts for something.
Sure, brilliance counts. The question is whether it is a necessary prerequisite for the Rhodes Scholarship. Now the only Rhodes Scholar mentioned here - Bill Clinton - sure didn't display much in the way of brilliance leading to actual achievement. The problem, common to many professional politicians, is that his skills were limited to getting elected, rather than doing anything sensible once in office.
-
I think we can all admit how useful the following phrases are -
All politicians are unskilled and have to make their money off of other people's work.
All corporations are evil.
All government workers are lazy.
As in not useful at all because miss the nuance of reality.
Au contraire! Such statements are actually quite useful, for their use efficiently indicates a writer who is unlikely to provide much value to me. I bet reading this off-topic tangent actually increased my long-term MMM Forum Signal-to-Noise ratio!
-
I sure hope I never win that fucking Rhodes Scholarship or get a law degree, because then all I could do to earn a living is be a politician or play saxophone.
-
I sure hope I never win that fucking Rhodes Scholarship or get a law degree, because then all I could do to earn a living is be a politician or play saxophone.
And you can't really make a living playing the saxophone so that only leaves one option. :)
-
Update -- Governor rents house he can't afford to an employee who serves at the Governor's discretion. No kidding.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html)
What a fine example of how an Antimustachian life can lead to downfall.
-
Update -- Governor rents house he can't afford to an employee who serves at the Governor's discretion. No kidding.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html)
What a fine example of how an Antimustachian life can lead to downfall.
I just saw this and had started another thread. Whats' worse than buying a home at the top of the market? Buying four of them! Ouch..... That's OK though, guys like McDonnell always land on their feet. There will be some golden parachute for him when he is done.
-
Update -- Governor rents house he can't afford to an employee who serves at the Governor's discretion. No kidding.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/mcdonnell-rents-henrico-house-to-state-health-commissioner/article_6848ad36-ef01-11e2-8988-001a4bcf6878.html)
What a fine example of how an Antimustachian life can lead to downfall.
What's worse??? Buying ANY house at ANY time without a careful number-crunching party to determine whether you can actually make money......... I'm guessing none of these houses would have withstood any scrutiny on the Real Estate board here.
I just saw this and had started another thread. Whats' worse than buying a home at the top of the market? Buying four of them! Ouch..... That's OK though, guys like McDonnell always land on their feet. There will be some golden parachute for him when he is done.
-
Now the only Rhodes Scholar mentioned here - Bill Clinton - sure didn't display much in the way of brilliance leading to actual achievement. The problem, common to many professional politicians, is that his skills were limited to getting elected, rather than doing anything sensible once in office.
Yes I'm sure the committee is still sorely disappointed with that selection. I mean they really expect people to go on and DO stuff with their lives. And not silly stuff like going to Yale law school, serving as state attorney general, becoming Governor, and certainly not the triviality of President of the Unitied States. They expect you to do important stuff. JamesFQ knows it when he sees it.
Seriously, though, you may not like him or be impressed by any of that, but it's clear to me that he's clever enough to have thought of something, should politics have been denied.
Also, (and I don't feel like searching for this quote), buying rental properties you can't afford is no more mustachian than buying anything else you can't afford.
-
Bards will write children's songs one day....
Old McDonnell had a foreclosure.
E - I - E - I - Ouch.
(Unless of course he lands some comfy corner office at a Big Law like Hunton Williams or McGuire Woods, which he probably will.....)
-
Time for an update. Our former Guv's trial began today and the defense strategy raises interesting questions on how much humiliation one individual is willing to suffer to avoid prison time.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/defense-attorney-maureen-mcdonnell-had-crush-on-williams/article_847bdaaa-173c-11e4-806c-0017a43b2370.html (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/latest-news/defense-attorney-maureen-mcdonnell-had-crush-on-williams/article_847bdaaa-173c-11e4-806c-0017a43b2370.html)
Edited for grammar.
-
Yes, apparently the Missus was smitten.
-
Smitten indeed. Mrshybrid never refers to me as her favorite playmate.... I still say there will be a lot of shaming in the press followed by a slap of the wrist when the sentencing comes.
I found it funny how many Republicans would not vote for McAuliffe because he was so sleazy (and, well, he certainly was) but have turned something of a blind eye to their anointed one. First Gilmore and his budget wrecking ways, then McDonnell. With Republicans like these, hardly any wonder Virginia has changed from red to purple over time.
-
I'm not buying the defense story of the McDonnell's marriage being a wreck, them barely speaking, and Mrs. Governor being smitten and therefore receiving all the bribes unbeknownst to the Gov. Besides being a humiliating story, I'm not even sure it's a decent defense strategy. So far the prosecution seems to be doing a good job at shooting down this charade (i.e., the Gov. was not in the dark, he was very much aware of everything).
It's particularly ridiculous how the loving, committed couple showed up in court in the early days in solidarity, holding hands, and denying everything (which already contradicts the "their marriage was a shambles" story). Now that their defense has crafted this story they make a point of showing up separately, completely avoiding each other, and not even looking at one another.
-
Smitten indeed. Mrshybrid never refers to me as her favorite playmate.... I still say there will be a lot of shaming in the press followed by a slap of the wrist when the sentencing comes.
I found it funny how many Republicans would not vote for McAuliffe because he was so sleazy (and, well, he certainly was) but have turned something of a blind eye to their anointed one. First Gilmore and his budget wrecking ways, then McDonnell. With Republicans like these, hardly any wonder Virginia has changed from red to purple over time.
Agreed. I am a Republican, originally from Virginia and MD area, and was very disappointed to hear about Cooch and the Gov. Unfortunately McAuliffe's not much better. Sad state of politics these days.
-
All these motherfuckers are bad at math.
Look: the two of them got their careers ruined, which had massive earnings potential, and fame and power which I'm sure they liked more than even the money. They're gonna have huge fines to pay. And for what? A fucking watch? Some petty cash? Shit that amounts to less than a years' pay?
When someone embezzles $10m at their $50k job, hides it, and goes to prison for four years - that's not bad math. Poor choices, or not, depending on your morals. When someone gets $50k in bribes at their $150k job, that's just idiocy.
-
This guy ran on a platform of fiscal responsibility and family values (i.e. destruction of the safety net and homophobia).
This is delicious. Glad is life his going down the drain.
-
You know what's really Anti-Mustachian? NJ Gov. Chris Christie expecting to balance the state budget with funds from legalized internet gambling. He expected $1 billion in revenue and hasn't even gotten a fraction of it because people in NJ aren't stupid enough to lose their rent money playing slot machine games on their iPads. Of course it probably would have helped if Gov. Christie hadn't also given over $200 million in tax breaks for a new casino in Atlantic City (the Revel) which is now undergoing its second bankruptcy in two years and is scheduled to close at the end of the month if they don't find a new buyer. Now there's a massive budget shortfall and the state's credit rating got downgraded again. STUPID!
-
When someone gets $50k in bribes at their $150k job, that's just idiocy.
Yes, I'm never surprised that politicians take bribes. It just disgusts me how cheap they are.
-
In other news... Bill Clinton makes $500,000 for a 45 minute speech ($11,100 per minute):
And this proves what? Would anyone pay a dime to listen to him if he wasn't an ex-President? Magically remove him from the sphere of politics, and he'd be reduced to looking for a job as a sax player.
The founding fathers absolutely were politicians by your definitions and any reasonable person's definitions, even if they had other jobs as well, and even if they weren't primarily politicians.
"A person who is professionally involved in politics." - What does professionally involved mean to you? It was their profession for a time.
That's like saying that because I devote considerable time & attention to my garden, I must therefore be a professional gardener. Or that Bill Clinton is a professional musician :-)
You seem to think that sax players are all poor and that you're above them.
I sure hope I never win that fucking Rhodes Scholarship or get a law degree, because then all I could do to earn a living is be a politician or play saxophone.
And you can't really make a living playing the saxophone so that only leaves one option. :)
You can make a living playing the saxophone. There's people that make a much nicer living than I ever have doing that.
-
Somehow I had missed this news -- the whole trial now unfolding was unnecessary. He could have spared the Commonwealth and his wife by pleading guilty to one felony count for fraud. The unending hubris of this man just astounds me.
".....authorities proposed that then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell plead guilty to one felony fraud charge that had nothing to do with corruption in office and his wife would avoid charges altogether. The governor rejected the offer, the people with knowledge of the conversations said.
On Tuesday, Robert and Maureen McDonnell were jointly charged in a 14-count indictment alleging that they engaged in conspiracy and fraud, trading on his office to provide assistance to the businessman in exchange for more than $165,000 in luxury gifts and loans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-rejected-plea-offer-to-face-one-felony-spare-wife-any-charges-avoid-trial/2014/01/23/96b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-rejected-plea-offer-to-face-one-felony-spare-wife-any-charges-avoid-trial/2014/01/23/96b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html)
-
The latest- they had $90k in credit card debt. !!! How do you get that much credit card debt? The only thing I can think of is having to pay out of pocket for an organ transplant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/prosecution-outlines-mcdonnells-debts-at-corruption-trial/2014/08/13/7fab480c-2327-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?hpid=z2
-
Somehow I had missed this news -- the whole trial now unfolding was unnecessary. He could have spared the Commonwealth and his wife by pleading guilty to one felony count for fraud. The unending hubris of this man just astounds me.
".....authorities proposed that then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell plead guilty to one felony fraud charge that had nothing to do with corruption in office and his wife would avoid charges altogether. The governor rejected the offer, the people with knowledge of the conversations said.
On Tuesday, Robert and Maureen McDonnell were jointly charged in a 14-count indictment alleging that they engaged in conspiracy and fraud, trading on his office to provide assistance to the businessman in exchange for more than $165,000 in luxury gifts and loans."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-rejected-plea-offer-to-face-one-felony-spare-wife-any-charges-avoid-trial/2014/01/23/96b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-rejected-plea-offer-to-face-one-felony-spare-wife-any-charges-avoid-trial/2014/01/23/96b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html)
Such hubris. How many people walk away from fourteen Federal indictments? Well, the appeals process starts next one would guess, and I still believe his sentencing will be relatively light when all is said and done.
And he could have walked away with just one charge..... Man, talk about rolling the dice when the odds are against you.
-
I sure hope I never win that fucking Rhodes Scholarship or get a law degree, because then all I could do to earn a living is be a politician or play saxophone.
And you can't really make a living playing the saxophone so that only leaves one option. :)
This guy disagrees:
(http://colombogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Kenny-G.jpg)
-
GUITLY
http://online.wsj.com/articles/former-virginia-gov-bob-mcdonnell-and-wife-found-guilty-on-public-corruption-charges-1409858382
-
Hahaha. Sometimes people get exactly what they deserve.
-
I sure hope I never win that fucking Rhodes Scholarship or get a law degree, because then all I could do to earn a living is be a politician or play saxophone.
And you can't really make a living playing the saxophone so that only leaves one option. :)
This guy disagrees:
(http://colombogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Kenny-G.jpg)
I'm just going to leave this right here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaoLU6zKaws)
-
Hahaha. Sometimes people get exactly what they deserve.
Sadly it often doesn't feel like enough.
-
If, like me, you are a bad person that likes watching a man getting kicked when he's down, here you go. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fKPENsPr1s&index=6&list=UU-3jIAlnQmbbVMV6gR7K8aQ) (warning - political talk radio segment)
-
I wonder how long the appeals wil take?
Is the state paying for the governor's defense? His wife's?
It is amazing what folks will risk for so little money.
The state paid for their legal bills while he was in office, last fall. Fortunately, he left office in January so taxpayers have not been on the hook for their lawyers since then. However, many state employees were called as witnesses and the state is paying their legal bills -- total, last I knew, was $900k ish.
The appeals will take years. The big question is whether they'll be serving time while the appeals are pending (I sure hope so).
Now, the commonwealth needs to tighten up its ethics laws.
-
GUITLY