The Crap That Gets Bipartisan Support These Days …

Has everyone heard about this bill?

If someone were to owe me money and be in bankruptcy proceedings, I would personally be very upset to hear that they were still giving money to charitable causes. At this point, I’d think they should be giving me the money. If I want to give it to the charity of my choosing, that is my business.

After all, I’m about to end up with 10 cents on the dollar and the bankrupt individual who owes me money is giving his/her money away. This is not a good thing.

Of course, just to add insult to injury, even though it seems to cover all types of charitable donations, it is couched in religious terms, violating separation of church and state. I was not aware that giving to religious organizations was in the bible or any other religious writing as a prerequisite for entry into heaven. If it is, then certainly this is a freedom of religion issue, and also probably time to look for a new religion.

This isn’t about leaving the bankrupt individual with enough to eat. This is about taking the money out of the creditor’s hands and giving it to a charity not of his/her own choosing.

Who’s standing up for the rights of the creditor to be able to pay his/her own bills with the money that is duly acknowledged to be owed to him/her?

16 Responses to The Crap That Gets Bipartisan Support These Days …

  1. rickace says:

    I had not heard of it before, and I agree with you completely. The debtor must not spend money that is not his to spend. If he was truly concerned about giving charitably, he should have planned to finance it before he got himself into bankruptcy, perhaps with a trust or something. And shame on Obama and Hatch for perverting the benevolent practice of tithing by employing it to defend nonsense like this bill.

  2. Hugh says:

    Punks. I guess the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to target the fast-tanking ARM market.

  3. […] The crap that gets bipartisan support these days […]

  4. Misanthropic Scott says:

    I would like to thank Higghawker who posted about this on my Ignore the Hype thread. It belongs here as well. Sometimes the crap that gets bipartisan support is NOT CRAP AT ALL!! This appears to be a wonderful bill introduced jointly by Kucinich (D) and Paul (R).

  5. bobbo says:

    You call 27 democrats plus Ron Paul “bi-partisan?”

  6. Misanthropic Scott says:


    OK, maybe not really when worded that way. But, how about just the two authors of the bill, Kucinich and Paul? That makes it at least initially bipartisan, even if they can’t get the damn repugnicans to sign on to the ideals of the founding fathers. In fact, with only 26 democraps, they’re not doing so well there either.

    Thanks for taking me down a notch. I was almost enjoying this.

  7. bobbo says:

    Well really—as YOU said, the bill was NOT crap and it wasn’t bipartisan which was the actual point of the thread?

    Good legislation goes against the grain and always springs from a minority and usually not initially bipartisan. Most bipartisan bills are crap as they are both taking advantage of the electorate.

    Congress has succumbed to the two party system which is a system of patronage==ie money.

    But I’m all for being happy. Please remove my post and continue to think Ron Paul is representational of the Regugs. Then that crap is icecream, and throw a party?

  8. Higghawker says:

    I would be ecstatic if both Paul and Kucinich make their ballots!!!

  9. bobbo says:

    Yes, they both stand out in much the same way from their respective groups. What gets on the air 2-3 times is very attractive but it seems to me some months ago I read articles on each about some of their other views that are just a bit out of step?

    True believers in *whatever* usually don’t make good consensus leaders–meaning doing what the majority want. Ron Paul–Laissez faire individualism is not good beyond a group of 15 people on a large island. Kicinich–I forget now, I think he did something squirrely with jobs being outsourced. Neither one known enough to make firm judgements? If you know–name 2-3 admirably things you know about each, and perhaps 2-3 things they could improve?

    Edwards said something interesting just yesterday “Americans need to get partriotic about something other than the Military, like giving the less advantaged a helping hand==etc.”

  10. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Actually bobbo, in this case, I’d say Kucinich wants to do what a lot of people want. Unfortunately, the media happens to be largely made of of huge corporations. And, Kucinich is not out to make himself popular among the corporations of the world.

    Kucinich has, by far, the best environmental policy of the bunch. He is the only one that has not supported either coal (Obama’s big on coal and actually endorsed liquid coal briefly) or nuclear power (Edwards is pro-nuke). He also has a very aggressive plan to reduce carbon emissions. And, it’s based on science!!

    Kucinich is the only candidate that is talking about nationalized health care, something this country desperately needs. All other candidates have schemes that leave the health insurance companies in the picture. Having insurance companies with CEOs earning $100,000,000+ worried only about the bottom line is not going to get us world class health care.

    Those are two very big issues for me. You might check his website to see where he stands on your pet issues. Unlike Obama, he actually lists his positions on the issues. It’s very refreshing, or would be if the media would ever give him coverage. Perhaps they could do so after minor events like when he receives a far higher number of people stating that he won a debate among all of the Democratic candidates. That might be considered news, if the corporations weren’t afraid that allowing him to be elected might affect their bottom lines.

  11. Higghawker says:


    I respect your views, but, I’m ready for someone who is a bit “out of step”. Would you consider this administration NOT a bit out of step?
    These two candidates, Kucinich and Paul are so refreshing. I hear real change, when I listen to their views. I prefer Paul, he stands for the Constitution, is appalled at our foreign policy, and a fair tax supporter, (along with Huckabee).

    The sad thing is these two are already being duped by the media. It makes me sick that we are being force fed to listen to the HACKS (Clinton, Giuliani, etc.) thru the media.

    While I’m ranting, I want to bring this little tid-bit. Why aren’t we hearing anything about this from the candidates?


  12. Misanthropic Scott says:


    I hate to say it, but the only thing that surprises me in the article is the fact that it was printed in the Fox Street Post. I’m sure Murdoch will put a stop to all such articles in the future.

    As for the fair tax, interesting. I hadn’t heard about that plan before. I was expecting it to be flat tax, which I am strongly against. This could be a really good plan. It does not punish people for earning money, it punishes consumption, especially excessive consumption. I think I like it in principal. I’ll need to look more closely at the implementation to see if I like that as well.

    [p.s. hope you don’t mind. Your fair tax link was getting confused with the comma. So, I fixed it and just made the words the link. – Scott]

  13. bobbo says:

    Scott–thanks for the link. He is pro nuke. I am VERY anti-nuke. He wants to releave world poeverty? Not much detail on that on his website and basically a recipe for disaster. Concern for the worlds poor and take smarter action to address it like funding micro-loans and such–YES! Get wrapped up in a quasi-religious effort to save them?–NO.

    HiggHawker–Paul just got interviewed on News Hour. Do away with the CIA? With Dept of Education? With Roe v Wade? NO>true libertarians are a useful counterpoint and raise good valid issues, but they cannot lead this nation. Way out of step with what a complex “free” society needs. Engineering social darwinism is about the worst idea I can think of–even though I assume I would come out on top! (smile!). Not the society I want.

    No hard and fast rule about what/how many issues can be violated before a candidate is not viable in my book. It does make me uncomfortable I seem to be arguing for the unacceptable “business as usual” type candidate like Hilliary==but maybe that is democracy/group decision making at work? Trouble is, all mainsteam candidates appear corrupted to me and all non-corrupted candidats are too far out. Never a happy choice.

  14. Misanthropic Scott says:


    I assume you mean Edwards is pro-nuke, right? Kucinich has strong statements against nuclear power on his sustainable future page.

    As for relieving world poverty, yes, Kucinich has plans to reduce poverty world wide. Is this something you are against? I know it would be against the desires of Mother Theresa. But, most of us don’t want poverty in the world and would be willing to take steps to reduce it and improve the lives of others. It is also key to reducing birth rates world wide, a necessary act for sustainability.

  15. bobbo says:

    Your sustainable future page link doesn’t work for me so I went back to the previous link and did not see the reference to nuclear power I thought I saw. I looked some more, and you are correct. Kucinich is anti-nuke and pro clean water. Looks like he does have a good thought thru environmental policy.

    I can see voting for Kucinich. Thanks.

  16. Misanthropic Scott says:

    Thank you!! I would love to see him get elected. I can’t really imagine it, but can hope like hell, can’t I?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: