signs of change

[mo]

Or six.

I hope so, but I kinda doubt it. I think a lot of the people that voted for him last election won't vote against him, but won't bother to turn out at the polls like last time.

I couldn't say exactly what I expected of him, and I haven't forgotten the Bush administrations, but I guess my highest (unrealistic) hopes were that he would change things for the positive as much as the Bushs (Bushes? Shrubbery?) did for the negative. He just seems like a man in a lifeboat shaking his fist at the storm rocking the boat. If he was as effective at getting results as he is in speaking, things would be going much better.

His position on Afghanistan has always disappointed me, and I feel like he may not even believe in a chance of anything even resembling success there himself, that he's just taking that stance to appeal to the repubs, and I don't think many of them are really buying it either. The McChrystal thing last week was disappointing to me. I feel like he just did what was expected of him. I was hoping he would rise above and deal with the issue in a more original manner - like taking the guy out of the spotlight and let him do what he is best at. McChrystal is an asshole and did a stupid thing, but he's certainly not the first General to do this type of thing. I don't know why the government continues to keep making this same mistake - using a soldier as a politician.

I dunno. My faith in him could be restored. I know it could be worse.

[random axe]

One thing to keep in mind is that 90% or more of what we hear can be discarded as unreliable.  I, personally, have very little idea of our chances militarily in Afghanistan.  I doubt the country will be unified under a competent government in my lifetime.  I have no idea what the expert advisors tell Obama about the situation there, though.  I doubt what we hear about it bears much resemblance to what he hears.  I'm not saying we should just trust him to know better and make the right decisions and we don't need to know -- god, no, am I not saying that -- but given that that's basically the situation we do inevitably find ourselves in, I'm certainly willing to trust him more than Bush or McCain.

Regardless of what Nader thinks, sometimes the lesser of two evils is likely to be a lot less evil.  You gotta go with the best bet.

And the Democrats suck at manipulating the press.  This can't be stressed enough.  Clinton actually achieved a lot as president -- Franken had no problem getting even staunch GOP pundits to gush about his successes and good programs, whether they disliked him or not -- but that's not what the press focused on.  Shrub was a retarded free-falling disgrace from Day One to Day Way Way Too Many Days, and he mostly got very positive spin.  So odds are that Obama's doing better than we realize.

I still think he could be 100 times better, but it's a tough job.  I'm a little disappointed in Biden and Hillary's force levels so far, to be honest.  Someone has to be the bulldog.

[random axe]

Rough week for John McCain, huh?  First Bush says he hated him so much he would've been happy to endorse Obama, and now McCain's wife says he's responsible (because he filibustered against the DADT repeal) for gay teenagers committing suicide.

That's gotta hurt.

[Lindsey Buckinghmof]

I dunno. Having GW say he hate me would make my whole day. It'd be like getting a personal excommunication from the pope, only a lot more junior league. Still: one more thing to put on my life list.

[PVC Barbie]

Shrubba Dubba probably wasn't too happy with Mc.C battling against his party publicly to win supporters and then turning around to lick the Repub's asses when it came time to run for office. All that kow towing he did certainly makes Mc.Lame a real maverick. MmHmm

[random axe]

  Yeah, I understand why Shrub didn't like McCain, but you're not supposed to say you'd support the Democratic candidate during the election as you're leaving office.

I also read in two places that George kept calling Kanye "Conway" during that interview. 

[mo]

I caught this excerpt of a new series that's going to be airing on PBS this week. The concept described in this segment sounds kinda crazy because it's so contrary to what's normal, but I think it's the most rational thing I've heard in quite a while. I saw this on the PBS News Hour, and they also had a segment on dealing with the national debt, which was pretty damn depressing and scary, so it was nice to see this little glimmer of hope.

However, if this idea takes off like it should, congress and the IRS will probably stomp it to death. For now, the IRS has ruled that it's not taxable, but I can't see something so simple, that makes so much sense, being allowed to survive. It just doesn't fit into the existing power structure - Wall Street can't make money off of it, WalMart can't get a piece of it, etc.

I guess the way for traditional business to get a part of it would be to serve as the middleman. Google could step in, for example, and turn it into a national, or even international operation. I could also imagine it becoming something like Craigslist, with hookers and killers-for-hire.

If they mentioned how the base operation is run in that segment, I didn't catch it. I would assume it's a non-profit org.

[random axe]

It's a cool idea, but you can see how problems could arise and how much careful management it might need.  Still a cool idea, though. 

The disconnect is kind of amusing, and a lot of it is because people get accustomed to thinking of labor and services in dollar amounts much more than in hours.  Of course, some high-paying jobs bill in hours, but still people generally expect compensation on a regular basis that's a reward for work but not really tied directly to the time or effort they're putting in.

There's a very humanizing aspect to what they're doing there, since it's basically arguing that an hour of useful service is an hour of useful service, period.

[flipper]

The IRS taxes barter, so I'm sure this would be required for hour swapping too.  They'll just use a dollar value and collect their thing.  Just like how certain employer benefits are taxed.  I'm pretty sure apartment managers who get room and board are also taxed.  The government will always take their share.

[random axe]

Yeah, but they tax payroll, not services rendered by employees.

Honestly, I'm no expert, and I have no idea.  But if they tax this -- and I can understand why they would want to -- then there's a shitload of stuff they aren't taxing but likewise ought to be.  Not that I wish they were.

[mo]

*googles*

IRS: Time Banking is Not Commercial Barter
Edgar Cahn

Beginning in 1985, the US IRS has ruled that Time Banking programs are not “barter organizations” and that Time Dollars are not taxable.

The first ruling, made by a regional office of the IRS in 1985, involved the state-sponsored program operated in Missouri, said that "there will be no taxable consequences" to volunteers who earn credits as ‘reimbursement’ for services rendered. This ruling focused on the charitable nature of the organization, the charitable class served by the program, the fact that the organization was not a commercial for-profit barter club and that any qualifying person would receive such services without regard to cost.

The second was a private ruling covering a program set up to generate “service credit” exchanges among members. The central reason given for the ruling was that the credits were used primarily to motivate members and that no ‘contractual rights’ arose by owing them. The ruling noted that all hours were valued as equal, regardless of market value, and that the primary purpose of the credits was clearly to motivate members. Moral persuasion was the only means of enforcing a debt.

Charitable purposes include the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, the promotion of health, governmental or municipal purposes, and other purposes the achievement of which are beneficial to the community.

The IRS distinguished time money from commercial barter clubs on the following grounds:
• Absence of a commission.
• Cash cannot be used to buy credits or eliminate a debt.
• The predominance of ‘like-for-like’ services in the exchange.
• The equal valuation given to all hours.

There can be no guarantee that the IRS will not reconsider its position at some future time. All rulings apply only to the particular party who applies for the ruling and state that they cannot be used or cited as precedent. Nonetheless, the rationale for the decisions involve basic principles which are consistently invoked in subsequent “individual” rulings.

[random axe]

*googles*

Great googly-moogly. 

[flipper]

Wow.  If it becomes more widespread, they'll just add it to the tax code though.

/cynic

[mo]

Oh yeah, I totally agree - I said the same in my first post. It just hasn't happened yet.

[random axe]

They actually convicted Tom DeLay on money laundering charges.

I guess his double-good defense strategy of Everybody Does It and Hey, I Don't Think It's Illegal wasn't enough.