From the NY Post:Despite Mayor Bloomberg's crusade against cigarettes, city pension funds remain heavily invested in Big Tobacco -- with more than 6 million shares, worth $103 million.
The $82.5 billion pension system owns 6,024,823 shares of Altria, formerly known as Philip Morris, according to an agenda for the company's stockholders meeting next month.
Critics fumed when told that mountains of taxpayer money are being invested in cigarettes, described as "accessories to murder" by the city's own health commissioner in 2006.
"I think it is absurd," City Councilman Tony Avella said. "Given the anti-smoking effort New York has launched, to invest in a company whose primary product is cigarettes is counterproductive."
And the Comptroller's got pension issues, too.
31 comments:
Doesn't Martha Stark look dyke-ish?
I think "The Blooming Idiot of a Mayor looks dyke-ish.... Maybe he should have a smoke?
This PC stuff is just so freakin stupid. The purpose of a pension investment fund is to make money for current and future retirees.
Naturally the Commissar can flout the rules. The rules he commands us to obey without question simply do not apply to this jackbooted thug.
His job is to command and control. Our job is to adore and comply.
Let's let him have a new job on November 3.
There's nothing PC about the opposition to investing pension money in tobacco.
The Commissar stopped the shippers from delivering cigarettes. He stopped the credit card companies from allowing charges of cigarettes.
He forbids smoking everywhere.
So why is he financing tobacco sales?
Well...
let's hope hizzoner's bid for a 3rd term goes up in (cigarette) smoke!
Talk about producing the smoking gun...the evidence of Mike's hypocrisy...another nail in his political coffin!
Bloomberg is a pathological liar!
And those who continue to believe "he's the man" are pathological idiots!
Taxpayer keeps showing everyone that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The Mayor does not direct or control pension investments. Please learn about the process and how it works before you comment.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
A Bigger Taxpayer proves himself to be an even bigger asshole. He missed this part about the membership of the pension board:
"With him are the mayor's voting representative, Finance Commissioner Martha Stark"
So Bloomberg does have a say.
Please learn about the process and how it works before you comment.
So much for the Green Mayor,
hahahahahahah
ahahahahehehehe
hehehehehehoho
hohoho
think any of the 'green' groups in the city that are whoring themselves with his money will say anything?
eh boys n girls?
I would think that the city would just invest in fixed annuities. especially when the stock markets crash, this would explain in my head at least why this bloomass crys the city has no money. HEY dumb ass fixed annuity, you should never play with money that you don't have total control of. personally i don't trust any kind of investments, I saw after 9/11/2001 too many people lost money and they all called and crying.
Has this mayor also invested employee pension money in gun manufacturers?
I absolutely believe that the 2nd Amendment acknowledges my individual right to own any gun I choose, but the Commissar wants to see the criminals in charge.
So, how much is he investing in the manufacture and sale of guns?
Mr. Biggest Taxpayer - that would make you Mike Bloomberg, so that was pretty dumb.
The mayor appoints one person to a Board. He does not influence any investments. Try to keep up please.
I'm not surprised Taxpayer is a gun nut too.
- A Bigger Taxpayer.
"He forbids smoking everywhere."
Not everywhere, the cancer society can get smoking permits to raise money at their charity luncheons.This isn't about banning an unhealthy product It's an excuse to tax a certain bunch of people as punishment. If it's that dangerous there should be a total ban. I say give them what they want and include the box of kleenex for the lost revenue.
Who in their right mind is not happy about the laws against smoking in indoor public places? This city is so much better off for the smoking ban. If you want to make a disgusting mess of your surroundings, do it in your own home, I shouldn't have to deal with it.
"The mayor appoints one person to a Board. He does not influence any investments."
Then what the hell is the purpose of that board person?
"Mr. Biggest Taxpayer - that would make you Mike Bloomberg, so that was pretty dumb."
No, actually, he isn't the biggest Taxpayer, so that makes you the dummy.
I shouldn't have to deal with it.
No you shouldn't. Not against the bans against the fact that freedom of choices is being compromised. And although today it might be something hated like smokers, tomorrow it's going to be fast food, soda etc something that you might enjoy. So get ready for someone to tell you what's good for you. As far as keeping it in your own home, even there they are looking for ways to infringe on one's freedom of choice. So although i respect your opinion you know what they say about opinions.
"I'm not surprised Taxpayer is a gun nut too."
Taxpayer is actually a believer in each individual citizen's right to have each Constitutional Clause and Amendment be enforced on behalf of each individual citizen here in the US.
Which amendment do you want eliminated? First? Second? Fifth? Fourteenth? Your answer must contain the benefits of such elimination. Are you at all capable of anything more than snarky personal comments based on your bile and venom alone?
Regulating the ownership and use of guns is not the elimination of any constitutional right. You need to really be able to understand the Constitution in order to have this discussion.
As for the smoking ban, freedom of choice is never and should never be unlimited. Your freedom of choice is limited when your choice would harm another's rights or freedoms. This is basic ethics. To tie the two concepts together, for example, your freedom to choose to shoot a gun should be denied if your choice is to shoot it into a crowd of people.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
+ + +
"Regulating the ownership and use of guns is not the elimination of any constitutional right. You need to really be able to understand the Constitution in order to have this discussion."
+ + +
You really need to be able to understand the English language if you want to discuss the Constitution with me.
+ + +
Infringe
In*fringe"\, v. i. 1. To break, violate, or transgress some contract, rule, or law; to injure; to offend.
2. To encroach; to trespass; -- followed by on or upon; as, to infringe upon the rights of another.
Such as regulating the use or ownership of guns.
When this Amendment was written, nearly everybody owned and used guns, even carrying a gun or two wherever they went. Law-abiding and lawbreaking citizens alike owned and used guns - offensively or defensively.
Out on Long Island, a woman phoned 911 to report that her ex-boyfriend was kicking the door in, threatening to kill her. This occurred in the late 1970s, and the recording of the 911 call is spine tingling.
Well, he broke in and killed her. The police arrived at the scene much later.
Her relatives sued, claiming the police failed to protect her. All the way up to the US Supreme court. The ultimate ruling? Yes, the police are required to protect you, but, not you in particular; the general you. Mankind, so to speak, but, no particular man, even when notified of a horrifying threat. And, hearing it in time to forestall the harm threatened.
So, the question is: What if this woman owned and used a gun that night?
Further, if we have the right to self-defense, we therefore have the DUTY of self defense.
The state cannot interfere or infringe on our obligation to fulfill a duty.
Taxpayer, you really don't have the smarts to try to argue this and also be insulting. Yes, over two hundred years ago most people had guns. And when this was drafted, the country was struggling with states' rights vs. federal power. The language refers to militias, not individual rights. It has been manipulated to now protect individual rights, but that still does not mean that government cannot regulate gun ownership. Your insane interpretation would give a right to every man, woman or child, even if they have been diagnosed with mental conditions or are violent felons, with the right to own guns.
Constitutional language written centuries ago must be interpreted as to how to apply to changing times. New technology, new weaponry, new industrialism, new federal powers needed to keep the country united, all must be considered in applying the Constitution. I know this is above your head, but just try this one time to understand.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
How about just making it easier for people to register their guns so they don't get busted for simply possessing one for their own security?
There, was that so bad?
Anonymous said:
"Constitutional language written centuries ago must be interpreted as to how to apply to changing times. New technology, new weaponry, new industrialism, new federal powers needed to keep the country united, all must be considered in applying the Constitution. I know this is above your head, but just try this one time to understand."
+ + + +
Where in this ancient document does freedom of the press refer to radio, TV, the Internet, phone? Nowhere. So, free speech on those media is forbidden.
Where in this ancient document is a person safe from self-incrimination if the crime is car theft, crack possession, plane hijacking, or any crime unheard of by the authors? No Fifth Amendment rights for modern criminals committing unheard of crimes.
Our homes are now large. We have water, electricity, plenty of food and usually have a spare room and basement and garage. So, why can we not use our residence for quartering troops? We would save enormous DOD sums, since providing these quarters would be borne by us, not the military. It would help prevent terror, too, since there would be a well armed and regulated militia scattered throughout the nation.
Times have, indeed, changed since this ancient document was written by doddering old (now dead) white men who never anticipated the details of the future progress.
I notice that you skipped right over the fate of the woman on Long Island. Or the passengers killed by madman Ferguson on the LIRR.
What about the rape victim back in the early 1960s who used her hat pin to stab and kill the rapist. The police arrested her for carrying and using a "concealed weapon". Nothing in the Constitution refers to prohibiting or allowing the wearing of hatpins, eh?
By the way, nothing in the Constitution allows you to own a TV, an automobile, a phone, microwave, or the very computer you use to write your silly, uninformed blather.
I didn't comment because your isolated examples are just inane. They are irrelevant to the discussion. Do you want me to cite examples of people, or worse, their children, shooting themselves with their own guns?
Your incomprehensible ramble above just proves that you have no mental standing to debate this issue.
- A Bigger Taxpayer
Look at that diminutive girly-man anal retentive demagogue.
Mayor Mike needs to move his bowels badly!
Would you care to share the pot with him "Crappy"?
He really needs to go (at the polls this November too)!
I know you'll have to sanitize the seat afterwards.
Enough with all of this gun nut versus gun hater banter!
Think on this:
If the government wants to take away your rights without any advance notice, they'll be sending Abrams tanks down your block!
Unless every citizen is armed with anti tank weapons...small arms are useless!
Do you believe that the US Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to bear weapons of this type ?
Get real already...properly regulated, responsible gun ownership is the answer!
We started out with the topic of cigarette not gun smoke!
What happened?
"We started out with the topic of cigarette not gun smoke!
What happened?"
+ + + +
An ignorant, argumentative moron happened.
+ + + +
"If the government wants to take away your rights without any advance notice, they'll be sending Abrams tanks down your block!
Unless every citizen is armed with anti tank weapons...small arms are useless!
Do you believe that the US Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to bear weapons of this type ?"
+ + + +
Yep! It has no exclusions. If the authors wanted exclusions, they were fearless enough to have written them in. Remember, the authors had recently concluded, in victory, a revolution against a government doing exactly what you described - used the best militia and weaponry of the day to prevent independence.
The authors were well aware of the weapons available and did not exclude them. If they gave them any thought at all, they likely believed that beyond the musket, most weapons were out of the price range of most citizens (just as they are today). Nevertheless, these weapons were not excluded.
How did the Afghanis rout the Russians? With pistols? With comments on Blogs?
+ + + +
"Get real already...properly regulated, responsible gun ownership is the answer!"
+ + + +
Half right. Responsible gun ownership is the answer. Exactly the mission of the NRA.
Bloomberg banned smoking so that only he can continue to blow smoke up our asses...the lying phony!
DUMP THIS DEMAGOGUE!
So I want to be able to stockpile some C-4 and keep a 12 guage "street sweeper" under my bed as a deterrent against any despot stealing away my liberty?
That's permitted by the US Constitution too?
You're a jerk that needs a real mate instead of jerking off into your copy of "Guns & Ammo"!
Go and fondle your Glock!
Ah...just shove one of those trick exploding cigars up hizzoner's bung hole and watch him dance!
Was that a cha cha or a mambo you were doing Mike?
Post a Comment