Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

theprestige said:
Left or right, oligarchs gonna oligarch. A man doesn't get to be a billionaire by giving away money. (Bloomberg campaign staffers are suing for unpaid salaries.)
Click to expand...

Except that he did give away the money, that's the problem. Instead of using it to fund his own field offices and the people employed there, he gave away the $18 Million to the DNC for them to take over and employ his campaign's former staffers to carry on under the DNC banner instead of the Mike2020 one.
 
Bernie just went to bat for working people in the coronavirus relief bill. He added a provision that promised 100% unemployment relief for working people and threatened to put a hold on the bill unless the Republicans retracted their objections to that provision.

The Republicans backed down and Bernie's provision is in the bill that passed on to the House.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Except that he did give away the money, that's the problem. Instead of using it to fund his own field offices and the people employed there, he gave away the $18 Million to the DNC for them to take over and employ his campaign's former staffers to carry on under the DNC banner instead of the Mike2020 one.
Click to expand...
There's only a handful of ways to legally discharge that money.

Transferring it to the DNC is hardly the benevolent and selfless option. I imagine a number of charities might find use for it about now.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Except that he did give away the money, that's the problem. Instead of using it to fund his own field offices and the people employed there, he gave away the $18 Million to the DNC for them to take over and employ his campaign's former staffers to carry on under the DNC banner instead of the Mike2020 one.
Click to expand...
There's only a handful of ways to legally discharge that money.
Transferring it to the DNC is hardly the benevolent and selfless option. I imagine a number of charities might find use for it about now.
Click to expand...
Strange thing to criticize Bloomberg over...

First of all, for better or worse, elections DO cost money to run, and it may require the Democrats to counter huge spending by Republican donors. It would be great if things like SuperPACs didn't exist and political donations were limited,, but until that happens the Democrats have to run under the current rules. Yeah, there are charities that need assistance too, but getting rid of Stubby McBonespurs may be the best way to help people in need.

Secondly, it sounds like you're getting into a "there's better use" argument... but if you go down that rabbit hole, you can dismiss almost all charitable contributions the same way, since you can find plenty of charities that are in even more dire situations... Give to help the homeless? Well, what about children with terminal diseases?

Lastly, keep in mind that Bloomberg isn't just donating to the Democratic party. He has donated hundreds of millions to various charities over the years, and just recently has announced a donation of $40 million to assist developing nations in combating Covid-19.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mik...on-fight-coronavirus-africa/story?id=69640813
 
Segnosaur said:
Strange thing to criticize Bloomberg over...

First of all, for better or worse, elections DO cost money to run, and it may require the Democrats to counter huge spending by Republican donors. It would be great if things like SuperPACs didn't exist and political donations were limited,, but until that happens the Democrats have to run under the current rules. Yeah, there are charities that need assistance too, but getting rid of Stubby McBonespurs may be the best way to help people in need.

Secondly, it sounds like you're getting into a "there's better use" argument... but if you go down that rabbit hole, you can dismiss almost all charitable contributions the same way, since you can find plenty of charities that are in even more dire situations... Give to help the homeless? Well, what about children with terminal diseases?

Lastly, keep in mind that Bloomberg isn't just donating to the Democratic party. He has donated hundreds of millions to various charities over the years, and just recently has announced a donation of $40 million to assist developing nations in combating Covid-19.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mik...on-fight-coronavirus-africa/story?id=69640813
Click to expand...

Charitable donations are tax deductible. It's not giving money away if you're getting paid to do it.
 
theprestige said:
Charitable donations are tax deductible. It's not giving money away if you're getting paid to do it.
Click to expand...

Even in the top tax brackets, it is cheaper to not give money away. Sure, you get to deduct the amount, but that is hardly the same as being paid to give it away, it merely reduces the cost of having given it away.

Before this leads to a general derail, I don't think that charity should be deductible at all. The government should not raise or lower your taxes based on how you spent your money.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Even in the top tax brackets, it is cheaper to not give money away. Sure, you get to deduct the amount, but that is hardly the same as being paid to give it away, it merely reduces the cost of having given it away.

Before this leads to a general derail, I don't think that charity should be deductible at all. The government should not raise or lower your taxes based on how you spent your money.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree, but not enough to derail this thread. Let's get back to tracking the 2020 Democratic candidates. Like Mike Bloomberg, who is now being sued by campaign staffers for non-payment of salaries.
 
theprestige said:
Strange thing to criticize Bloomberg over...
Click to expand...
The actual criticism is that he's not paying his campaign workers. That's not a strange criticism at all.
Click to expand...
Yes, there were postings regarding Bloomberg's failure to pay campaign workers.

But, my posting was a response to a poster who was discussing his donations to the Democratic party, along with what I assume was a claim about how "there are other charities in more need".
 
theprestige said:
I strongly disagree, but not enough to derail this thread. Let's get back to tracking the 2020 Democratic candidates. Like Mike Bloomberg, who is now being sued by campaign staffers for non-payment of salaries.
Click to expand...

I respect that.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, there were postings regarding Bloomberg's failure to pay campaign workers.

But, my posting was a response to a poster who was discussing his donations to the Democratic party, along with what I assume was a claim about how "there are other charities in more need".
Click to expand...

The discussion of his donations to the Democratic party wasn't a criticism.

There was a joke made: One doesn't become a billionaire by paying one's employees giving away money.

PW took the joke seriously and rebutted it, claiming he *did* give the money away. And then DO pointed out that campaign funds can't really be given away in that sense. These were funds that Bloomberg set aside for his own benefit, and when that benefit was rendered null he had few options for what to do with the remainder of those funds.

Neither PW nor DO were criticizing Bloomberg. Nobody ever actually made the "more deserving charities" argument you envisioned.

The only actual criticism is that he's not paying his campaign staff. If you're going to rebut a criticism, why not rebut the criticism that was actually offered?
 
theprestige said:
Neither PW nor DO were criticizing Bloomberg. Nobody ever actually made the "more deserving charities" argument you envisioned.
Click to expand...
Delphic Oracle's posting contained this exact statement:

Transferring it (money) to the DNC is hardly the benevolent and selfless option. I imagine a number of charities might find use for it about now.


Sounds to me like he was suggesting more deserving charities when he mentioned those that "might find use for it".

And taking what was a significant charitable donation and saying it is "hardly a benevolent action" certainly diminishes the act of giving.

As for Bloomberg's failure to pay campaign staffers... keep in mind that there has not yet been a court ruling on the matter, and its possible that the courts may find Bloomberg blameless. (I'm not making predictions... just pointing out that launching a lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean WINNING a lawsuit.) Furthermore, this lawsuit is not over wages for past work completed, but a promise of future wages.
 
There's a $10,000 cap on contributions to parties.

Unless you self-fund a campaign, miss half the early primary dates, then drop out after the first results.

Then you can donate millions.
 
Segnosaur said:
Delphic Oracle's posting contained this exact statement:

Transferring it (money) to the DNC is hardly the benevolent and selfless option. I imagine a number of charities might find use for it about now.


Sounds to me like he was suggesting more deserving charities when he mentioned those that "might find use for it".
Click to expand...
I think he was just contrasting the legal requirements to allocate his funds in certain ways, with what true selfless giving would look like. Context clues, and such.

And taking what was a significant charitable donation and saying it is "hardly a benevolent action" certainly diminishes the act of giving.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the DNC isn't a charity organization. Even if it somehow managed to qualify, I wouldn't consider contributions to a political party to be charitable donations or "benevolent action" in the sense of selfless giving. (Obviously you have to have some benevolence towards a political party, to give them large sums of money, but that's not the kind of benevolence we're talking about in this context.)

Again, nobody was arguing there are more deserving charities. At most, they were (rightly) pointing out that donating to a political party is not the same as donating to a charity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom