Author Topic: US presidential candidate has major CC debt  (Read 19098 times)

gillstone

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Age: 36
  • Location: The best state in the Union (MT)
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #50 on: September 22, 2015, 12:00:10 PM »
I don't see 2020 in his future.  He didn't drop after coming 3rd in Iowa or holding on through the early states only to get bested by someone with slightly better ground game or a bigger bank account.  He had gobs of early cash, solid media coverage from conservative outlets and praise from all the "serious" conservatives.  He was touted as a big challenger to Jeb! who, even if he lost, would be "next in line".  Instead, spent a bunch of cash while coming off as uncharismatic, waffling and unprepared and is now coming in 16th at this point.

I see him taking the Tim Pawlenty route and serving a couple corporate boards and maybe getting on with a conservative policy institute so he can pay off some of that CC debt with speaker fees.





Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4553
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2015, 12:05:13 PM »
Now that he's officially dropped out of the race, what's next for Walker? Fix his personal finances and do a good job in office, or go on collecting megabucks from corporations to stash for the next race?

I'll go out on a limb and say the latter :(

Yeah.  As someone employed by the UW system, my sense is that he will come back to WI, try to figure out another way to screw people that conservatives like to bash (other than the unions, which, he has seen, had only so much appeal this time around), and try to position himself for 2020.

Seems like you take a cheap shot at Walker every chance you get and I think it's childish.  The unions were hosing our state and Gov. Walker fixed it.  Also, if you don't like your job, the private sector awaits you!
I don't see that as a cheap shot, but reality.  And no, the unions were not hosing the state and making it so uneducated people are teaching is not fixing that. 

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2015, 12:06:40 PM »
I'm pretty much a casual third-party observer here and I didn't see that as a cheap shot either. He clearly does rely on demonizing undesirables for political capital.

From what I've read, Walker's "fixes" haven't produced overall economic improvements, and are likely to have detrimental long-term consequences.
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

Matt_D

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Location: Virginia
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2015, 12:37:00 PM »
I guess, I just dont think being a governor "qualifies" someone to be a president exactly... I mean, to me, a governor is like a company manager, they know their part but can't be the CEO off the bat just because they can manage a store or two. The skills needed isn't just a matter of scaling up from state to country :S

I mean, it wasn't until fairly recent, Carter, that governors have  been the predominate profession before office. I mean yes there were some but not as many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

if anything being the VP would qualify them more, which means Biden would get my support if he ran (maybe a biden/obama ticket? to mess with the GOP?)... next to that, I'll take a former first lady, Go Michelle? :D

You have a point in terms of being governor - but at the same time it's been done and isn't always horrible. I was taking it more from a perspective of "at least they've held public office, maybe done something with it, and haven't been fired or driven a company into bankruptcy." Note I didn't include all former governors!

Ha, I think Michelle Obama is smart enough to NOT run for president. Though I suppose she could take aim at 2024?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3038
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #54 on: September 22, 2015, 02:40:37 PM »
Now that he's officially dropped out of the race, what's next for Walker? Fix his personal finances and do a good job in office, or go on collecting megabucks from corporations to stash for the next race?

I'll go out on a limb and say the latter :(

Yeah.  As someone employed by the UW system, my sense is that he will come back to WI, try to figure out another way to screw people that conservatives like to bash (other than the unions, which, he has seen, had only so much appeal this time around), and try to position himself for 2020.

Seems like you take a cheap shot at Walker every chance you get and I think it's childish.  The unions were hosing our state and Gov. Walker fixed it.  Also, if you don't like your job, the private sector awaits you!

As some whose students are directly, negatively impacted by Walker's decisions, I think I have the right to criticize.  And luckily, since I am frugal, I will be able to retire soon and not have to further watch the decline of yhe university and the state.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3038
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #55 on: September 22, 2015, 02:46:38 PM »
I don't see 2020 in his future.  He didn't drop after coming 3rd in Iowa or holding on through the early states only to get bested by someone with slightly better ground game or a bigger bank account.  He had gobs of early cash, solid media coverage from conservative outlets and praise from all the "serious" conservatives.  He was touted as a big challenger to Jeb! who, even if he lost, would be "next in line".  Instead, spent a bunch of cash while coming off as uncharismatic, waffling and unprepared and is now coming in 16th at this point.

I see him taking the Tim Pawlenty route and serving a couple corporate boards and maybe getting on with a conservative policy institute so he can pay off some of that CC debt with speaker fees.

I don't see 2020 in his future, either, but that doesn't mean he won't try.  He's still young, and has been in politics his whole adult life. Seems like he'll try for the brass ring one more time.

I agree there are parallels with Pawlenty. However, here are the differences I see currently: 1) he's still in office in WI, so he can't immediately sell out to the lobbyist or "consultant" route yet; 2) he literally had 0% of the polls when he dropped out, and a campaign that had imploded. Not the strongest position to start in to cash out in the private sector.

I could definitely see him stepping down as governor in 2018 to set himself up for a 2020 prez run, knowing that the end result would probably be a lucrative private sector future.  A main problem with that, though, is his current financial state. He's in too much debt to quit his job unless he can start hiring himself out for speaker fees.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3038
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #56 on: September 22, 2015, 03:09:31 PM »
Now that he's officially dropped out of the race, what's next for Walker? Fix his personal finances and do a good job in office, or go on collecting megabucks from corporations to stash for the next race?

I'll go out on a limb and say the latter :(

Yeah.  As someone employed by the UW system, my sense is that he will come back to WI, try to figure out another way to screw people that conservatives like to bash (other than the unions, which, he has seen, had only so much appeal this time around), and try to position himself for 2020.

Seems like you take a cheap shot at Walker every chance you get and I think it's childish.  The unions were hosing our state and Gov. Walker fixed it.  Also, if you don't like your job, the private sector awaits you!

As some whose students are directly, negatively impacted by Walker's decisions, I think I have the right to criticize.  And luckily, since I am frugal, I will be able to retire soon and not have to further watch the decline of yhe university and the state.

Well Kris, here's the thing:  Scott Walker lives rent-free in your head.  As a fellow mustashian where the bonds of frugality transcend politics, I want you to have a happy retirement.  So like Queen Elsa sings, Let It Go.

Tummy:  my retirement is going to be awesome.  I don't live in Wisconsin, and I won't even be in the country in three more years.  Scott Walker can't touch me.  He can, however, compromise the educations of students, and screw my colleagues, simply for his own political ambitions.   And since I care about other people besides myself, that bothers me. I call that having a conscience.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3038
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #57 on: September 22, 2015, 03:20:01 PM »
Now that he's officially dropped out of the race, what's next for Walker? Fix his personal finances and do a good job in office, or go on collecting megabucks from corporations to stash for the next race?

I'll go out on a limb and say the latter :(

Yeah.  As someone employed by the UW system, my sense is that he will come back to WI, try to figure out another way to screw people that conservatives like to bash (other than the unions, which, he has seen, had only so much appeal this time around), and try to position himself for 2020.

Seems like you take a cheap shot at Walker every chance you get and I think it's childish.  The unions were hosing our state and Gov. Walker fixed it.  Also, if you don't like your job, the private sector awaits you!

As some whose students are directly, negatively impacted by Walker's decisions, I think I have the right to criticize.  And luckily, since I am frugal, I will be able to retire soon and not have to further watch the decline of yhe university and the state.

Well Kris, here's the thing:  Scott Walker lives rent-free in your head.  As a fellow mustashian where the bonds of frugality transcend politics, I want you to have a happy retirement.  So like Queen Elsa sings, Let It Go.

Tummy:  my retirement is going to be awesome.  I don't live in Wisconsin, and I won't even be in the country in three more years.  Scott Walker can't touch me.  He can, however, compromise the educations of students, and screw my colleagues, simply for his own political ambitions.   And since I care about other people besides myself, that bothers me. I call that having a conscience.

Let it go, let it go
Can't hold it back anymore
Let it go, let it go
Turn away and slam the door!




Hmmm, at this point, I think it's debatable who's having trouble letting go...
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

frugalecon

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2015, 03:48:38 AM »
As a short coda to the Walker story, the Washington Post is reporting this a.m.that a big reason he dropped out is that his campaign was in debt to the tune of $700,000 and facing continuing negative cash flow.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3612
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2015, 11:37:29 AM »
As a short coda to the Walker story, the Washington Post is reporting this a.m.that a big reason he dropped out is that his campaign was in debt to the tune of $700,000 and facing continuing negative cash flow.

I wonder if the Koch will be forking over a check. My guess is that like Carly, he will ignore paying off his staffers and vendors. Typical behavior from the party of personal responsibility.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2015, 12:17:13 PM »
Your knowledge of George Soros is very lacking.  As with most of the millionaires and billionaires who advocate for higher tax rates, he used tax loopholes and ethically questionable tactics to amass insane amounts of wealth, and also lobbied for additional loopholes that would shield his hedge fund from additional regulation and oversight, while putting significant burdens on his competitors.  Just because he spouts the right liberal/Democrat talking points does not mean that he is a selfless angel.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/30/george-soros-tax-policy-hypocrite/

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/george-soros-may-owe-7-billion-taxes

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin

quote author=zephyr911 link=topic=43081.msg814104#msg814104 date=1442939433]
I make no secret of my political bias, but it does crack me up when people who criticize "billionaires buying elections" invariably mean the Koch brothers and completely forget about/ignore George Soros.
There is a superficial resemblance, but every policy supported by the Kochs demonstrably goes to their bottom line, often at the expense of their own workers or the greater good.

Rarely have I seen Soros support any policies that are likely to pad his already-ridiculous Stash; often it is the exact opposite.
[/quote]


zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2015, 01:19:15 PM »
Your knowledge of George Soros is very lacking.  As with most of the millionaires and billionaires who advocate for higher tax rates, he used tax loopholes and ethically questionable tactics to amass insane amounts of wealth, and also lobbied for additional loopholes that would shield his hedge fund from additional regulation and oversight, while putting significant burdens on his competitors.  Just because he spouts the right liberal/Democrat talking points does not mean that he is a selfless angel.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/30/george-soros-tax-policy-hypocrite/

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/george-soros-may-owe-7-billion-taxes

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin
Please check your quote tags.
My knowledge is not lacking. Your critical thinking is.
For whatever reason, I can't get the third link to open, but other two don't refute what I said at all.
As an investor, taxpayer, and sometime tax preparer, I have always used every legal means available to minimize my tax burden and that of my clients. I also support more progressive tax structures because - forget the bleeding-heart talking points - they correlate well to historic periods of economic prosperity for all Americans. Conversely, less progressive tax systems tend to incentivize profit-taking, lower organic business growth, more risk-taking, more stratification of wealth, and increasing economic instability.
If I voluntarily paid more, it wouldn't change those structural issues. Likewise, if I pay the minimum required under the law, or even change my investment strategies to reduce taxes and increase cash available for reinvestment, I'm not a hypocrite; I'm doing what the tax code is written to encourage me to do.
The first two links provide no evidence of Soros lobbying for policies that would increase his profits. In fact, the final line of the second article is dead wrong in its conclusion; the evidence discussed directly supports what I said in the first place, that the policies supported by the politicians he's funding cannot be expected to benefit him directly.
If the third article does, feel free to quote the relevant text.
Since I'm only defending rational, fact-based thinking here, as opposed to defending George Soros (a man I have no personal attachment or loyalty to) I'll give you an example of something that would actually support your claim of hypocrisy: Soros lobbying against the proposed changes to the law that would end the deferral of taxes on his fortune, or lobbying for some kind of exemption so it wouldn't affect him.
That would support your claim. Unless link #3 contains something along those lines, it won't help you any more than the other two.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 01:22:54 PM by zephyr911 »
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2015, 02:16:54 PM »
Zephyr

Damn smart phone always screws up those quotes!!!

If your support for more progressive tax rates is due to historical correlation with times of economic success, then you may want to research what other factors contributed to that economic success before hitching your wagon to one in particular.  I hate to bring up such a tired saying (but I will anyway): correlation does not equal causation.

In regards to the issue of using loopholes to get additional tax benefits: while the effects of your personal tax minimizing strategy may be negligible, George Soros’ is not.  The estimated amount of taxes that he deferred using those loopholes was around $7 billion.  If he thinks that rich people like him should pay more in taxes, why not use a different strategy where he actually does pay more in taxes?  If I’m walking down the street and see a hurt child in the street crying, it is perfectly LEGAL for me to walk right past, though it probably isn’t the RIGHT thing for me to do.  If at the same time, I’m complaining about how people only look out for themselves and never help others in need, then that makes me a hypocrite.

You are not a hypocrite for advocating for a more progressive tax code, I just disagree with you.  George Soros IS a hypocrite because he SAYS he wants to have a more progressive tax code by raising the top rates, but advocates for there to be more complexity and loopholes that he and other ultra rich people can take advantage of to lower their effective tax rates.  

Here is the relevant text from the third link (I’m using my phone to post this so editing it for clarity is difficult to impossible):

He’s reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine’s “wealthiest people” list as a “family” interest. But the move has “self-serving politics” written all over it. Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats’ Byzantine financial “reforms” under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: “The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework.” Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however. Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new “Financial Stability Oversight Council.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin




MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3612
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2015, 02:52:39 PM »

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin

Do you have a more reputable source than National View or Michelle Malkin? I'm seriously asking because if Soros' actions are as evident as you say they are, it would likely be covered more extensively. I can't speak to the rest of what you posted, just curious if you have another article from a more reliable source.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2015, 03:34:37 PM »
Zephyr

Damn smart phone always screws up those quotes!!!

If your support for more progressive tax rates is due to historical correlation with times of economic success, then you may want to research what other factors contributed to that economic success before hitching your wagon to one in particular.  I hate to bring up such a tired saying (but I will anyway): correlation does not equal causation.
I'm well aware, and I remain open to a larger and more coherent picture. I'm not ideologically tied to the idea. Moreover, it's tangential to the current discussion.
Quote
In regards to the issue of using loopholes to get additional tax benefits: while the effects of your personal tax minimizing strategy may be negligible, George Soros’ is not.  The estimated amount of taxes that he deferred using those loopholes was around $7 billion.  If he thinks that rich people like him should pay more in taxes, why not use a different strategy where he actually does pay more in taxes?  If I’m walking down the street and see a hurt child in the street crying, it is perfectly LEGAL for me to walk right past, though it probably isn’t the RIGHT thing for me to do.  If at the same time, I’m complaining about how people only look out for themselves and never help others in need, then that makes me a hypocrite.
I can't buy the idea that quantitative differences add up to qualitative ones. And all his $$ wouldn't move the needle when it comes to fiscal policy.
Quote
You are not a hypocrite for advocating for a more progressive tax code, I just disagree with you.  George Soros IS a hypocrite because he SAYS he wants to have a more progressive tax code by raising the top rates, but advocates for there to be more complexity and loopholes that he and other ultra rich people can take advantage of to lower their effective tax rates. 

Here is the relevant text from the third link (I’m using my phone to post this so editing it for clarity is difficult to impossible):

He’s reconstituting the business that landed him on Forbes magazine’s “wealthiest people” list as a “family” interest. But the move has “self-serving politics” written all over it. Over the past year, Soros provided coveted support for Obama and the Democrats’ Byzantine financial “reforms” under the sweeping Dodd-Frank law. He preached to financial publications around the world about the need for increased regulatory controls over his industry. And in November 2008, while paying obligatory lip service to concerns about going too far, he submitted a statement to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that recommended: “The entire regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered, and hedge funds need to be regulated within that framework.” Frameworks for thee, but not for he, however. Under Title IV of Dodd-Frank, hedge funds were required to abide by new registration and reporting requirements in an attempt to better police systemic risk (not that the feckless Securities and Exchange Commission has ever been able to fulfill that mission). To evade the regulations, Soros and other firms have used a recently passed rule allowing so-called family offices to shield themselves from both registration and disclosure rules that would have subjected Soros Inc. to a new “Financial Stability Oversight Council.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin
This? This is what I was looking for. Touche'.
FTR, your first two examples still sucked. lol
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

Matt_D

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Location: Virginia
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2015, 03:48:27 PM »
intellectsucks: It's certainly possible Soros is a hypocrite (I don't have much knowledge of him either, and frankly don't care too awful much) - but do you have any evidence suggesting he or other left-leaning big-money folk are dumping anything like as much money into politics as the Kochs are? Soros has given quite a bit in his lifetime... but nothing like as much in any one cycle, as far as I can find.

Not, of course, that the Koch's money was sufficient to help their apparently-preferred candidate... I'm hardly a Walker fan but I was actually pretty surprised at how fast he sunk his own ship - I thought he was more capable than that.

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #66 on: September 24, 2015, 04:17:27 PM »

I still don't understand how/why people think she's qualified for office - she's good in a debate, but her record at HP wasn't great and she lost her one previous bid at public office. Failing up??
Scott Walker wasn't a fantastic candidate either, but at least he ran some successful campaigns.

She's female, she had a career outside politics, and she's not loony or religion-crazy. In other words, someone that moderate Republicans might be able to vote for without puking.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2015, 10:09:02 AM »
Matt: not really sure what you’re responding to.  Zephyr had made the claim that George Soros didn’t advocate for policies that helped his bottom line.  My posts were intended to show that, while he SAID he wanted policies that hurt his bottom line, his actions and lobbying efforts were directed towards promoting and using (abusing?) policies that helped his bottom line a hell of a lot.

I don’t have numbers in front of me, but off the top of my head Unions spend a SHIT ton (possibly even a METRIC shit ton), on political activity, 92% of it directed towards liberal candidates and causes.  Tom Steyer is another huge liberal donor.  He’s been using his billions to promote stricter laws and restrictions on high carbon industries, as well as lobbying against the Keystone Pipeline.  He may or may not really believe that climate change is a serious problem (though he made a fortune off of investing in coal power), but it is awfully convenient that he now has huge investments in “green” tech companies and is also invested in a direct competitor to the company proposing the Keystone pipeline.  And in all honesty, I couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about either.  Money in politics doesn’t bother me: dishonesty and hypocrisy does.

There are two reasons I jumped into this discussion: first, there is the impression that left wing political donors are selfless angels, when the truth is often the opposite.  Second, there is an impression that the majority of the “dirty” money in politics comes from right wing donors like the Koch brothers.  The reality is that politics is a dirty game, both sides are playing it, and both sides have lots of different, sometimes conflicting motivations.  The less time people spend accusing the other side of being evil and greedy, the more time we can spend having substantive discussions about the issues.


music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2015, 12:44:07 PM »
Matt: not really sure what you’re responding to.  Zephyr had made the claim that George Soros didn’t advocate for policies that helped his bottom line.  My posts were intended to show that, while he SAID he wanted policies that hurt his bottom line, his actions and lobbying efforts were directed towards promoting and using (abusing?) policies that helped his bottom line a hell of a lot.

I don’t have numbers in front of me, but off the top of my head Unions spend a SHIT ton (possibly even a METRIC shit ton), on political activity, 92% of it directed towards liberal candidates and causes.  Tom Steyer is another huge liberal donor.  He’s been using his billions to promote stricter laws and restrictions on high carbon industries, as well as lobbying against the Keystone Pipeline.  He may or may not really believe that climate change is a serious problem (though he made a fortune off of investing in coal power), but it is awfully convenient that he now has huge investments in “green” tech companies and is also invested in a direct competitor to the company proposing the Keystone pipeline.  And in all honesty, I couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about either.  Money in politics doesn’t bother me: dishonesty and hypocrisy does.

There are two reasons I jumped into this discussion: first, there is the impression that left wing political donors are selfless angels, when the truth is often the opposite.  Second, there is an impression that the majority of the “dirty” money in politics comes from right wing donors like the Koch brothers.  The reality is that politics is a dirty game, both sides are playing it, and both sides have lots of different, sometimes conflicting motivations.  The less time people spend accusing the other side of being evil and greedy, the more time we can spend having substantive discussions about the issues.

Yup...the spending by unions, NGO's, and environmental groups quite often gets a free pass from the very same people who would have a fit if that money went to the other side.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2955
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2015, 01:37:29 PM »
Well we don't have to worry about the college drop out Walker being President now.  We can also take solace knowing the Koch brother have his back covered and probably paid him (or promised him a job) a couple of million to exit stage left and trash Trump in the process. 
Better living through math.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4553
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2015, 01:43:36 PM »
Matt: not really sure what you’re responding to.  Zephyr had made the claim that George Soros didn’t advocate for policies that helped his bottom line.  My posts were intended to show that, while he SAID he wanted policies that hurt his bottom line, his actions and lobbying efforts were directed towards promoting and using (abusing?) policies that helped his bottom line a hell of a lot.

I don’t have numbers in front of me, but off the top of my head Unions spend a SHIT ton (possibly even a METRIC shit ton), on political activity, 92% of it directed towards liberal candidates and causes. Tom Steyer is another huge liberal donor.  He’s been using his billions to promote stricter laws and restrictions on high carbon industries, as well as lobbying against the Keystone Pipeline.  He may or may not really believe that climate change is a serious problem (though he made a fortune off of investing in coal power), but it is awfully convenient that he now has huge investments in “green” tech companies and is also invested in a direct competitor to the company proposing the Keystone pipeline.  And in all honesty, I couldn’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about either.  Money in politics doesn’t bother me: dishonesty and hypocrisy does.

There are two reasons I jumped into this discussion: first, there is the impression that left wing political donors are selfless angels, when the truth is often the opposite.  Second, there is an impression that the majority of the “dirty” money in politics comes from right wing donors like the Koch brothers.  The reality is that politics is a dirty game, both sides are playing it, and both sides have lots of different, sometimes conflicting motivations.  The less time people spend accusing the other side of being evil and greedy, the more time we can spend having substantive discussions about the issues.
Well yes, democrats are more likely to propose laws which benefit workers, why would unions not donate to groups that benefit them.  But you miss one key point, in most unions the members vote on who to donate to/endorse and members can refuse their money to be donated to politics.  This is different than individuals who have a large sum donating to soley benefit themselves.  Groups vs individual matters to many.

Matt_D

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Location: Virginia
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2015, 02:50:37 PM »
I don’t have numbers in front of me...

Then please, go get them. I'll wait.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Age: 38
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2015, 03:06:00 PM »
I don’t have numbers in front of me...

Then please, go get them. I'll wait.

What I recall having seen in past was that unions while donating in large sums of money in personal finance terms were dealing with actually rather small amounts in national political terms.  I would very much like to see proper numbers on this and learn something new today. 
Be the person Mr. Rogers knows you can be.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2015, 05:05:48 PM »
Gin-Putting aside the fact that you ignored the examples of George Soros and Tom Steyer, I’ll bite.

You make two dubious claims: first that democrats propose laws which benefit workers.  Democrats propose laws which MAY benefit SOME workers, but certainly not all, and certainly not without consequences beyond the stated goal of the laws.  I’ll use minimum wage laws as an example because it’s the easiest and most misunderstood, but there are lots of other examples that fit this bill, Obamacare being another big one.  Minimum wage laws add SOME benefit to SOME workers, mostly low skill, mostly part time, mostly young people starting out their careers or in school.  However, the consequence is an increase in part time employment, unemployment and the replacement of workers with machines.  Do a google news search on “self service kiosk” and read some of the news stories about low wage companies like McDonalds using them.  These machines are big, expensive and are a pain to fix when they break, but increase Mickey Dees labor costs enough, and they will be cheaper and less hassle than having a staff of teenagers to take orders.  Put one of these into a McDonalds and you’ve just eliminated somewhere between 4-12 jobs.  Those jobs might be shit jobs to you or I, but they can really help people pay for school, or help fill in the gaps in a struggling family’s budget, or offer job experience to new workers.  The people who work at places like McDonalds are overwhelmingly people who are lower on the socioeconomic ladder (the people who democrats and unions claim to want to help) and may not have easy access to other ways to start and advance their career.  MMM himself talks about how he used a minimum wage job at a gas station to help pay for his college career.  If that job didn’t exist because it cost the gas station owner too much to hire someone, would this website even exist for us to debate the issue?

You second dubious claim is that unions want to help workers.  Unions certainly claim to want to help UNION workers, however even then they sometimes are only paying lip service to those claims.  See the union support for minimum wages in CA.  They lobbied hard to get the laws passed, but with an exception for union employees.  This means that unions can negotiate wages LOWER than the minimum wage, giving them an advantage over non-union workers, which means they increase their membership, dues and power literally at the expense of their members.  Unions can and do also lock out opportunities for non union members, sometimes using legal means, sometimes…..well, not so legal.  Here is a great article about unions harassing business owners, not because they didn’t use union labor, but because they didn’t use ENOUGH.  After being awarded only 40% of the work on the job, the union refused to do any work, then illegally harassed and assaulted the workers on the job, earning convictions and court orders against the unions.  The article also talks about how the unions scare away investment and development, meaning less jobs.  These jobs are also high skill jobs that union members usually specialize in (electrical, plumbing, HVAC, etc), which means that by using 19th century strong arm tactics, they are probably causing their members to have LESS work than if they just bid on jobs and took the work they won.  And none of this is even mentioning situations where unions set their wage and benefit demands so high, that the company either goes out of business or shuts down the workplace (either for good or to be replaced by foreign workers).

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/busting-philly-unions-pestronk-brothers/

So why do unions support only democrats?  Because democrats haven’t shown any willingness to impede union growth or power in any way.

Finally, I fail to see how unions using their influence is somehow better than wealthy individuals doing so.  Unions represent only about 10% of the workforce.  So the fact that this 10% of the workforce voted amongst themselves to lobby on their own behalf somehow makes it better?  I’m sorry but that doesn’t make it better for me.  All I see is a small percentage of people using vast amounts of money to influence policy to their own benefit, only one group is vilified for it and the other is compared favorably to Mother Teresa.

  


intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 179
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #74 on: September 25, 2015, 05:23:22 PM »
Amount spent by unions 2002-2014: 1,159,967,046 didn’t run the averages but no individual union gave less than 94% to democrats

Amount spent by Koch Industries 2002-2014: 28,557,117 94% to republicans

This doesn’t count the Koch brothers own personal contributions, which have been estimated to rival union contributions in money.  One thing to keep in mind as well, is that union support of democrat/liberal causes comes in non-monetary was as well, such as rallies, literature, get out the vote operations, etc.  The Koch’s have no such organizational structure to rival that support.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Do the Koch’s spend a ton of money?  Yes they do.  Do liberal groups and individuals do the same thing and for the same reasons?  Absolutely.

I don’t mind people supporting liberal causes.  Just don’t act like only conservatives are the only ones spending money on it.


Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #75 on: September 25, 2015, 06:58:32 PM »
I don't mind Koch donations but I just feel like the campaign finance rules should change back and limit individual donors to a limit...

but since the law is different now, I can't really gripe about it, but I will vote to change it if it comes up

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #76 on: September 25, 2015, 09:29:18 PM »
I guess, I just dont think being a governor "qualifies" someone to be a president exactly... I mean, to me, a governor is like a company manager, they know their part but can't be the CEO off the bat just because they can manage a store or two. The skills needed isn't just a matter of scaling up from state to country :S

I mean, it wasn't until fairly recent, Carter, that governors have  been the predominate profession before office. I mean yes there were some but not as many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

Fact-check:  "Since its founding in 1787, the United States has had 43 presidents and over 2,300 governors. While the paths to the White House have ranged from long careers in lower levels of politics to military backgrounds to only brief prior forays in the public domain, one of the most common prior experiences has been serving as a state’s governor. Seventeen presidents* (almost 40%) had previously held office as chief executive of a state, providing them with experience in running a government bureaucracy, dealing with a legislature and responding to the judiciary."  http://governors.rutgers.edu/on-governors/us-governors/governors-and-the-white-house/governors-who-became-president

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #77 on: September 25, 2015, 09:44:14 PM »

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin

Do you have a more reputable source than National View or Michelle Malkin? I'm seriously asking because if Soros' actions are as evident as you say they are, it would likely be covered more extensively. I can't speak to the rest of what you posted, just curious if you have another article from a more reliable source.

If you don't believe the National Review on this one, then how about Bloomberg Business?  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/george-soros-s-tax-bill

Matt_D

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Location: Virginia
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #78 on: September 26, 2015, 02:09:54 PM »
Amount spent by unions 2002-2014: 1,159,967,046 didn’t run the averages but no individual union gave less than 94% to democrats

Amount spent by Koch Industries 2002-2014: 28,557,117 94% to republicans

This doesn’t count the Koch brothers own personal contributions, which have been estimated to rival union contributions in money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

Do the Koch’s spend a ton of money?  Yes they do.  Do liberal groups and individuals do the same thing and for the same reasons?  Absolutely.

I don’t mind people supporting liberal causes.  Just don’t act like only conservatives are the only ones spending money on it.

So one family (mostly 2 people) has spent nearly the same amount over the last 12 years (not including the current year of course) as all unions, which currently have membership somewhere around 14 million.

This is precisely my concern: those handful of family members have the effective political clout of ~14 million other people. You posit in another post that unions are no different because they only represent about 10% of the workforce, but that's kind of irrelevant - they still represent 14 million people! So the Koch family is spending somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 million times as much per person as the unions.

You may not agree that it's a matter of concern (that's fine, we don't have to agree on it) but I still don't see any other individuals - on either side of the aisle - who have and exercise the political purchasing power that the Kochs do. That was my original point, and I think it still sticks.

LiveLean

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Central Florida
    • ToLiveLean
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #79 on: September 26, 2015, 05:42:06 PM »
I guess, I just dont think being a governor "qualifies" someone to be a president exactly... I mean, to me, a governor is like a company manager, they know their part but can't be the CEO off the bat just because they can manage a store or two. The skills needed isn't just a matter of scaling up from state to country :S

I mean, it wasn't until fairly recent, Carter, that governors have  been the predominate profession before office. I mean yes there were some but not as many https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

if anything being the VP would qualify them more, which means Biden would get my support if he ran (maybe a biden/obama ticket? to mess with the GOP?)... next to that, I'll take a former first lady, Go Michelle? :D

This might be the most absurd thing I've ever read on this board. Do the names Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, or John Tyler ring a bell? All Virginia governors before 1830! How about Martin Van Buren? Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? Fourteen of our first 32 presidents were previously governors. Not exactly a "recent" trend.

VP is a ceremonial role that's long been a joke. JFK hated LBJ, didn't tell him anything. And would you have wanted Dan "Heartbeat Away" Quayle running the show? Really?
Living lean at www.tolivelean.com

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #80 on: September 27, 2015, 10:15:33 AM »

If you don't believe the National Review on this one, then how about Bloomberg Business?  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/george-soros-s-tax-bill
Already discussed at length above. If you think it proves something, feel free to explain what and how that something is. Just slapping the link up there, after its contents have already been introduced and debated, doesn't add anything.
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #81 on: September 27, 2015, 11:30:22 AM »

If you don't believe the National Review on this one, then how about Bloomberg Business?  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/george-soros-s-tax-bill
Already discussed at length above. If you think it proves something, feel free to explain what and how that something is. Just slapping the link up there, after its contents have already been introduced and debated, doesn't add anything.

What it added is that one particular person (MgoSam) asked whether there was another "reputable source" besides National Review and Michelle Malkin and said he was "just curious if you have another article from a more reliable source."  In direct response to his question, I quoted his question and provided the source of Bloomberg Business.  You deleted the part where I quoted MgoSam, which had demonstrated the precise point of my response -- that there is, in fact, another "reputable source."  Your comment here, on the other hand, didn't reveal anything except your lack of understanding the foregoing (actually, desire to conceal the foregoing since you deleted what I quoted).
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 11:35:13 AM by LeRainDrop »

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #82 on: September 27, 2015, 05:54:00 PM »
Oh, spare me the insults. I cut for the sake of brevity and cleanliness, and to keep the focus on the most relevant information.

My point was simple - that the link you posted contained information already discussed (dismissed, really) above. Repeating a reference to the same info - regardless of source - is in bad form, if no new interpretation is offered.
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #83 on: September 27, 2015, 06:15:04 PM »
My point was simple - that the link you posted contained information already discussed (dismissed, really) above. Repeating a reference to the same info - regardless of source - is in bad form, if no new interpretation is offered.

No, it's not.  When one person's question is whether someone can provide a different source of that information, and then I provide a different source, that simply answers that person's question.  We are not all here to serve your needs specifically, zephyr911 -- other people's questions on the forum matter, too.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3634
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #84 on: September 28, 2015, 11:49:55 AM »
No, it's not.  When one person's question is whether someone can provide a different source of that information, and then I provide a different source, that simply answers that person's question.  We are not all here to serve your needs specifically, zephyr911 -- other people's questions on the forum matter, too.
Come on, man. I don't labor under the delusion that you come to this forum to entertain me, nor was such a presumption stated or implied.

Two of the three articles originally given to support the idea that Soros is just investing in politics to pad his bottom line contained no information to that effect. The NR article contained unique claims that appeared to support that idea.

While your additional link qualified for the "less partisan bias" criterion, it fails to support the larger question about Soros' motives, because, like the others, it merely establishes that he has reinvested his earnings in ways that allow him to defer taxes - something we all do here, albeit on a smaller scale. Like the others, it offers no discussion of any proposed policies that would benefit Soros financially, let alone evidence that his donations supported such policies.

I realize the question to which you directly responded may not have been as specific as all of this, but that's where it stemmed from. In order to substantially address the larger issue, you'd need an additional source that's not only unbiased but also directly establishes Soros' political involvement in shaping policy to benefit himself.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 12:17:37 PM by zephyr911 »
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3612
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: US presidential candidate has major CC debt
« Reply #85 on: September 28, 2015, 11:56:38 AM »

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/273037/obamas-exclusive-george-soros-waivers-michelle-malkin

Do you have a more reputable source than National View or Michelle Malkin? I'm seriously asking because if Soros' actions are as evident as you say they are, it would likely be covered more extensively. I can't speak to the rest of what you posted, just curious if you have another article from a more reliable source.

If you don't believe the National Review on this one, then how about Bloomberg Business?  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-30/george-soros-s-tax-bill

Thanks. I googled and found this article as well. Appreciate you posting it.