The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: chouchouu on August 30, 2015, 08:45:17 PM
-
Scott Walker, governor of wisconsin has major credit card debt, some of which he is paying over 20% interest on. I'm curious how his state budget is going...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-credit-card-debt-20150803
-
Interesting you mentionned him, on meet the press, he proposed to build a huge wall on the Canada-US border http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/) I guess broke people always find ways to waste money.
-
Interesting you mentionned him, on meet the press, he proposed to build a huge wall on the Canada-US border http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/) I guess broke people always find ways to waste money.
I guess he'll have to put that on his Sears Mastercard, lol. I'm all for America building a giant wall along the border, good for keeping those violent radical extremists and desperate impoverished refugees fleeing an oppressive regime out of Canada and in their home country of America where they belong. J/K guys :)
-
Interesting you mentionned him, on meet the press, he proposed to build a huge wall on the Canada-US border http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/30/politics/scott-walker-northern-border-immigration-2016/) I guess broke people always find ways to waste money.
I guess he'll have to put that on his Sears Mastercard, lol. I'm all for America building a giant wall along the border, good for keeping out those violent radical extremists and desperate impoverished refugees fleeing an oppressive regime out of Canada and in their home country of America where they belong. J/K guys :)
You guys don't want our socialism to spread in your country, therefore the border will stop all that nonsense *sarcasm of course"
-
Scott Walker, governor of wisconsin has major credit card debt, some of which he is paying over 20% interest on. I'm curious how his state budget is going...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-credit-card-debt-20150803
So, is he still allowed to be a fiscal Conservative? Seems as though that would disqualify him outright.
-
I love how he brushes it off:
""As a public servant, the governor gave back hundreds of thousands of his salary to the taxpayers, and he is a regular American with two kids in college and a small amount of credit card debt,""
So I suppose the moral of the story, it's ok to be in debt, afterall everyone else have debts. He makes a pretty good salary too (approx. 140 000$).
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
-
20k a small amount of cc debt! He sure is good at spin though...
-
he can't manage his own money
he screwed his state's schools
and he says so many stupid things that you look at the person next to you and go, "did he really just say that?"
how does he manage to dress himself everyday? because his skill set seems pretty limited
-
I love how he brushes it off:
""As a public servant, the governor gave back hundreds of thousands of his salary to the taxpayers
WTF does that even mean? You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to be fucking solvent so you can't be bought off by special interests. Period.
...and he is a regular American with two kids in college and a small amount of credit card debt,""
So I suppose the moral of the story, it's ok to be in debt, afterall everyone else have debts. He makes a pretty good salary too (approx. 140 000$).
Plus a $45K book advance.
His NW is estimated at -72.5k in one place, but that appears to be just a total of his debts. Not sure about assets.
The truly insane part of this is, as a governor, you get almost everything provided for you - housing, much of your transportation, various business meals, etc. Out of that $140K/yr he only really needs 10 or 20 for what the rest of us think of as "incidentals". The rest should just be piling up in a "don't get pounded in the butt by superPAC donors daily" fund.
-
20k a small amount of cc debt! He sure is good at spin though...
DW and I together have similar wages and similar CC debt, but only because we got a sweetheart deal ($0 fee, 0%APR for a year) and bought solar panels with it. I'd never call it small, and I'd never let it hang around past the 0% expiration.
$20K is huge if you're blowing your entire salary and have no practical means of paying it off....
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
I think that's gonna boil down to how you weight various things in terms of "mustachian." I think at least half of the slate is/could be FI? It's a really interesting question though.
-
20k a small amount of cc debt! He sure is good at spin though...
DW and I together have similar wages and similar CC debt, but only because we got a sweetheart deal ($0 fee, 0%APR for a year) and bought solar panels with it. I'd never call it small, and I'd never let it hang around past the 0% expiration.
$20K is huge if you're blowing your entire salary and have no practical means of paying it off....
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
-
Scott Walker, governor of wisconsin has major credit card debt, some of which he is paying over 20% interest on. I'm curious how his state budget is going...
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-credit-card-debt-20150803
So, is he still allowed to be a fiscal Conservative? Seems as though that would disqualify him outright.
Among other things he recently signed the bill essentially giving $250 million ($400 million including interest) in taxpayer money to the billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks (now there's an ironic name). Study after study shows that public funding for these sporting venue projects are big money losers for the sponsoring governments. It's just a way for megarich people to get even richer at the expense of the public. Actually, that's how George W. Bush made his money. He had failed at a ton of businesses, and then he borrowed money to buy a portion of the Rangers. The Rangers got taxpayer funding for a new stadium (increasing the value of the club by the amount of the gift from the taxpayers) and then he sold his stake.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13423356/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-signs-bill-fund-new-milwaukee-bucks-arena
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
I think that's gonna boil down to how you weight various things in terms of "mustachian." I think at least half of the slate is/could be FI? It's a really interesting question though.
Not at their spending levels, especially with Paul and Bush whose father's actually have the money. And even with Trump, if he was not hustling I don't think he could afford his spending.
-
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
You never pay it off if your approach is to grow spending to match income. But that was kinda my point above: his odds of being beholden to someone other than the taxpayers at large mean I can't trust him in office.
-
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
You never pay it off if your approach is to grow spending to match income. But that was kinda my point above: his odds of being beholden to someone other than the taxpayers at large mean I can't trust him in office.
Entirely possible, but I hope that he will be able to save more money and live within his means when he goes from being a governor making something like $144k, towards making making way more than that by being a lobbyist and possible serving on various boards.
-
If this isn't enough, how much is enough? He comes off as the kind of guy who will finance a mansion inside the Beltway when that happens, and spend his later years chasing even greater wealth but spending it as fast as he gets it.
-
The other question concerning candidates who achieved FI is how they achieved it.
Marco Rubio has had numerous debts covered through the patronage of by Norman Braman http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/10/us/billionaire-lifts-marco-rubio-politically-and-personally.html?_r=0)
Several candidates came from wealthy and powerful families (Bush and Trump come to mind)
But a few actually worked hard to build careers before becoming professional politicians (Sanders and Carson for example)
That they have money isn't new or exciting, its how they got it and who they may be beholden to now that they have it.
-
Can't say whether I agree or disagree with his politics. But I know one thing, any man who would delay tearing in to a delicious burger for a stump speech or photo op will never get my vote (first pic - http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-credit-card-debt-20150803)
-
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
Funny...if you only listened to those on the left, you would be under the impression that those evil Koch brothers singlehandedly control the entire right half of America, have stopped major green initiative projects, and have been successful in spreading misinformation for decades.
It would be funny, except for the fact that millions of people are gullible enough to believe it.
-
Funny...if you only listened to those on the left, you would be under the impression that those evil Koch brothers singlehandedly control the entire right half of America, have stopped major green initiative projects, and have been successful in spreading misinformation for decades.
It would be funny, except for the fact that millions of people are gullible enough to believe it.
Are you here just to poke fun, or do you intend to inform as well? If the former... meh. If the latter... links?
Also... do the Koch brothers really only have one hand between the two of them??
Also also, I thought controlling the right half of America was Roger Ailes' job.
-
Funny...if you only listened to those on the left who are smart enough to think for themselves, you would be under the impression that those evil Koch brothers singlehandedly control the entire right half of America have become a major force in controlling the right wing propaganda machine, have stopped major green initiative projects, and have been successful in spreading misinformation for decades.
Somehow, you missed a few? How about.............
Have murdered two teens, who were burned alive while their parents watched. This horror was a result of the brothers absolute refusal to maintain a pipeline they were pumping extremely flammable gases through. They have a well documented history of extreme behavior, including extensive environmental destruction caused by their profit at any cost mentality, abusing their workforce, constant behind the scenes interference in political matters at all levels of government, a long history of battling any reasonable environmental regulation, and owning a major source of educational materials supplied to our public education system, where they work diligently at providing propaganda and misinformation in such material to suit their twisted goals..
It would be funny, except for the fact that millions of people are gullible enough to believe it.
if you we also filthy rich, and bent on destroying this country for your personal gain.
Fixed to reflect the truth. As for Mr. Walker and his relationship with the Kochs, it is best understood by listening to the recording where he mistakenly believed that he was speaking to one of the bros. and devoted much effort to tonguing David Koch's asshole, while debating the merits of engaging in illegal activities, like inserting thugs into the protests.
Your right, the Koch brothers are just all around wonderful guys. I guess the fact that their third brother devotes a lot of energy to waking the world up to the fact that these guys are soulless devil's spawn, is just another silly coincidence, right?
-
Your right, the Koch brothers are just all around wonderful guys. I guess the fact that their third brother devotes a lot of energy to waking the world up to the fact that these guys are soulless devil's spawn, is just another silly coincidence, right?
What's brother #3's name? Haven't heard about this. Curious.
-
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
Funny...if you only listened to those on the left, you would be under the impression that those evil Koch brothers singlehandedly control the entire right half of America, have stopped major green initiative projects, and have been successful in spreading misinformation for decades.
It would be funny, except for the fact that millions of people are gullible enough to believe it.
They don't control the entire right half. But when they spend nearly $1 billion dollars in politics, it's kinda hard not to get that impression of them.
-
Well either he will be president (highly unlikely) or after his term if over, he'll go full lobbyist and have the means to pay it off. I suspect that Koch-funded sinecure in his near future.
Funny...if you only listened to those on the left, you would be under the impression that those evil Koch brothers singlehandedly control the entire right half of America, have stopped major green initiative projects, and have been successful in spreading misinformation for decades.
It would be funny, except for the fact that millions of people are gullible enough to believe it.
They don't control the entire right half. But when they spend nearly $1 billion dollars in politics, it's kinda hard not to get that impression of them.
Not to mention that all the major republican candidates (with the exception of Trump) pander to them.
Or in Walker's case, their influence is so much that a prank caller was able to get Walker on the phone immediately by saying that he was David Koch. The staff had some token questions, but he was able to talk to the governor.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/i-punkd-scott-walker-100033
-
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.
-
Don't forget that the Clintons left office with something like 10 million in personal debt. As Dave Ramsey always says "the debtor is the slave to the lender."
-
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.
In which regard, the money to Clinton or the rumor that he gave money to Black Lives Matter?
-
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.
In which regard, the money to Clinton or the rumor that he gave money to Black Lives Matter?
That he is heavily involved in politics. "People" like to claim billionaires are in politics to buy elections for the right, but Soros tried his damndest to buy one for the left (against Bush).
-
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.
Scale, perhaps? Some of it's hard to peg exactly (as the Koch brothers give a lot through intermediary groups/orgs) but overall they're projected/expected/planning (depending on who you read) to spend in the vicinity of $900 million this election cycle. A quick search reveals that Soros has contributed a couple million to Clinton, and is maybe planning on $5 million or so to other liberal causes. That could be off by a factor of 10 and still not match the Kochs. There are a couple other big-money guys on the left who are talking of up to $100 million this election cycle - but that's again only a bit more than 10%.
Another part of it is that the Kochs are pretty well known for funding "local grassroots" movements that turn out to be not-so-grassroots and not-so-local. If Soros has done similar, I have not heard of it (so seems he's either way better at it or hasn't done it).
There is definitely big money on both sides. But I have yet to see anything indicating that anyone on either side is spending even half as much in as many places as the Kochs are. That's why they get name-dropped all the time.
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
Haha, just saw a post about Bernie Sanders walking to work, I'd vote him as most mustachian: https://i.imgur.com/HM6r3aW.jpg
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
Haha, just saw a post about Bernie Sanders walking to work, I'd vote him as most mustachian: https://i.imgur.com/HM6r3aW.jpg
Bad@$$!
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
Haha, just saw a post about Bernie Sanders walking to work, I'd vote him as most mustachian: https://i.imgur.com/HM6r3aW.jpg
Bad@$$!
Nice! That's pretty awesome.
If he's running (which I think we still don't know?), Joe Biden took public transit (Amtrak I think) for MANY years when travelling between his home/home district and DC, and got stuff done on the way. No idea how he is with finances otherwise, but that seems like a very Mustachian attitude!
-
I wonder who, among the 2016 candidates, are the most and least mustachian. They're probably both republicans (hey, it's a big tent).
Haha, just saw a post about Bernie Sanders walking to work, I'd vote him as most mustachian: https://i.imgur.com/HM6r3aW.jpg
Bad@$$!
Nice! That's pretty awesome.
If he's running (which I think we still don't know?), Joe Biden took public transit (Amtrak I think) for MANY years when travelling between his home/home district and DC, and got stuff done on the way. No idea how he is with finances otherwise, but that seems like a very Mustachian attitude!
I've always loved his use of Amtrak, especially since he did it so he could stay home with his kids as much as possible. Major commitment to public service AND his family on that one.
There was a funny SNL skit about him stripping down to his bare chest and pulling the Amtrak back to Delaware when it broke down once. Always cracks me up to think about it!
-
There is no excuse for him to have credit card debt when he's been pulling in a six figure salary the last 10 years.
-
^Yup.
Plus like someone mentioned earlier, as governor he has most of his daily living expenses paid for (housing, transportation). Absolutely no excuse for this.
Sadly, to some people (who view cc debt as normal and even inevitable) this would "humanize" him and they would be able to relate to him better :(
-
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.
This, every time.
-
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.
This, every time.
See my reply above. Welcome any return stats/thoughts you might have... Chris22 didn't have any, apparently.
You can certainly be supportive of the same candidate(s)/party as the Kochs, but I personally would still be concerned about anyone having that level of influence.
-
At this point Walker is no longer considered a contender. Thank the Baptist Lord Jesus.
It appears all the big contenders are financially well off -- Trump, Carson, Hillary, Fiorina, Sanders, Biden, Bush. They all seem to have some change in their pockets.
Only one of them would not consider taking money from special interests.
-
I don't think unreasonable personal financial dealings are uncommon among politicians. I remember a couple of election cycles ago reading very similar things on Biden. And if you look at how most of government finances work (or don't, depending on your opinion) ... is it any wonder politicians treat their own finances no differently?
And a pretty large majority of winners and losers expect their campaign debt to be forgiven when they're done. This alone is a bit nauseating.
-
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?
-
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 :(
-
And a pretty large majority of winners and losers expect their campaign debt to be forgiven when they're done. This alone is a bit nauseating.
Yup, Carly Fiorina took 4 years to pay off her campaign workers from her failed 2010 senate campaign. This is a women that was given a massive golden parachute when she was fired from HP. But of course, she waited until she raised money to run for president and now has paid off her previous campaign workers. Anyone want to bet that if she fails to win the nomination, that she will similarly neglect her duty to pay her debts?
-
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.
-
And a pretty large majority of winners and losers expect their campaign debt to be forgiven when they're done. This alone is a bit nauseating.
Yup, Carly Fiorina took 4 years to pay off her campaign workers from her failed 2010 senate campaign. This is a women that was given a massive golden parachute when she was fired from HP. But of course, she waited until she raised money to run for president and now has paid off her previous campaign workers. Anyone want to bet that if she fails to win the nomination, that she will similarly neglect her duty to pay her debts?
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.
-
Scott's out of the race now anyways...
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??
so who do you think is qualified then? To me, they are all on the same boat, IE motor stalled, taking on water and they are fighting over the table seats instead of bailing or jumping ship
-
Scott's out of the race now anyways...
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??
so who do you think is qualified then? To me, they are all on the same boat, IE motor stalled, taking on water and they are fighting over the table seats instead of bailing or jumping ship
I would say that out of the current GOP crop, there are a few who would be capable (do not confuse this with "have a shot at winning" or "people I endorse"): John Kasich, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, possibly Jeb Bush (though honestly I thought he was more capable prior to the start of his campaign than I think he is now...). All of them have issues and baggage (some more than others!), but they seem to understand what the presidency is and are potentially capable of holding the office without embarrassing the country too much (low bar, but gotta be realistic here).
The Dems have fewer (ridiculous) candidates, so (with similar caveats about endorsements and actual shots at winning), their "capable" slate in my mind includes: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden (if he runs...), Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb. Again, there is baggage and some of them have no shot at the nomination - but I think they're all technically able.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
(http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/38700000/Let-it-Go-Wallpaper-elsa-queen-frozen-38755400-1191-670.png)
Hmmm, at this point, I think it's debatable who's having trouble letting go...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don’t have numbers in front of me...
Then please, go get them. I'll wait.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.