Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[nots]

Zuckerberg donated $100M to Newark, NJ schools, one of the challenging school districts in the country.
Here’s an article about how that turned out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-newark-schools-partially-squandered-a-great-prize/2015/10/20/ffff660c-7743-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html?utm_term=.a4eb928c74c2

[B-Fly]

The Gates's and Zuckerbergs of the world give to other programs or set up tax shelters called foundations so they can give to where they want to and get a taxable deduction to do so........ thats so they can pay a lower percentage of income tax than I may.

Wow, you honestly believe these philanthropists are just doing it as a tax dodge, rather than based on an earnest desire to make a positive difference? I'm glad I'm not that cynical.

[nots]

Wow, you honestly believe these philanthropists are just doing it as a tax dodge, rather than based on an earnest desire to make a positive difference? I'm glad I'm not that cynical.

Probably a little of both, but I would certainly rather have them fund their foundations than let our Federal Government use them.

[baldgriff]

Wow, you honestly believe these philanthropists are just doing it as a tax dodge, rather than based on an earnest desire to make a positive difference? I'm glad I'm not that cynical.

I dont believe that all of the Gates' Zuckerbuergs and other "Ubers" are just philanthropists doing good things "just to make a difference". Each of them is motivated in very different personal reasons. Some do it because they want to make a difference, but others do it for the tax dodge. Others do it because it makes them look good. That Clinton Foundation really was philanthropic wasnt it? There are some good "Ubers" and not good "Ubers".

Im not cynical - Im pragmatic and honest.

[Sour Masher]

What system allowed her to go from living in poverty, having a child die while she was a teen, to becoming a co-anchor of a news show at 19 years old. She worked hard in a country that wants people to succeed. She overcame! and yes - She got lucky! (but made some of that luck by working hard). So what if she got lucky! So just because she hit the lottery ticket - she now has some moral obligation to make sure that Joe or Jane Doe(s) in Baton Rouge, or the folks with whatever disability are taken care of, or that she has a responsibility to give the government any more than you or I? Nope - she did the work and gets to reap the benefits - and if she decides to give people cars - its her money and she can do with it as she pleases......

Horatio Alger stories like hers go a long way in creating the illusion that we live in a meritocracy. We do not. Oprah is talented, and she did work hard, and I'm not begrudging her enjoying the benefits of her labor. But as you say, it is like winning the lottery--do you not agree on lottery winners paying taxes on their winnings? For every Ophrah, there are thousands that could have been her but did not make it. Those people are a part of our society. They entered into the social contract all of us are born into. Yes, I do think those that make it to the top owe something to those who did not. I also happen to think, as you do, that government is at times wasteful, and there is legitimate debate about what government should provide its people and what it should not.

But to answer your question of what systems were in place to allow a woman born in poverty to overcome many hardships to become a billionaire, the economic systems of scale, enabled by a massive population and the ubiquitous reach of television during the time of her rise to reach millions of viewers, mostly women, who, because of their disposable income, were/are valuable to advertisers. Each and every one of those viewers made Oprah what she is. Each of them contributed some of their capital to help her build hers. You can say they got fair value for their money, because she entertained them, just as you can say LeBron James or Adam Sandler provide fair value to their fans. That may be true, but none of those people could earn as much as they do if it wasn't for the economies of scale and the access media gives entertainers to massive audiences, or for a system of government that allows individuals and companies to charge what they do of consumers.

No one is an island when it comes to wealth. One cannot gain such massive allocation of resources without acquiring them from massive amounts of people. Some systems, historically, have limited the amount someone can collect from others, and some systems of government take a bigger "house cut" of the profits. None of this would be possible if it weren't for social cooperation. Oprah could not own dozens of houses and cars and jets if people were still hunter-gathering nomads. Hell, she could not have been on TV in the role she enjoyed decades previous, and she wouldn't have even been able to vote 100 years ago. Systems are always in place that allow some to acquire a lot, while others cannot do the same. And there wouldn't even be jets, or tvs, or anything like that, if we didn't cooperate as a society. Everything good we have comes from us working together. The roads we travel on in our cars, the houses we sit comfortably warm in while it snows outside, all of it would not be possible if we let, unchecked, just a few of us, to collect more and more of the limited resources we collectively have. Already, over half of our nation's wealth in in the hands of less than 1% of our nation's people. That isn't a good thing for a society.

The idea that anyone, ever, has gotten to the level of ultra-wealth without the benefits, privileges, or allowances of the systems in which the operate is false. Many say that our systems--of culture, government, and economics--are the best in the world in giving individuals of all types opportunities to acquire massive wealth. I say again, it is not unreasonable, given these facts, to demand those that rise to such heights within our society that they have more wealth than they could ever need to leave well and good, and more wealth than generations of their line could ever possibly need, to give a little more than those among us who have nothing or next to nothing. Without a healthy society, no one could ever become as wealthy as the ultra wealthy now are.

[gcstomp]

well said Sour. And what you say has practical considerations as well. There comes a breaking point, the let them eat cake point. 1 in 7 americans go to bed hungry https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/amer...om-hunger.html and even more startling, 4 in 5 americans live paycheck to paycheck https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shut...-paycheck.html you dont think its possible that there can be mass blood in our lifetimes, when the hardest working people in our nation are the paycheck to paycheck majority who also balance obligations of trying to afford their insulin or making their rent.

Back to philanthropy, Its not unfair to in general be cynical, there is so much waste and corruption.

But... Gates Foundation is unusual, spend a few minutes (or hours, you can open link after link and the scale of it will stagger you) on the site. It is inspirational, powerful, life changing and saving for literally hundreds of millions of people. Its so not a tax dodge, Gates who for decades has been among top couple richest people in universe has pledged to give 99% of wealth to foundation. Bill Gates arguably ushered in modern computer era to the masses, and his foundation is equally as world shaping in scope.

[baldgriff]

Gates Foundation is unusual............ so for most others maybe its more about tax dodge than altruistic philanthropy??

Again, I stated that there are some that are for real - Gates appears to be one.

I also said Im not cynical - Im pragmatic and honest.

[The Feral Slasher]

interesting article about a guy I've never heard of

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/brian-schatz-2020-1225755

Schatz, the senior senator from Hawaii, says he is eager to help Democrats avoid “that whole stupid, unproductive, toxic debate” of 2016, when voters were seemingly forced to choose between Bernie Sanders’ bold-but-vague proposals and Hillary Clinton’s detailed-but-modest legislative prescriptions.


To do so, he’s been consulting with many of his Democratic colleagues running for president, often serving as an informal sounding board for their big ideas. Schatz has also penned his own series of proposals — on health care, climate change and economic inequality — to provide Democrats with a ready-made agenda should they take power in 2020.

[Kevin Seitzer]

interesting article about a guy I've never heard of

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/20/brian-schatz-2020-1225755

Schatz, the senior senator from Hawaii, says he is eager to help Democrats avoid “that whole stupid, unproductive, toxic debate” of 2016, when voters were seemingly forced to choose between Bernie Sanders’ bold-but-vague proposals and Hillary Clinton’s detailed-but-modest legislative prescriptions.


To do so, he’s been consulting with many of his Democratic colleagues running for president, often serving as an informal sounding board for their big ideas. Schatz has also penned his own series of proposals — on health care, climate change and economic inequality — to provide Democrats with a ready-made agenda should they take power in 2020.

Makes you wonder why Schatz himself didn't run for president.

[The Feral Slasher]

Makes you wonder why Schatz himself didn't run for president.

Maybe young with no name recognition ? Anyway, it's just one article but I liked what i read.

[The Feral Slasher]

anybody see this. Love the DNC. What's worse, a party who denies there is a problem, or one who says there is a problem but doesn't want to deal with it ?

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-06-06/dnc-denies-2020-democrats-a-climate-change-debate

The Democratic National Committee will not host a presidential debate centered around climate change, presidential candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Wednesday.

Inslee added that the DNC told him it would ban any candidates who participate in a climate debate from future DNC debates.

"This is deeply disappointing," Inslee said in a statement. "The climate crisis merits a full discussion of our plans, not a short exchange of talking points."

In an interview with CNN, he also pushed back against the DNC's decision to ban candidates who would like to participate in a climate change debate.

[Sour Masher]

anybody see this. Love the DNC. What's worse, a party who denies there is a problem, or one who says there is a problem but doesn't want to deal with it ?

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-06-06/dnc-denies-2020-democrats-a-climate-change-debate

The Democratic National Committee will not host a presidential debate centered around climate change, presidential candidate and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said Wednesday.

Inslee added that the DNC told him it would ban any candidates who participate in a climate debate from future DNC debates.

"This is deeply disappointing," Inslee said in a statement. "The climate crisis merits a full discussion of our plans, not a short exchange of talking points."

In an interview with CNN, he also pushed back against the DNC's decision to ban candidates who would like to participate in a climate change debate.

That is nuts. What are they thinking in banning a candidate who participates in a climate debate? WTF?

[The Feral Slasher]

That is nuts. What are they thinking in banning a candidate who participates in a climate debate? WTF?

it's not at all surprising to me. But i have a pretty low opinion of the DNC. The DNCC has some pretty crappy stuff going on as well for those who are paying attention.

[Sour Masher]

it's not at all surprising to me. But i have a pretty low opinion of the DNC. The DNCC has some pretty crappy stuff going on as well for those who are paying attention.

Choosing to not have a single issue debate, even one as important as climate change, is somewhat understandable, but if it is accurate that the DNC threatened to ban candidates that wanted to get together in another forum to have that debate is beyond ludicrous. Whoever made that call in the DNC should be fired. I have absolutely no idea what they were thinking if the latter claim is true.

[The Feral Slasher]

Choosing to not have a single issue debate, even one as important as climate change, is somewhat understandable, but if it is accurate that the DNC threatened to ban candidates that wanted to get together in another forum to have that debate is beyond ludicrous. Whoever made that call in the DNC should be fired. I have absolutely no idea what they were thinking if the latter claim is true.

Well what if it is the position of the DNC ? Why fire someone who is making your organization's position clear ?