The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The other day I mentioned that people only want socialist programs when it isn't them giving something up ... and I used college kids and their grades as an example. Even though they support "socialist" programs they didn't think it good to give up part of their grades to make sure failing kids passed and got the same result.

Well now Mr. Socialist himself, Bernie Sanders, has provided his tax returns (results posted below) and while it shows he is wealthy ... he doesn't voluntarily give up much money. It's pretty pathetic actually. The sad fact to the "as long as it isn't me" theory is sooner or later it is you.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OohGsW0AA0Ozb.png:large)

In other news ... Beto O’Rourke released his and not only did he only give less than 1% (Beto and his wife gave $1,166 to charity out of their $370,412 income in 2017. That’s one-third of 1%) but he had an error and it was spotted by the WSJ. He now owes the IRS $4000. hahahaha

This is consistent with his views on charities

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/19/nyregion/notes-on-people-some-disunity-along-the-united-way.html#pq=GTBW90

Which is basically the same position made by many of us in this thread...

http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=25684.0

If you oppose the very nature of having charities doing what ought be done by the government...I don’t really have a problem with that.  OTOH, if you feel that the government ought not be in business of providing social services but that should be handled by charity and don’t support charities than I have a problem.

It is similar to my view of folks who took steps to avoid vietnam, if you supported the war but used bone spurs or daddy getting you into the guard.....i have a problem with you.  If you opposed us involvement in Vietnam and dodged going I have no problem with that.

So what you are saying is that he's ok with taking other people's money to disperse but not in giving his up to help people. That's exactly what I said. 

Not at all.  Under his tax proposals,  he would wind up paying quite a bit more in taxes.  Very similar to Warren Buffets view on taxes.

Warren Buffet has given away over 45 billion dollars the last I heard (probably more now) so no ... they have no similarities other than being rich old white men. Buffet has no problem giving to the less fortunate where as Sanders says he's waiting for government to force him.  That's kind of convenient don't you think?

Far cry from 2012 when the Romney's gave 29.4% of their 2011 income to charity and Obamas gave 22% of their 2011 income to charities.  We are now truly scraping the bottom of the barrel to select our next President.

In order for this to be true, Bernie would have to propose that he (or people like him) be exempt from the taxes he wants to increase.  I know of no such proposal.

I'm really glad that we recently had a long discussion here about the charity scam, because no, picking and choosing which causes you want to give money to is not remotely the same thing as paying more in taxes.  And I'm also glad that the recent college admissions scandal made this ultra-clear: donating millions of dollars to a university that you want to admit your child is not charity, it's an investment.  Why should people like Mitt Romney be praised for giving millions of dollars to think-tanks, who then work politicians to lower his taxes?

But ultimately, this "you can't be for the poor and middle-class if you're rich" stuff is just lazy.  FDR came from a very rich family, and he did a LOT for the poor and middle-class.

You are really stretching CF DolFan, and are incredibly wrong. His taxes would go up, and it would be in line with his actual earned income. If anything, you should feel like you're in the minority for not wanting the proposals he is preaching. Man, you could be a Fox News host. The mental gymnastics performed by that female host was astounding. I bet their bosses are fuming at them for letting Bernie's support grow because of them.

(https://s2.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/VtNx.ygEQQSTiiL5XWkO1w--/YXBwaWQ9eW15O3c9NjQwO3E9NzU7c209MTtpbD1wbGFuZQ--/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5cb631ff2400001901c896d6.png.cf.jpg)

I don't care what these people do with their money, they earned it.  My problem is with these rich elite 1% wanting to share the wealth.  That's an easy stance to have when you're loaded.  When everyone is taxed to hell, they'll still be rich.

Side note, look how much Harris made and what her Charitable donations were.  Pathetic.  Beto's is pretty sad too.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/these-most-liberal-democratic-presidential-candidates-are-also-1-percenters-194022628.html (https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/these-most-liberal-democratic-presidential-candidates-are-also-1-percenters-194022628.html)

I said it in the past thread, charities are a crutch that prevents government from doing what it's supposed to do. I have no problem with not giving to charities, but instead voting to increase taxes. good on them.

btw .. this post CF is exactly what this meme refers to:

(https://pics.me.me/apple-airpods-cost-159-but-they-cant-pay-taxes-or-8333214.png)

Hahaha ... as well it seems to be very convenient to say he "will" give once the government taxes him but he refuses to do it voluntarily. It's also convenient to say charities are all scams when everyone knows that isn't true and in fact couldn't possibly be true. If it were then those with money would start their own charities to spread the help. Oh wait that already happens too.

I honestly believe you guys are wrongly thinking "this is a great troll post" when you are posting and pretending to defend him. You have not one single valid argument and not even a hint of one in the BS you are spewing.

I'll stand by my words that the left can't meme lol.

I think you just have a new buzzword..."socialism," and want to use it as often as possible before its voodoo wears off.

I'm also pretty sure that the only "valid argument" you'd accept is one that fully supports the BS position you spewed at the start of this thread.

SMH. Both the conservatives and the moderate Dems are fighting against the extreme left and socialism. With that said I see no relevance to wanting to use the buzzword "socialism" and then not using it but once in my 4 posts on this thread. I've used the word "it" much more. Maybe I was just looking for something to complain about so I could use the word "it"? "It" does seem more likely.

There are about different types of people that are against sanders or the others on that wing of the democratic party.

1 - the social conservatives .. they don't like the social liberal policies ..
2 - the corporations - .. corporations love the status quo .. they're socially liberal usually but they are fiscally very conservative .. this is the category that most of the main stream media falls into .. they love the current system because it's working for them. This is also the category that Obama / Clinton fall into.
3 - the libertarians .. they want government to do nothing or as close to nothing as possible

I'm pretty sure CF is a mix of 1 and 3 .. CNN/msnbc are #2 .. fox is #2 and #1

I understand people like CF, and while i don't agree, i can respect him for his positions. I don't understand #2 .. especially a mix of 1 and 2 from the right, it's so against people's own self interest to be a corporatist that they are lemmings at the whim of an oligarchy or plutocracy.

I will say that the older I get the more I tend to agree with libertarians. I think it stems from the fact the more I see controlled by government the more I see things being screwed up and taken advantage of by both lazy people and politicians whose only purpose is to remain serving in government. I've seen it first hand. Many politicians really don't care one way or the other but choose a side based on how it will get them votes and then they flip flop when that changes. If things get too bad they use a scapegoat and toss innocent people aside to protect themselves.   

If it's such an easy position for rich people to take, why are so many of them spending so much money to defeat people who will raise their taxes any amount?  Why is Howard Schultz running for president?

Yes, people like Michael Dell, Charles Koch, and Sheldon Adelson will still be multi-millionaires if Warren gets into office and passes the policies she is promoting.  They don't care that they will still be ridiculously rich; they don't want to pay ANY extra taxes, and will happily spend $100M if it results in preventing a $10M increase in taxes.  It's not about the money, it's about the control.

I guess neither one of them have a kid they are trying to buy a college admission for!  Or a think-tank to fund!

If charity is such an important measurement of civic duty, why don't we remove the tax exemption for anything past $100k and see how selfless those titans of the community really are?

charity contributions shouldn't be tax deductible at all. charity is charity .. taxes are taxes .. they should have nothing to do with each other

you now what .. i'm gonna donate $1000 to habitat for humanity next month and take $1000 off of my rent check .. any guesses on how my landlord would see a rent deductible charitable contribution?

It doesn't work anywhere close to that way and in fact ... personal deductions have basically been eliminated. Even in the past if I donated 15% of my $100,000 salary then I'd only have gotten a small percentage of the $15,000 off my taxes. It isn't like I get a $15,000 tax break.

Correct.  For you, at best, you could potential save $3300 in federal taxes.  However, under the new tax law that took effect with this years' filings a majority of couples would receive zero benefit, because they no longer qualify for itemizing their tax deductions.

The standard deductions were raised so we are still paying less taxes ... just in a different way. The only thing it actually changed ... and I would think you and Spider would like ... is that giving to non-profits has little to no effect on my tax bill.

are you therefore saying the people who have given 1.8 million plus to those burned black churches in LA are giving to a crutch that should done away with?

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-world/after-notre-dame-viral-tweet-helps-raise-18-million-for-black-churches-burned-down-in-louisiana/101-c6c1f81d-556f-4fec-8949-b08bfc3e38e1?fbclid=IwAR3VoNeBGlx0OB-vuGpnpTRwdfGNZxcew4Kik-7TPADdWYL8PEgx6paqgdk

Donations thru gofundme are typically not tax deductible.  Gofundme would not be affected by a change in tax code.

Also the statistics on charity giving based on income is falsely skewed to look like the wealthy donate more than the poor.  When a billionaire donates a million dollars to have a building named after his business it is reported as a million dollars in charity, when in fact he is spending a million dollars on marketing.  On the other hand when a person gives money to a neighbor whose house burned down or whose needs money for medical bills it goes unreported/unrecorded. 

i wouldn't give any money for building any churches .. ever .. but if other people want to who am i to stop them ?  they shouldn't get to deduct this off their taxes .. and churches for sure shouldn't have tax exempt status .. they provide a service .. very much like a psychologist .. just in reverse

I avoid all this controversy by not giving a crap about people and not giving anything to charity.  Although I do round up my purchases at PetSmart to give to homeless dogs. 

hahaha ... i think most people fall into your category. You're just honest about it. I think the fact they can raise over a billion dollars in one day to rebuild a building owned by a multi billion dollar org but we have people going hungry with much less donations just proves people are generally self interested. It makes them feel good to donate to their religion regardless of if it's needed but they don't do a whole lot for those who have nothing to give back. 

That is exactly the point most of us who want to expand taxpayer social programs are making.  Allowing people to choose what to support only widens the inequality in society. 

Billionaire donates a $10 million dollars to a private art museum that charges $50 admission, (so only accessible to the well off)  Billionaire gets a $3.7 million dollar tax break (and a wing named after himself) Wealthiest get some art to look at but the USDA has $3.7 million dollars less to spend on school lunches for hungry kids living in poverty.   

But then you are forcing your will upon people who don't want it. This country was founded with the idea everyone should have equal opportunities of succeeding and not that everyone would have equal results. That's a new concept liberals are trying to force down our throats. Not that it matters but f you took 100 percent of the money from the 1 percenters it still wouldn't be enough to pay for the social programs that liberals want funded.   

Taxes is society forcing its will upon people .. i agree .. in no place does "if you don't like it move" apply more than to taxes .. this is literally what pays for roads and water treatment and firefighters and defense. Society decided what it wants the government to do and then ti falls upon all of us to pay a share of that cost.

For example mediare for all (which i support) .. it would actually cost LESS than we currently spend on healthcare, and would cover more people than are currently covered. A Koch brothers funded study actually found that by going to 100% coverage with medicare and by doing away with private insurance, it would reduce healthcare costs by 2 TRILLION over 10 years. But because this takes away the profit motive from insurance companies, it's heavily opposed by republicans.  NOBODY likes their insurance company. They exist purely to make profit and provide no benefit whatsoever to your health. NONE. I could care less if i had BCBS or AETNA or if the US Government were the payer. What matters to me is which DR i see. This is about as cut and dry of an issue as can be in my opinion. Less cost, better outcomes 100% coverage .. same doctors. The only losers here are the insurance companies and their fat cat ceos. Or the pharma bros that upped the price of insulin from a few dollars to over $500.  Should we pass this type of law, would I be ok with paying more in taxes ? ABSOLUTELY I would .. it would offset the cost of premiums and deductibles and copays i have to pay currently.  I'd win in the long run.

But our society doesn’t have equal opportunity. Ivanka Trump and  children in Flint Michigan don’t have equal opportunities.  Restoring the gift and inheritance tax would improve this.

Being the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90% they could afford all the programs.

And I have no problem with people giving money to art museums, but that should not be at the expense of essential services such as school lunches   (eg not tax deductible)

I would hardly say that a nation with institutionalized slavery, where women had no right to vote, was "founded" on the idea of equal opportunity for everyone, unless you define "everyone" to mean "the privileged few."

Then I suppose history will file it next to other concepts liberals forced down our throats, such as the abolition of slavery, voting rights for all citizens regardless of race or sex, free public education, and Medicare.

No one asked this. No one cares what you do with your $.


You’re advocating a position which would essentially ban people’s ability to give to charity. You can’t have it both ways. Either you want charities to exist or you don’t. Either way, you know your position is highly unpopular and charities will never be banned, nor will their tax exemption go away, so you’re hedging your language here. And that’s fine, albeit laughably pathetic.


No one asked whether they should or shouldn’t. You shouldn’t avoid the question/dress it with red herrings when you know your position is laughably unpopular.

Please explain how ending tax exemptions for charitable donations "bans the ability to give to charity."

In particular, I would like to hear how you view this interaction with the new GOP tax reforms enacted by Trump, wherein many millions of people no longer benefit from itemizing their taxes and simply take the standard deduction.  Are all these people "banned" from donating to charity?  That seems inconsistent with the $1.8M in donations you recently cited.

you asked a really dumb question .,. i tried as best i could to give a meaningful answer .. what i was talking about before you straw-manned my argument was that charities are a poor substitute for what government should be doing in the first place.. since i don't think government should be building churches in the first place then your question is as meaningless as "why is the sky triangle farts" if you divorce charity and taxes then i have no problem at all with charities.

SMH ... you constantly make me laugh out loud and that is no exaggeration. When you equate the abolition of slavery and voting rights for all citizens regardless of race or sex as liberal concepts it just means you will stoop to any level to try and win an argument. I might as well say I support Trump because he is for open borders. LOL

They were liberal concepts, by textbook or any other kind of definition you want. At one point the republican party was the liberal party, it is no longer.

You buy into every propaganda piece thrown at you I guess. The greatest lie of the modern era is that the Democrats have gone from racists to being saviors of minorities and although the more Democrats are in power the more minorities suffer all because they keep blaming it on others. It's quiet ingenuous I guess. I would have given the average person too much credit for being too smart to fall for that. 

Take out the liberal cities/policies and crime and murder in this country drop to being the among the lowest in the world and yet ... it's somehow the conservatives fault? It would be funny if not so sad. 

Prior to the last Presidential election, I would have as well...

Wow .. ok so very very very many things wrong with most of what you said.

Democrats haven't gone from being the party of segregation to being the open tent party because of some sort of grand orchestrated  change. They've changed because most of the old racists died off and the younger more liberal crowd has taken over since the 60s. Demographic change matters and that's affected the democratic party over the past 60 years.

And for your liberal policies / cities example you have just given everyone a perfect example of correlation without causation. I could just as easily make the statement that once a city reaches 300k people crime rates get higher. So if we did the same and excluded all cities or metro areas with more than 300k people in them our murder rates would be the lowest in the world.  Guess where that assumption fails you... if we compare cities of similar size between different countries with similar levels of industrialization .. lets say new york vs. tokyo, berlin, madrid, paris, london then you start to see that murder rates fall way down in much more liberal countries.  And even in london when they started doing dumb ass conservative stuff like austerity and cutting back on social programs you started having a huge rise in knife violence. So maybe guns are the general problem with gun violence and not "liberal policies"

so maybe it's you who buys into every propaganda piece you hear on fox news in a "us vs. them" mindset instead of actually looking at the situation objectively

That's highly doubtful as 1) I'm a former Democrat who evolved and jumped ship. I very much remember the KKK influence of the Democrats and many of those families ares still there on welfare and 2) I don't typically watch FOX news. In fact I read CNN everyday and MSN as I like to get some opposing thoughts. Although I do from time to time I rarely go to FOX.

I didn't say Democrats.  I said liberals.  Remember, the Republicans used to be the progressive party (just ask Teddy Roosevelt).  Party labels may have changed, but the ideological split is the same as ever.

Conservatives fought a war of treason in defense of slavery.  Conservatives opposed giving women the vote.  Conservatives terrorized blacks and enforced Jim Crow.  That's what conservatism is: a defense of the status quo, or a call for return to the prior status quo.  

Why do you think Trump's slogan is "Make America Great Again"?  Conservatism is, at its heart, a struggle to return to the past when there was a clear demarcation of those in power (white men, usually with money) and those not so.

But maybe I'm wrong.  CF, when do you personally believe America was great?  Was it Eisenhower's 1950s, when America was segregated and women couldn't have a real job?  Or perhaps it was Reagan's 1980s, with the war on drugs in full force, crime out of control, and homosexuals being thrown in jail?

[deleted, unproductive]