Has Hillary Found Bernie Sanders Kryptonite Charitable Donations?

PEB

PEB

Sunflower in support of Ukraine
Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
32,653
Reaction score
23,719
http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/berni...on-democratic-debate-refund-salary-donations/


Hillary is so convinced that she is going to blow open a can of worms on Bernie she has demanded that he release his tax returns. Apparently she believes that he donates next to nothing to charities while he preaches about giving more to help the poor. She wants to take this one hard on Bernie and she figures he will soon feel the bern. Bernie has stated he plans on releasing his tax returns for 2014 early this Friday. Why is he holding off on other years no one really knows.
 
I believe this issue bit him in the ass many years ago in Vermont - he released taxes or somehow his lack of charity giving was uncovered and he explained that he doesn't believe in it - like the government should take care of it's citizenry and not expect individuals to do so because that rewards/incentivizes people not to give.

It will be a hard stance to explain. Also worth wondering if he has ever donated to political candidates.

But I think there is a bigger issue - he's worth more than he's let on. He claimed to be worth around $300K. But he'd made 174K a year as a senator for the last 10 years. And before that he was a house rep for many years. I think he hides a lot of money in his wife's name. His wife as President of Burlington College from 2004 to 2013 made 160K a year herself, and when she left got a 200K severance package. So combined they made over $3M in last decade (give or take). I think Bernie has all the assets in her name, so he can claim to be much less wealthy than he is.
 
Amazing how acquiring and saving a small amount of wealth is looked at as a bad thing by some of these voters.
 
ShoelessRye said:
I believe this issue bit him in the ass many years ago in Vermont - he released taxes or somehow his lack of charity giving was uncovered and he explained that he doesn't believe in it - like the government should take care of it's citizenry and not expect individuals to do so because that rewards/incentivizes people not to give.

It will be a hard stance to explain. Also worth wondering if he has ever donated to political candidates.

But I think there is a bigger issue - he's worth more than he's let on. He claimed to be worth around $300K. But he'd made 174K a year as a senator for the last 10 years. And before that he was a house rep for many years. I think he hides a lot of money in his wife's name. His wife as President of Burlington College from 2004 to 2013 made 160K a year herself, and when she left got a 200K severance package. So combined they made over $3M in last decade (give or take). I think Bernie has all the assets in her name, so he can claim to be much less wealthy than he is.
Click to expand...
This is the nuclear bomb waiting for Bernie I don't know how he handles it and I am no Hillary supporter. It is just a problem that could be huge when people analyze the facts. No doubt if it turns out he donated thousands to pro life or to gun supporters that too could be problematic or if he did not donate anything it could really destroy his chances.
 
He "doesn't personally donate enough to charity" while Hillary takes millions from fossil fuel companies who spent millions trying to obfuscate on climate change seems like a horseshit argument.
 
EgonSpengler said:
He "doesn't personally donate enough to charity" while Hillary takes millions from fossil fuel companies who spent millions trying to obfuscate on climate change seems like a horseshit argument.
Click to expand...
I completely agree and the Clinton's are able to give more to charity because they make way more money. The issue is that they have not been able to stick anything on Bernie yet and this is something they think they can make hay with that is my line of thinking.
 
Bernie should do the honorable thing, sell some weapons to saudis, and donate a % of his purse to charity.
 
PEB said:
I completely agree and the Clinton's are able to give more to charity because they make way more money. The issue is that they have not been able to stick anything on Bernie yet and this is something they think they can make hay with that is my line of thinking.
Click to expand...

They haven't needed to stick it to him. Guys like Krugman are more than happy to attack him for nothing.

But I see your point
 
Clinton's make way more - but it would all be relative. If Sanders' really give ZERO while making a combined $300K annually the last decade - that would be problematic given his progressive stances. If Sanders and Clinton's both gave same 15% it wouldn't be an issue at all.
 
Wow, to me this seems like the weakest attack ever. "Look at the millions I give to charity! And look how little he gives!" said the one swimming in money.
 
ShoelessRye said:
Clinton's make way more - but it would all be relative. If Sanders' really give ZERO while making a combined $300K annually the last decade - that would be problematic given his progressive stances. If Sanders and Clinton's both gave same 15% it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

No, it is not problematic from where I stand. Here is why.

Giving money to charity is a right-wing way of doing things. These charities then try to deliver quasi-state duties.

Left-wingers would believe that instead of giving to charities, the rich should be taxed so that the state is not dependent on voluntary donations to ensure a decent coverage.
 
JDragon said:
No, it is not problematic from where I stand. Here is why.

Giving money to charity is a right-wing way of doing things. These charities then try to deliver quasi-state duties.

Left-wingers would believe that instead of giving to charities, the rich should be taxed so that the state is not dependent on voluntary donations to ensure a decent coverage.
Click to expand...

Even so, it's something they can get a news cycle or two out of, something to scratch Sanders squeaky clean image. And if he does make 300k a year he has some discretionary income so people will naturally have to ask what he does with his money. I mean compared to Clinton who never met a finanical donor she didn't like, and compared to the devestation she helped cause by voting for the Iraq war, it's really a tiny issue.

Clinton I'm sure would relish the chance to go on the offensive for a
change, without having to resort to
the nonsensical ramblings and mental gymnastics of the guy like Krugman.
 
So he doesn't donate to charities whose primary function is to transfer donated funds into their own pockets under the guise of being charitable, compassionate organizations. Not rustled.
 
EgonSpengler said:
Clinton I'm sure would relish the chance to go on the offensive for a
change, without having to resort to
the nonsensical ramblings and mental gymnastics of the guy like Krugman.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about with the Krugman stuff?
 
I fucking hate that I can't edit my posts at all because this site is so God damn mobile unfriendly.

I made some errors in my post and I recognize them but can't fucking change them becaus it won't let me scroll down. Arghhhhhhhh


On topic:

Billary Clinton mostly donates to the Clinton foundation, correct?
 
Don't really blame him for not wanting to donate money. How many of those donation places do the CEOS end up making like a million a year. At least you know the government employees will be paid like shit even the guy at the top wont be paid a million a year.
 
He is in character by not donating:

1. He wants the state to do that stuff

2. His economic policies are based on "other people's money", which is not his money so he can't have his money decisions used against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,474
Messages
56,649,260
Members
175,333
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top