Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Necronic
Staff member
Oh come on, that tired old thing? Plenty of people in non-profits deserve 6 figures.
Carnegie, in his old age, and possibly on review of a lifetime of shitting on people, decided to donate his vast wealth to charity. But he did not just give it away. No, he was a man of means, but also talent. So he not only donated his wealth, but he oversaw its expenditure. Because 1 million dollars in his hand was worth 10 million in the hands of someone lesser. Because he took direct control over so much of the expenses he was able to stretch it farther than it ever could have gone otherwise.
Labor in a non-profit works just the same. I could hire some shlub for 50k, and get 50k worth of work. Or I could hire a badass for 100k, and get 300k worth of work. Its also worth noting that there is a limit to how much of a pay cut anyone is willing to take. Very few people are willing to sacrifice their full earnings to put forward a cause, you need to give them something at least. So you aren't going to get that badass that can make the money go farther for a measly 50k, you have to give him something to pull him away from the competitive 250k he could be earning at the bank.
Don't get me wrong, these things need to be reviewed and monitored closely, and there are some salaries that get way out of hand (the head of the Portland United Way...or Goodwill, one of those). But if hiring a manager of a multi-million dollar organization you would be making a mistake to be offering anything less than 100k.
Carnegie, in his old age, and possibly on review of a lifetime of shitting on people, decided to donate his vast wealth to charity. But he did not just give it away. No, he was a man of means, but also talent. So he not only donated his wealth, but he oversaw its expenditure. Because 1 million dollars in his hand was worth 10 million in the hands of someone lesser. Because he took direct control over so much of the expenses he was able to stretch it farther than it ever could have gone otherwise.
Labor in a non-profit works just the same. I could hire some shlub for 50k, and get 50k worth of work. Or I could hire a badass for 100k, and get 300k worth of work. Its also worth noting that there is a limit to how much of a pay cut anyone is willing to take. Very few people are willing to sacrifice their full earnings to put forward a cause, you need to give them something at least. So you aren't going to get that badass that can make the money go farther for a measly 50k, you have to give him something to pull him away from the competitive 250k he could be earning at the bank.
Don't get me wrong, these things need to be reviewed and monitored closely, and there are some salaries that get way out of hand (the head of the Portland United Way...or Goodwill, one of those). But if hiring a manager of a multi-million dollar organization you would be making a mistake to be offering anything less than 100k.
GasBandit
Staff member
Would you be using Carnegie as an example if he didn't decide to donate to charity at the end? That wasn't a given when he was making that money, and who's to say the next Carnegie won't just buy up bullion and bury it in the backyard to dodge around inheritance taxes?
I'm not saying companies that compensate over 100k shouldn't be allowed, I'm just saying they shouldn't be given special status reserved for altruism.
Necronic
Staff member
My only point with the Carnegie thing is that labor, skill, has value that can often be a serious multiplier on cash. When you are getting that exec for 100k for a non-profit it may be worth it for his talents and their ability to provide a multiplier, and if it is, what's really going on is that he's donating his skill at a discount, because he could turn around and pull 300k in a heartbeat.
GasBandit
Staff member
If it's that big a multiplier, maybe he's worth paying taxes for. Said the Libertarian, feeling filthy.
Necronic
Staff member
haha. Self-burn.
I do hear you on the non-profit thing though. There are times when I think the whole nomenclature/tax-concept should be demolished. But then I think about how in a right wing paradise social services would be handled entirely by charitable giving. Shouldn't that be removed from the tax rolls?
I do hear you on the non-profit thing though. There are times when I think the whole nomenclature/tax-concept should be demolished. But then I think about how in a right wing paradise social services would be handled entirely by charitable giving. Shouldn't that be removed from the tax rolls?
GasBandit
Staff member
That'd be great, so long as being charitable doesn't get you a Rolls Royce and a mansion in the hills.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm saying special protected status reserved for those labeled "not for profit" should not be applied to those who are clearly making a profit.
I'm for lowering taxes in most states, but this falls under the heading of "government picking winners and losers."
In other words, I'm saying there's already such a thing as a "for profit" charity, and we need to call it such.
I think that Gas is basically saying that, as an organization's focus shifts to be less about benefiting the public interest and more towards benefiting itself, then it should start losing the benefits of being a non-profit. These benefits exist because it's harder to keep a non-profit afloat (because "non-profit"), and allowing an organization to keep these protections when they are clearly making a profit is unfair to those commercial entities that have to pay all of their expenses out of their profits rather than just a portion, and amounts to governmental sponsorship/"favoritism" of some businesses over others.
It's the classification of an organization as "non-profit" or "for-profit" that is the sticking point.
--Patrick
It's the classification of an organization as "non-profit" or "for-profit" that is the sticking point.
--Patrick
It's only a matter of time before the big 5 (and possibly one or two other) conferences strike out on their own and tell the NCAA to get bent.
That's the thing though... Chelsey's stayed out of trouble, Bill's take accountability for his problems, and aside from Benghazi (which was a non-issue), what is there to talk about with Hillary? Her high profile relationships with international leaders? That helps her.
Frankly, Hillary is teflon at this point.
GasBandit
Staff member
Just because her problems have been brought up before doesn't mean there still not there. As you said, Benghazi is one, there's still the unresolved fraud from Whitewater, the missing Rose Law Firm records magically appearing in her office years after they were subpoenaed, the suspicious death of Vince Foster, the White House travel office firings, her donors that went to prison, the mismanagement of the Clinton foundation, Sandy Berger, questions about her health and possible brain damage, the rise to power under her watch of a formerly crushed islamist movement, the culture of corruption and cronyism she's been surrounded with since entering politics, her constant saber-rattling including her unjoking assertion (that somehow got overlooked, unlike McCain's bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-iran joke) that she would nuke Iran on Good Morning America... she's not teflon, she's wearing a teflon vest provided by a willing and compliant media who is on board with it being "her turn" - much like she got a New York Senate seat for not divorcing Bill in the 90s, she got Secretary of State and an option on a 2016 presidential bid for supporting Obama.
Also, throw in the fact that, really, Hillary is the GOP's most effective fundraiser. In 2008 they just had to utter her name like chanting the House Stark motto (Hillary is coming...) and every cash register in the nation popped open for them, complete with little bell noise.[DOUBLEPOST=1410272413,1410272371][/DOUBLEPOST]
Imagine if the press was as enthusiastic about digging up dirt on Democrats as they are on Republicans.
GasBandit
Staff member
A great many of us think it should have been career-ending for all involved.
Necronic
Staff member
I can't say I agree with that, and I do think the right over-reached with it (what do you expect with a scumbag like Issa attached), but it still stands that it was a serious issue that I think will galvanize republican voters against her, and may steal some moderates out of hand.
I kind of feel bad for her. She really is an incredible person, and would have made a great first woman President, but she's been too close to too many other democrats when very large mistakes have been made, and those incidents have really tarnished her.
I kind of feel bad for her. She really is an incredible person, and would have made a great first woman President, but she's been too close to too many other democrats when very large mistakes have been made, and those incidents have really tarnished her.
GasBandit
Staff member
The fact that she is not in prison is one of the great failings of our nation.
As a Floridian, I have plenty of reasons to dislike Jeb Bush. But most of this list is dumb. Oh no, his 16 year old son had sex with a 17 year old girl. SCANDAL!
You could say that about a lot of people.
And that's not even getting into all the people who are in jail...but shouldn't be.
--Patrick
Necronic
Staff member
She's in no way responsible for the moral failings of her husband, I guess that was what I was really referring to. But yeah, she is partially to blame for Benghazi. Plenty of blame to go around on that cock-up.
Going to prison though? Come on.
GasBandit
Staff member
Several times over. She should have gone to prison for a number of things, like some of the things I listed above.
Honestly, and I say this as a Democrat who is never going to vote for Jeb Bush given the likely political options, I have a hard time seeing more than half that list as something to be concerned about. It's like they go up to 10-12 and decided they just had to make it a big Buzzfeed-like list.
Necronic
Staff member
I feel like that list is reaching a bit. The Benghazi thing isn't, most people have issues with that. Vince Foster though? That's a bit much. I have a very hard time believing that the Clinton's had him killed. I mean Ken Star rules it a suicide, and that man never met a crime he didn't want to blame on Clinton. It falls into the same "nonsense" basket as the Bush/Bin Laden families workin together to orchestrate 9/11 since they have defense contractor ties.
Whitewater is a bit more serious, but it's no different to me than Cheney's Haliburton connections and the no-bid contracts. Actually the latter is far worse since it's a matter of fact and Whitewater is unconfirmed allegations. Definitely nowhere near as bad as Issa's real estate deals. How that man is not in jail I have no idea.
I do agree that the media has whitewashed her a bit though.
Whitewater is a bit more serious, but it's no different to me than Cheney's Haliburton connections and the no-bid contracts. Actually the latter is far worse since it's a matter of fact and Whitewater is unconfirmed allegations. Definitely nowhere near as bad as Issa's real estate deals. How that man is not in jail I have no idea.
I do agree that the media has whitewashed her a bit though.
Yeah, I really don't see how you could throw Hillary in and not throw Cheney in for his shit, or Reagan for Iran-Contra. Or honestly the entire Bush and Kennedy families.
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah Cheney's presidential chances would be more of a laugh than Ron Paul's.
That leads me to an interesting question though. Who do you think is a reasonable (within the party) candidate for the next election?
For republicans I'm seeing:
Rand Paul
Paul Ryan
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz (no chance)
John Huntsman (possible dark horse?)
For dems
Hillary Clinton
....? I dunno.
That leads me to an interesting question though. Who do you think is a reasonable (within the party) candidate for the next election?
For republicans I'm seeing:
Rand Paul
Paul Ryan
Marco Rubio
Ted Cruz (no chance)
John Huntsman (possible dark horse?)
For dems
Hillary Clinton
....? I dunno.
I would have said Elizabeth Warren for the dems, but she's explicitly said she's not running.
I really think a lot of the frontrunners on the Republican side are just going to it this one out and run during a year they aren't going to fight such a powerful opponent... unless we get another dark horse like Obama on the Dem side, in which case all bets are off and anyone could take it.