Politics Bernie Sanders rejects CEO Martin Shkreli’s campaign donation

[VanillaGorilla]

The man who has become the public face of rising drug prices says he has donated to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who has been bashing Big Pharma on the campaign trail — to try to get a meeting so the two can talk it out.

Sanders isn’t interested. His campaign said Thursday that he’s giving the money to a Washington health clinic instead — and the drug executive isn’t getting the meeting.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/pol...gn-donation/FcSKxu1VIr7pubg9cI3CQN/story.html

 

[MickZagger]

I bet Trump would take all the mexican campaign money that he can get his grubby little paws on.

 

[blue32]

I bet Trump would take all the mexican campaign money that he can get his grubby little paws on.

Heh... It's okay. I was a Dem in my twenties/late twenties too. You'll outgrow it eventually. Once you realize the hard earned money you make is eventually going to some bum who doesn't deserve it.

 

[donkiez]

Heh... It's okay. I was a Dem in my twenties/late twenties too. You'll outgrow it eventually. Once you realize the hard earned money you make is eventually going to some bum who doesn't deserve it.

 

[Denny Crane]

donkiez,

Please be specific. What tax changes do you think are required to make these companies pay their "fair share" of taxes?

 

[MickZagger]

Heh... It's okay. I was a Dem in my twenties/late twenties too. You'll outgrow it eventually. Once you realize the hard earned money you make is eventually going to some bum who doesn't deserve it.

Haha, no.

My ideology lines up hand in hand with everything the Democratic party stands for. 3rd generation union laborer, grandparents are Kennedy Democrats, I'm strong on gun laws, pro abortion, I believe in paying my fair share of taxes as long as the rich are paying their fair share. About the only thing that I have in common with Republicans is that I chew tobacco, but I cancel that out by hating country music. I don't pretend to be religious. I've thought Donald Trump was a huge douchebag way before he ran for President. I think he's an even bigger douchebag now.

Every candidate that the Republican party has is incompetent. The only one worth listening to was Rand Paul.

 

[donkiez]

Denny, My response was in response to blue saying he is tired or bums, who dont deserve it, taking his hard earned money. My point is that some of those "bums" are CBS, jet blue, xerox, etc and while we are at it we can add the NFL and church to that list. Someone has to pay and it looks like average joe drew the short straw on this one. So blaming "bums" is not accurate.

I dont really feel like having an endless, tangent driven debate on specific tax code.

 

[MickZagger]

donkiez,

Please be specific. What tax changes do you think are required to make these companies pay their "fair share" of taxes?

Oh is this when we pretend we understand the nuances of corporate taxes?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, My response was in response to blue saying he is tired or bums, who dont deserve it, taking his hard earned money. My point is that some of those "bums" are CBS, jet blue, xerox, etc and while we are at it we can add the NFL and church to that list. Someone has to pay and it looks like average joe drew the short straw on this one. So blaming "bums" is not accurate.

I dont really feel like having an endless, tangent driven debate on specific tax code.

I think the whole thing about corporate taxes (or lack thereof) is a smokescreen. Utter bullshit. Meant to appeal to people not sophisticated to understand how accounting and taxes really work.

I am quite sure that GE, for example, writes checks at least quarterly to the government for $billions each.

That's why I ask for specifics.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh is this when we pretend we understand the nuances of corporate taxes?

You're aligned with the guys complaining about it. What are they going to do besides whine about it (and do nothing)?

 

[blue32]

Haha, no.

<Snip> I'm strong on gun laws, pro abortion<snip>.

Sorry, but this is the biggest hypocritical statement ever. Gun Laws to try to stop killing, Pro Abortion to continue absolute killing.

Let me ask you this. How many babies are aborted, vs gun deaths in America daily/yearly? *Hint, it's not even close.

 

[donkiez]

I think the whole thing about corporate taxes (or lack thereof) is a smokescreen. Utter bullshit. Meant to appeal to people not sophisticated to understand how accounting and taxes really work.

I am quite sure that GE, for example, writes checks at least quarterly to the government for $billions each.

That's why I ask for specifics.

well geeze, why didn't you just say that then? Look we just saved two pages of discussion, because I agree with you to an extent. Smoke screens and propaganda are part of the game and used by both sides. Just like I think that blaming welfare queens and lazy bums is an opposite smoke screen. I think in this case stats are probably embellished or massaged to make their point look better, but often where there is smoke there is fire. So getting past the exact numbers, and finding the truth in the middle, still has corporations vastly underpaying and abusing the system. I also think that keeping the tax system incredibly complicated is a method to abuse the system, there are plenty of "sophisticated" people don't understand a thing about them.

 

[blue32]

well geeze, why didn't you just say that then? Look we just saved two pages of discussion, because I agree with you to an extent. Smoke screens and propaganda are part of the game and used by both sides. Just like I think that blaming welfare queens and lazy bums is an opposite smoke screen. I think in this case stats are probably embellished or massaged to make their point look better, but often where there is smoke there is fire. So getting past the exact numbers, and finding the truth in the middle, still has corporations vastly underpaying and abusing the system. I also think that keeping the tax system incredibly complicated is a method to abuse the system, there are plenty of "sophisticated" people don't understand a thing about them.

Meh, for an example, just google the amount of people receiving food stamps after Obama took office in comparison to before.

 

[donkiez]

Meh, for an example, just google the amount of people receiving food stamps after Obama took office in comparison to before.

By my math it is roughly 2.2% of the total budget. A problem not to be ignored but it does not deserve all the attention by a long shot.

 

[blue32]

By my math it is roughly 2.2% of the total budget. A problem not to be ignored but it does not deserve all the attention by a long shot.

I guess the problem I see is that there are an ever increasing amount of people receiving benefits when they should be working. It was pretty steady (even declining at some points) pre-Obama. Now the amount has increased largely, if the graphs I see online are to be trusted. But I can agree with you being a small amount of the overall budget.

 

[Denny Crane]

well geeze, why didn't you just say that then? Look we just saved two pages of discussion, because I agree with you to an extent. Smoke screens and propaganda are part of the game and used by both sides. Just like I think that blaming welfare queens and lazy bums is an opposite smoke screen. I think in this case stats are probably embellished or massaged to make their point look better, but often where there is smoke there is fire. So getting past the exact numbers, and finding the truth in the middle, still has corporations vastly underpaying and abusing the system. I also think that keeping the tax system incredibly complicated is a method to abuse the system, there are plenty of "sophisticated" people don't understand a thing about them.

You can talk about the weather, but you can't do a thing about it.

Eh?

All I asked is for specific changes to prevent corporations from vastly underpaying and abusing the system. I don't think they are, but I'm willing to look at some reasoned proposed changes to the tax code or whatever.

When I say sophisticated, I do mean people who have a clue about how accounting and taxes work. For example, if a company sells a widget for $2 and the parts to make the widget cost $1, the sales is $2, but the profit is at most $1. Even if the profit is $1, the company may be spending $.99 of that on down payments on new equipment to more efficiently make those widgets. The profit is still $1 on the statements shown the shareholders, but the cash flow is $.01 and the tax laws might allow the company to depreciate that new equipment over 5 years.

Depreciate the equipment over 5 years. That means if they buy equipment every year for 5 years, they can have ~$0 in taxable income. 5x 20% depreciation is 100% of one year's equipment purchase.

See?

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I guess the problem I see is that there are an ever increasing amount of people receiving benefits when they should be working. It was pretty steady (even declining at some points) pre-Obama. Now the amount has increased largely, if the graphs I see online are to be trusted. But I can agree with you being a small amount of the overall budget.

Yes, a lot of currently unemployed people should and could be working. Jobs are out there. Unfortunately, too many of those jobs are part time or pay peanuts. For many of these people, they can "earn" a better living by gaming the system than they can by actually working. At the end of the day, who or what is really at fault....?

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, a lot of currently unemployed people should and could be working. Jobs are out there. Unfortunately, too many of those jobs are part time or pay peanuts. For many of these people, they can "earn" a better living by gaming the system than they can by actually working. At the end of the day, who or what is really at fault....?

It's not necessarily even gaming the system.

If the system pays 80% of what you'd make at a job where you have to actually work (maybe work hard), the 80% is a lazy way to make a living. Of course you have to be satisfied with that 80%. Ideally, people are motivated to improve their brand and move up the income ladder over time by, you know, working hard.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

It's not necessarily even gaming the system.

If the system pays 80% of what you'd make at a job where you have to actually work (maybe work hard), the 80% is a lazy way to make a living. Of course you have to be satisfied with that 80%. Ideally, people are motivated to improve their brand and move up the income ladder over time by, you know, working hard.

I agree completely. But I am continually amazed...and disconcerted....by how many people are satisfied with that 80%. For whatever reason, they don't want to work hard, if at all. I just know that I started my adult working life behind the eight ball because of poor choices I had made up to that point. I knew how to work...and work hard...I just didn't particularly want to. When I finally got my head out of my ass, I knew I had to start somewhere, even if it was at the lowest of bottoms. There was nowhere to go but up. I'm seeing too many folks who aren't motivated to start at the bottom, so they don't start at all. When you can get 80% of something for doing nothing, why make the effort for the other 20%? Lack of pride?