WeAreStarStuff
Member
People keep asking where he got the money from. The article details how much he made while he was in office....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Obama Donated Over $1 Million To Charity As President. Here's Where The Money Went
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
Yeah and? It's not a just society and never has been so good on him for donating when he didn't have to.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
The wealthy don't donate to charity to do good. They do it to get around taxes. A great example was the recent Zuckerberg/Facebook charity scheme.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/...-mark-zuckerbergs-altruism-helps-himself.html
I really hate it when people benefit from doing good.
So he did a good thing and got a tax break. The horror! The injustice! (Obama that is)
I don't much care for Zuckerberg either but comparing his donation to what Obama did is pretty laughable. They aren't even close to the same scale or situation.
Actually this isn't a great example. What Zuck did is unusual and weird, which is a big part of why it was broadly criticized. The standard method of giving for billionaires is to create a private foundation--which irrevocably removes whatever they're donating from their net worth--and then have the foundation donate further or act directly for their favored cause. It's illegal to profit off a private foundation, which is presumably why Zuck didn't use one.
As far as "just doing it to get around taxes," eh, maybe, but the tax writeoff isn't going to be more than the value of what you're donating. If I give $1000 to the ACLU then I get a writeoff, but I'd have more bottom-line money if I didn't make the donation in the first place.
(Side note: you link the NYT but the text you quote does not appear in that article, I think you may have meant to use a different link.)
The Albatross
Member
This is a pretty ridiculous blanket statement, along with "In a just society there would be no charities." Perhaps in a fantastical utopia there would be no charities.
Beyond even the absurdity of the blanket statement about "the wealthy" and their motivations, some of our greatest public foundations that contribute to the public good were founded or bolstered on posthumous charitable donations, which it's a hard case to make that somebody making a posthumous donation when they're dead is doing so solely for the tax break.
In a just society, petty comments like this wouldn't exist either.
In a just society charities would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, we live in reality where charities do exist and are benefitted by wealthy contributors.
You love to make an negative argument out of literally EVERYTHING nowadays. For what reason, I have no idea.
Patrick Bateman
Member
Obama like
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
You guys don't get the bigger picture: charity being tax-deductible actively hurts you since no taxes are collected on the 'philanthropists' meaning your share of the load becomes bigger and theirs becomes smaller, while being able to proclaim being 'decent' which generally speaking is far from reality. Example: GOP philanthropists.
Additionally, charity pales in comparison to the only entity worth a damn: the state. Charity is a sham when people don't vote for a better world through the only thing that can make that happen. A Lucas or Buffet donating billions is a trinket compared to the yearly amount the state wields to make stuff happen. Those 'donations' literally mean nothing compared the state level.
It also doesn't mean much when the 'charities' are stuff like anti-abortion, men's rights, anti-science organizations (and yes, those are real) and other obvious evil goals counts as 'charitable'.
Of course, this has little to do with the topic here, but personally I think charity should be a personal moral choice, and grant no tax deductions at all. It's one of those Christian-thought relics that sound good, but don't actually do what was intended.
1) You don't know why Obama donates to charity. He could actually give a shit about people, especially the kids and veterans. The tax breaks could just allow them to donate more than they would be able to otherwise.
2) I will give it to you that it certainly can work that way. Look at Trump. He never donates, well yeah because he doesn't get any tax breaks for doing it since he's not paying taxes. But we know he doesn't give shit about anybody.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Thanks for the laugh..😂
The Albatross
Member
I'd wager in the just society that Jeevesmeister desires, you'd be sent off to the re-education camp for such anti-social thoughts as that one.
So you're just trying to be contrarian because you aren't a fan of donations? You're right, what you said has little to do with the conversation at hand.
Edit: I'll add Obama is nowhere in the same league in terms of wealth as guys like Buffet and Zuckerberg, not anywhere close so his donation is pretty impressive all things considered. Also getting a tax right off on such a sum or even larger ones isn't a big issue to me when most multi millionaires and billionaires are funneling money out the country to begin with and hardly paying what they owe in the first place.
He'll likely get the largest advance for a book in publishing history for his next memoir, too. Good for him.
He was president of the united states. A little hard to argue that Obama wasn't deeply invested in the state.
He was president of the united states. A little hard to argue that Obama wasn't deeply invested in the state.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Basically this. It takes away money from the state to provide for public institutions such as education and other civil services, and because what qualifies as a "charity" is so wishy-washy (ridiculous salaries for administrators, lavish benefits, etc) while they hardly make a dent in actually solving many problems they're tasked with, perpetuates a rather toxic sham.
I disagree with the last part, a thread worshipping a former President who waged an illegal drone war on the Middle East killing untold innocent people, including an American citizen executed without trial via Hellfire missile, for doing what all wealthy people do is always in need a of a reality check.
His bailout for massive corporations while 50% of the wealth of Black America got wiped off the board during the 2008 housing crisis without any bailout contributes to the extreme wealth disparity that Buffett, Zuck, and the Virgin tool he's currently windsailing with enjoy. If this country is going to get back on it's feet, all forms of wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy are going to have to be clamped down on, and hard.
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
This was in response to that Zuckerberg article claim above, NOT Obama. Of course he's invested into using the state for good. But that doesn't mean that therefore charities are on the same level of effectiveness or why wealthy people donate, or claim to donate (Trump) to them. These things are not as easy as X leads to Y.
Okay, no. Whatever coolaid it is you're on, it's just alt-reality talk. Guantanamo is still there, where people have been locked up with "no way to trail" and you're going to boo-hoo about someone getting tagged as terrorist and receiving the same fate as everyone else tagged as such? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any idea how whiny and petty that sounds to every other person on the fucking planet? Come on, man.
It's a pretty straight-forward figure.
Yes lets bring up his drone program because that has to do with his donations?
A lot of money from the super wealthy isn't going back into the country anyways. They aren't taxed what they deservedly should be and many times funnel their money out of the country in the first place so its not like they're getting taxed on it in the first place, let alone donating it. I'll take what I can get from the rich till something greater is done to solve these many issues and its not at all like the hard rich putting money back into the country is a bad thing even in non ideal situation.
Titled "Miss me?"
Jeevesmeister
Banned
*record-scratch*
Now this is a story all about how
the Catholic Church got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how Martin Luther became the Professor of a class called Biblical Studies
In the Vatican born and raised
On the nave was where the monk spent most of his days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all hearing some confessions inside of the pew
When a couple of lords who were up to no good
Started making trouble in the neighborhood
He got in one little fight and the Archbishop got scared
He said, "You're collectin'' indulgences from the oligarchs who unjustly rule over a feudal society as forgiveness for their sins so they can be perceived by the serfdom as good and just in a brutal and unforgiving world they benefit from," which is what's going on in this thread. From the drone strikes to the failed policies of incrementalism in a crumbling society that lead to a reality gameshow rapist becoming his successor, Obama was a terrible President. Donating to charity doesn't undo the awful he's done, and because he gets a tax writeoff, he is redirecting tax from the state to organizations that have zero incentive to actually accomplish their mission (poverty, disease, etc.) while many use this money to give their top staffers large paychecks and lavish benefits.
Remembrance of Time: Solidifying Chaos
I can only wish for a book advance at a 1/4 of what he got.
quickwhips
Member
He still gave a bunch even if he didn't directly. But serious can we just praise Obama without having to bring the orange turd into each topic?
ClosingADoor
Member
But these people still pay taxes, so what is the problem?
Person earns 10 million. Pays taxes over 10 million.
Person gives 1 million to charity. Person now pays taxes over 9 million.
It isn't like the 1 million gift will be reduced from the amount taxed, it will be reduced form your taxable income, which you only pay a portion of tax on. You are still giving money away and are left with less, while that money goes to a good cause.
Uh huh. Well glad to know you really don't like Obama. Moving on to the topic at hand.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Jeeves pretending to give a fuck about black America is some wild shit
Jeevesmeister
Banned
This is the topic at hand. A rich and powerful person's charity donations and what they mean beyond surface level "oh isn't he so great" analysis.
A demographic in America has half of their wealth wiped off the board and the Democratic majority did nothing while writing a fat check to the people who created this crisis. Of course I give a fuck. Did you know the majority of socialists around the world are actually people of color? It's about redistributing wealth and power away from a mostly white and male elite and distributing it more evenly to create a more balanced and just society. Obama's repeated failures due to his senseless faith in liberal incrementalism contributed to the opposite of this happening.
Uh huh. So you really really don't like Obama. Once again, moving to the topic at hand.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
So I'm clear on what you're saying, the argument you're making here is that charitable giving is wrong because it deprives the state of money (because charitable giving is tax-deductible) and gives it to organizations that don't use that money for good as effectively as does the state, which instead of spending on something as awful as "ridiculous salaries for administrators" instead funds "an illegal drone war on the Middle East killing untold innocent people"?
You do you, but I feel like this is not very persuasive absent an attempt to argue that the particular charities someone is giving to are doing worse than the state.
Jeevesmeister
Banned
"Obama Donated Over $1 Million To Charity As President."
This is the topic. This is what I am talking about and breaking down in critical analysis. I am sorry you cannot handle someone being critical of a rich and powerful person.
The argument I'm making is that the wealthy's method of charitable giving is wrong because it allows them to not pay their fair share in taxes to a system they disproportionately benefit from, shifting the burden onto those without that wealth and benefit - some even hurt by this very state - and gives it to organizations who are not held to a critical standard due to the ease of how one can acquire and maintain "charity" status. It is an inherently corrupt system that rewards the wealthy and powerful. It is also a PR move to manage public opinion, allowing people to ignore moral failings such as said illegal drone war on the Middle East as detailed here: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
The core of the problem here is the fact that simply giving to charity is not an inherently good or just action, as common liberal platitudes would simply assume.
Uh huh. Anyways this is the last time I'll be responding to you. Have fun. Back to the topic at hand.
Some hardcore cynicism in this thread. Generosity bring out under the same purity test BS democratic candidates are. Give me a break. Seems people don't even understand how write offs work (which shouldn't surprise me because I know people in my everyday life who spend recklessly on their small businesses because "write offs!"). You donate money, you're then poorer than you would have been had you paid taxes on said donation. Or maybe I'm the fool and cynicism is the plane ticket I need to fly to the newly founded country of "Justsoc Iety".
BlazinSkatinAxel
Member
5 Street Fighters.
LucidMomentum
Member
Guys, Jeeves always brings up the drones in every thread.
It's just gonna keep coming up with him. The Black Americans and housing market stuff is new from him though.
It's just gonna keep coming up with him. The Black Americans and housing market stuff is new from him though.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I'm sure the candidate he voted for shows concern for black America though
He should start a table salt company (minimal supply costs I would guess), expand rapidly, ?, and profit. Then pay a greater than fair share of taxes because the state is much more frugal and discretionary in spending than charities. Especially in a just society, where no back room deals/kick backs or corruption exists. That will serve as a shining example to the rest of us who are apparently letting the good get in the way of absolute perfection.
Obviously; he gives a massive fuck, BLM
Jeevesmeister
Banned
Obama created a turnkey tyranny with continuing the Bush Administration's consolidation of power to the executive branch, the freedom to murder from the sky at a whim, and the persecution of whistleblowers and then did nothing before handing it over to Trump. Throwing money at charity will not undo this horrific act of incompetence.
It's just gonna keep coming up with him. The Black Americans and housing market stuff is new from him though.[/QUOTE]
Eight years to do something about such an outright criminal act of wealth redistribution. Eight years. No attempt to address this injustice. What did he say about Flint? "Oh, uh, use a water filter." The billions of dollars in damage done by his inaction will forever overshadow whatever charitable donation he could possibly make, and this thread should be acknowledging this reality.
Mr.Shrugglesツ;229909280 said:
Great. Now if only he did something about America's rampant militarism. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, just FYI - without exact numbers as to how many: http://www.alternet.org/world/how-many-us-troops-are-iraq-and-syria-pentagon-wont-say
Okay but, like, is that actually what's going on here? "For all I know these are not good charities" is just not that persuasive. Sorry. Or are you saying it's wrong to give to even good charities because in some vague way it reinforces this overall bad system of giving to charity? And here you're bringing up drones again and making special mention that people are hurt by the very state that is - thank God! - being deprived of the money it would otherwise use to do all this evil by rich people who are selflessly giving less money to sustain "a system they disproportionately benefit from".
You don't see where this comes across as pretty confused? Either the state is pretty good and it's bad (in general or in particular?) that rich people can instead divert money to various potentially-unworthy (but not always unworthy!) causes, or the state is pretty bad and it's good that rich people divert money away from it to things that do a lot less evil. There are two contradictory threads here.
Ah. Okay, so you're retracting the original objection?
It's basically impossible to do inflation calculations over two hundred years, but George Washington probably makes a claim on the Richest President title. Dude was stacked.
Dude really just did a Fresh Prince parody rap just to come for Obama, I'm done lol
FeenixRising
Banned
Well damn, I guess he is introducing himself to the bushes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked