MSNBC socialist Sees the Light.

[NYcarbineer]

Did some of you miss the part in the clip where O'Donnell says he agrees with Harry Reid about the Koch brothers?

Wow, you really are a True Believer. It's like you're genetically prohibited from giving even an inch, even as much as O'Donnell did.

I wonder what you think would happen if you did.

Fascinating stuff.

.

I'm the one person in the thread who accurately described what O'Donnell did, which was to give credit where credit was due,

nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Ibentoken]

What 'light' are you referring to in the thread title?

An awakening. Larry awoke to the fact that the Koch brothers do good with money. How much has George Soros given to charities?

Do you have any evidence that O'Donnell up until this episode had no idea that super-rich rightwingers give money to charities?

It's obvious by his own words that he sees things in a broader perspective.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

As of this morning the Koch brothers were worth 41.3 billion dollars, 6 billion dollars more than they were worth last year. Soros was worth 23.8 billion dollars.
They could give hundreds of millions of dollars away and it's like you or me buying a sandwich for a homeless guy.

David Koch - Forbes

So what?

You envious that they have it to give and you do not?

BTW, when was the last sandwich you bought for a homeless guy?

 

[Ibentoken]

What does that have to do with my statement?

Kinda early to start playing dumb, isn't it.

Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

Bullcorn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

An awakening. Larry awoke to the fact that the Koch brothers do good with money. How much has George Soros given to charities?

Do you have any evidence that O'Donnell up until this episode had no idea that super-rich rightwingers give money to charities?

It's obvious by his own words that he sees things in a broader perspective.

O'Donnell has been running the K.I.N.D. fund for years.

 

[Ibentoken]

Did some of you miss the part in the clip where O'Donnell says he agrees with Harry Reid about the Koch brothers?

Wow, you really are a True Believer. It's like you're genetically prohibited from giving even an inch, even as much as O'Donnell did.

I wonder what you think would happen if you did.

Fascinating stuff.

.

Cultic mindset. True believers in the propaganda.

 

[Ibentoken]

Do you have any evidence that O'Donnell up until this episode had no idea that super-rich rightwingers give money to charities?

It's obvious by his own words that he sees things in a broader perspective.

O'Donnell has been running the K.I.N.D. fund for years.

And?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kinda early to start playing dumb, isn't it.

Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

Bullcorn.

"Bottom line is,

a civilized, prosperous society should not have to depend on the whims of the super-rich in order to have great hospitals."

What does that have to do with George Soros?

Agree or disagree with my statement, for starters.

 

[Ibentoken]

Your response had nothing to do with my statement.

Bullcorn.

"Bottom line is,

a civilized, prosperous society should not have to depend on the whims of the super-rich in order to have great hospitals."

What does that have to do with George Soros?

Agree or disagree with my statement, for starters.

False premise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's obvious by his own words that he sees things in a broader perspective.

O'Donnell has been running the K.I.N.D. fund for years.

And?

And thus you're an idiot for implying that he had no idea that the wealthy, including wealthy conservatives, make big donations to charitable causes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bullcorn.

"Bottom line is,

a civilized, prosperous society should not have to depend on the whims of the super-rich in order to have great hospitals."

What does that have to do with George Soros?

Agree or disagree with my statement, for starters.

False premise.

The question was, what does that have to do with George Soros?

 

[Ibentoken]

O'Donnell has been running the K.I.N.D. fund for years.

And?

And thus you're an idiot for implying that he had no idea that the wealthy, including wealthy conservatives, make big donations to charitable causes.

Oh yeah? Well you're a big poopy pants.

 

[Ibentoken]

"Bottom line is,

a civilized, prosperous society should not have to depend on the whims of the super-rich in order to have great hospitals."

What does that have to do with George Soros?

Agree or disagree with my statement, for starters.

False premise.

The question was, what does that have to do with George Soros?

You sure play dumb a lot. Tiring.

 

[jasonnfree]

As of this morning the Koch brothers were worth 41.3 billion dollars, 6 billion dollars more than they were worth last year. Soros was worth 23.8 billion dollars.
They could give hundreds of millions of dollars away and it's like you or me buying a sandwich for a homeless guy.

David Koch - Forbes

It takes a thousand million to make a billion, and these kochs are probably worth over way over 40 billion in reality. So the lousy 20 million they donated to this hospital is really an insult. I don't think a pea brain like Larry O'donnel understands this. And these right wing sycophants doing all these worship the rich postings certainly don't. Even Capone and Hitler did nice things once in while for publicity, guys.

 

[Erand7899]

Here is where you see the conflict of our current system vs. the "Fair Tax". Libertarians, Tea party and some Republicans are pushing for.

Today, the Rich are looking for ways to donate to charities because it's more profitable to, as the system is set up. If they don't donate, they will be taxed more! It's not a good hearted investment at all. It's simply a way to get more profit!

"Giving to the needy" sometimes brings your tax bracket down and it's extremely common for the rich to be forced to give to the needy so they get more profit.

Note; In the fair tax, they just assume people will give to the needy. Because so much is given already.........(They never mention it's the churches)

People, including rich people, were contributing to charity before tax policy ever made it a tax tool. They also donate to churches, and the churches use most of that money to help the needy.

There are greedy, money hungry, rich people, there are greedy, money hungry, poor people, and there are greedy, money hungry, middle class people. However, that is not the norm in any wealth class, and never has been.

Once the wealthy reach a certain income, wealth, level, (this is not confined solely to the rich), money ceases to have value beyond a means of keeping score.

 

[Sallow]

Indeed, the Kennedys, Clintons and Obamas are cold, ruthless motherfuckers.....

You should be able to cite some examples?

Like any of those folks advocating for closing down factories to enrich themselves.

Or destroying communities to build a pipeline.

You know, something like that?

Stay away from the personal shit..too.

My bad, they are good salt of the earth folks.


Whitewater didn't hurt anyone.

The lie "If you like your plan, you can keep it" didn't effect anyone.

Giving guns to Mexican cartels didn't hurt anyone.

Laundering taxpayer money to green energy companies didn't hurt anyone.

Sending the IRS after people you don't like never hurt anyone.

Driving off a bridge while intoxicated never hurt anyone.

And none of that stuff happened with the exception of the bridge thing.

My criteria was to exclude personal stuff.

But heck, Romney killed someone in an auto accident, as well.

I'm sure you voted Obama, right?

 

[Erand7899]

btw, this hospital is a NON-PROFIT. The best hospital of its kind in the country is a NON-PROFIT.

Now how is that possible when conservatives claim that the only path to excellence must include a profit incentive?

The people who work there are not non profit, and they are the ones who create the path to excellence. Prior to the federal government screwing up our health care system with Medicare, most hospitals were non profit, and most were excellent hospitals.

The concept of Medicare was not the problem, the implementation and operation of the system by incompetent government political appointees was, and still is.

 

[Ibentoken]

As of this morning the Koch brothers were worth 41.3 billion dollars, 6 billion dollars more than they were worth last year. Soros was worth 23.8 billion dollars.
They could give hundreds of millions of dollars away and it's like you or me buying a sandwich for a homeless guy.

David Koch - Forbes

It takes a thousand million to make a billion, and these kochs are probably worth over way over 40 billion in reality. So the lousy 20 million they donated to this hospital is really an insult. I don't think a pea brain like Larry O'donnel understands this. And these right wing sycophants doing all these worship the rich postings certainly don't. Even Capone and Hitler did nice things once in while for publicity, guys.

Yeah, someone needs to slap that pea brain O'Donnell and tell him to shut up.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

As of this morning the Koch brothers were worth 41.3 billion dollars, 6 billion dollars more than they were worth last year. Soros was worth 23.8 billion dollars.
They could give hundreds of millions of dollars away and it's like you or me buying a sandwich for a homeless guy.

David Koch - Forbes

It takes a thousand million to make a billion, and these kochs are probably worth over way over 40 billion in reality. So the lousy 20 million they donated to this hospital is really an insult. I don't think a pea brain like Larry O'donnel understands this. And these right wing sycophants doing all these worship the rich postings certainly don't. Even Capone and Hitler did nice things once in while for publicity, guys.

Listen to the big bad progressive, looking gift horses in the mouth!

Fact still remains that the Kochs give away more than you could make in 10 lifetimes.

 

[Andylusion]

btw, this hospital is a NON-PROFIT. The best hospital of its kind in the country is a NON-PROFIT.

Now how is that possible when conservatives claim that the only path to excellence must include a profit incentive?

Um.... do you know what the difference is between a non-profit, and a for-profit company is?

Nothing. At least nothing substantial.

A non-profit company or business, still has to advertise, still has to buy goods, and sell service, and collect a 'profit' over the cost of the goods sold or service provided. They have to generate an operating surplus, just like any other business on the face of the earth.

A hospital that does not make a profit on the goods sold, closes. Just like any other business.

Most non-profit CEOs make large six figure incomes, many over $200K a year. There are dozens that make over $500K a year. I just read that the non-profit Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research CEO is paid $820,000 a year.

And by the way, unlike for-profit companies, that's all cash from the business. CEOs of for-profit companies are generally paid with company stocks. That's why you see the CEO of walmart gettings 'paid' millions.

But none of them are actually getting 'millions' from the company. They are getting paid in company stock, which costs the company almost nothing. The CEO can then sell the stock to other people, and it's those people buying that CEOs stock, that pays him the 'millions'.

But when you see the CEO of a non-profit earning $500K or $800K, that's all cold hard cash from the business.

So what exactly is the difference?

Well we could go into the legal defined difference, for-profits operate for self-benefit, and non-profits benefit for the good of the community....

Again, no one actually does this. It doesn't really matter what the laws says your intentions are supposed to be. Again the CEO of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research is not driving around in a beat up Chevy, because he is doing it for "the good of the community". No, he's driving a luxury land yacht, like the highly paid CEO of any major corporation.

So there really is only one major difference.

Investors.

The profits of a non-profit business, can't be doled out to investors. That might sound good, but there's a trade off.

How many of these specific hospitals are there? ONE.

Well what about the rest of society? 300 Million people can't all use ONE hospital in New York. Why don't they open more hospitals?

Well because that would require capital... which would require capital investors.... which would require investors.... which would require a return on investment.... which is prohibited for non-profit company.

There is a trade off.

Want to know why Walmart has 2.2 Million employees, and over a 11,000 locations? Investors. People invested into Walmart, which allowed them to grow the company to serve more people, and provide more jobs.

The Hospital for Special Surgery, can't do that. Thus only a small select few people in the world can benefit from that Hospital.

And as much as people make a big deal of "well at least they are not giving their profits to investors".... yeah... but they have many other 'returns' on their 'charitable investment' into the Hospital.

You generally don't see big names splashed on the walls of Ford manufacturing plants, of the investors who paid to have it built.

Obviously you do for philanthropists.

And that's likely the very least that non-profits do as a 'return on investment'.

This is David Koch at a charity ball for Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Over a million dollars was spent on the ball, and of course many of the super wealthy went to the ball, including David Koch and his wife and son.

Awards were given out, honor was given, people were photographed and placed into booklets of top philanthropists, and I'm sure Koch was listed. This may have even been the photo used, who knows.

And of course, as this thread proves, Koch was given tons of positive publicity by the Hospital.

So this idea that non-profits do not spend anything on their 'investors' like for-profit companies do, is just wrong. They spend MILLIONS on their investors. It's just not as much as for-profit companies, but the amount 'invested' is smaller too.

Instead of investing in hundreds of Special Surgery hospitals, Koch built one wing of one. Instead of billions of dividends paid back, it was millions just on Koch and other specific philanthropists.

But the bottom line is... there really isn't any differences between for-profit and non-profit. They both operate the same way.