|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 20 2016 04:55 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
Guys, please. The whole discussion is really only centered around the fact, taht GH is involved. Whether he is right or wrong, whether he made outlandish claims or not, whether he attacked Clinton or whatever. The whole style of arguing and speaking personally to Gh just shows taht people are hot for proving him wrong. And taht made the last pages really a shtshow. So could we just change the topic and abstain from that useless argument?
Personally I find learning about these Presidential Libraries interesting, even if I'm doing all the research myself.
|
On October 20 2016 04:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:42 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there. And there you have it. On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library. Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions. On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:On October 20 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you went there to do research on anything other than Bill Clinton's presidency you'd be sorely lacking for resources. I mean you guys didn't know there was a 2 bedroom penthouse in it, so I guess I'm not surprised you're not familiar with the rest of it's contents. While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read. I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages? Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument. Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum" Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point. Also how this went down was that you said It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it. Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual. The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been. You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument. Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me. It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed. You've gone off the deep end. Off your rocker m8. All I've been asking for for the entire length of this is some kind of source for the bullshit you're spewing. And all I've gotten so far is the dailywire insisting that the crooked power couple are using standard tax deductions and the washington times saying that Bill is hosting games of hearts with his friends.
Give credit where credit is due, we now have proof that Clinton's library is just like other presidential libraries, and that proves that Hilary is corrupt... somehow? I didn't get far enough.
|
United States43259 Posts
On October 20 2016 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:55 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:42 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there. And there you have it. On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library. Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions. On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:25 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
While I don't really have any stake in this discussion, this condescending "these are things you should already know" attitude without actually bothering to tell anyone anything is really, really annoying to read.
I am not very knowledgeable about many things that get discussed in this thread. A large part of the reason I continue to read this thread is because I can learn more about those things I don't know a lot about. I don't particularly like being criticized for not knowing these things, and I don't see the point of doing so if you refuse to actually help people learn these things without moderate arm-twisting from Kwark every time. If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages? Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument. Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum" Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point. Also how this went down was that you said It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it. Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual. The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been. You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument. Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me. It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed. You've gone off the deep end. Off your rocker m8. All I've been asking for for the entire length of this is some kind of source for the bullshit you're spewing. And all I've gotten so far is the dailywire insisting that the crooked power couple are using standard tax deductions and the washington times saying that Bill is hosting games of hearts with his friends. Give credit where credit is due, we now have proof that Clinton's library is just like other presidential libraries, and that proves that Hilary is corrupt... somehow? I didn't get far enough.
If you trace it back to the source it was the dailywire article saying that they were corrupt because they donated money to the Clinton Family Foundation which in turn provided funding for the library. That's how we got here. GH claimed that donating money to the CFF was corruption, we asked him why, he said the library, we said what, he said the penthouse, we said what penthouse, he said if you don't know which penthouse I won't tell you, we said, no really, what penthouse, he said, stop gaslighting me, and now you're all caught up.
|
|
|
LOL You guys saw the CNN video where they cuts off the congressman ? That's so fake ...
|
On October 20 2016 05:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 04:55 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:42 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:35 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. You did say it wasn't a library and was more of a shrine to Bill Clinton. I mean whether or not the word bad was specifically used isn't really important there. And there you have it. On October 20 2016 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been to the Clinton library like 4 times. It's a pretty neat building, but basically it's just a museum to his presidency. So, y'know, like pretty much every other presidential library. Like how are we even arguing this, not sure if it's me or the fierce instinct to defend Clinton. Ticklish putting this out there makes me think it's more about me and not losing an argument to me than it is about defending the assertions. On October 20 2016 04:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 04:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2016 04:31 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
If they didn't open by dismissing it on it's face (as if they are familiar with it) then I wouldn't presume they knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't describe you, it's not about you. So can you provide me with a couple articles showing the library is bad? I didn’t find any that I felt were worth reading in my search. I never said the library was "bad"... give me a break... You're on some sort of extreme gaslighting campaign, there's no reason to engage with you at the moment. I'm confused--so there's nothing wrong with the library? Why the last few pages? Mostly people arguing with fictional versions of my argument. Ticklish says it's more of a museum and therefore you must be right? It's in the damn name. "William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum" Come on GH. Ticklish didn't even begin to prove your point. Also how this went down was that you said It's more of a shrine to your own presidency than a library. Plansix and I called you out on your vague sourceless claims again, you whined about how we were oppressing/gaslighting you with our continual demands that you explain what the fuck you're talking about and then blustered for two pages until ticklish said something that looked like a liferaft to you so you grabbed hold of it. Even if ticklish did validate your point you didn't know his experiences there until he posted them. It was just you bullshitting vague assertions again, as fucking usual. The important part about this is that Wolf noted that it is a pretty ridiculous process just not specific to Clinton, then Ticklish didn't just validate the point on what it was, he (and wolf) noted this is what presidential libraries are and have been. You were too busy thinking it was an attack on Clinton/wanting to fight to realize that if you knew anything about presidential libraries, been to one, or, you know, did anything other than google it for 30 seconds seeing it's a hot topic in right wing tabloids, before responding doubting/dismissing the claim you'd realize it was a stupid angle to take in the argument. Now the lot of you are all pissy that you guys got caught looking silly (more importantly in a discussion with me) and trying to turn it on me. It's like getting hit in the face with the speed bag. Y'all are playing it off cool though. Proceed. You've gone off the deep end. Off your rocker m8. All I've been asking for for the entire length of this is some kind of source for the bullshit you're spewing. And all I've gotten so far is the dailywire insisting that the crooked power couple are using standard tax deductions and the washington times saying that Bill is hosting games of hearts with his friends. Give credit where credit is due, we now have proof that Clinton's library is just like other presidential libraries, and that proves that Hilary is corrupt... somehow? I didn't get far enough. If you trace it back to the source it was the dailywire article saying that they were corrupt because they donated money to the Clinton Family Foundation which in turn provided funding for the library. That's how we got here. GH claimed that donating money to the CFF was corruption, we asked him why, he said the library, we said what, he said the penthouse, we said what penthouse, he said if you don't know which penthouse I won't tell you, we said, no really, what penthouse, he said, stop gaslighting me, and now you're all caught up.
Oh no, I understood all those details. But I'm still trying to figure out how that means corruption. Like, there's a part of a library that is not a library does not sound like corruption to me. Like, if someone said "And the Clinton library also has a Garden!" or "And it has a greenhouse!" or "And it has a parking lot!" there are tonnes of things that can be added to a property that are purely luxury additions. Among them a penthouse. How is that corruption?
|
United States43259 Posts
On October 20 2016 05:04 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 04:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:50 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 04:45 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:42 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 04:28 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:23 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 04:17 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 04:13 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 03:56 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I'm still not convinced you come out ahead compared to just paying the tax if you have to build a library around the penthouse to justify it. Sure, you save 39% on the amount donated but you still come out behind if the library built to camouflage your tax dodge penthouse costs as much as the penthouse. You're not exactly supposed to come out ahead when donating to a charity. Key words: donate, charity. Yes but GH's point was that they were trying to and that's the only reason they donated all that money to the CFF. He said the CFF was used like a slush fund. My point is that if you have to build a library around your new apartment in order to make it qualify as a charitable expense then you're probably going to end up spending more money than you would have if you'd just paid tax and bought the apartment yourself. Not if you're not using your own money to build it. At which point why did they put their own money in in the first place? If the basic premise here is "there are a few people with hundreds of millions of dollars and they're scamming for cheap rent" then none of this adds up. If other peoples' donations were paying for the library then why did they put their own money in in the first place? There is no "scamming for cheap rent" narrative that is internally consistent. The optimal situation for them is to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and have other people build them a library with an apartment. The next most optimal is for them to keep the money, pay tax on it as earnings and then just buy an apartment. The least optimal is for them to give a bunch of money to the CFF, not pay tax on that money (but also not have the money anymore) and then build a library with an apartment with it. There's a few figures I'm missing in order to determine whether or not it's cheaper for them to do it this way. (1) How much did they donate to the foundation? (2) How much did they save on taxes by doing so? (3) What % of the money used to build the complex is tied up in the suite? If 1 is low enough and 3 is high enough, I can easily see it being cheaper for them this way. Do apartments in Little Rock even cost $10m? No idea, but you do have to control for size and more specific location. I believe they gave $10m to the CFF. About 30% effective tax rate I think. Highest is 39.6% so the maximum saving would have been just under $4m. If the suite cost $8m and the library to camouflage it cost $2m then they'd get a $8m suite and a $4m tax break for just $10m so they'd come out $2m ahead. But again, this seems a little far-fetched. I mean doesn't this all sound a little silly? I saw the figure $135m as the value of the library (suite included) a few times in the articles shown by GH. I can imagine the suite itself being even less than $8m, but I don't really know. Even then, if someone else is fronting $125m for your building (including apartment) you still wouldn't come out ahead by throwing another $10m into the pot. Have them build you the building including an apartment, use the apartment, pay tax on the $10m and have $6m left over, plus an apartment. The whole "the Clinton Family built a library as a tax writeoff for their apartment" argument just doesn't make any sense. I mean, I can imagine the apartment being worth $15m or more too, in which case they could come out ahead. I don't really know.
No, you're missing my point. If they wanted to scam for a cheap apartment, why did they sink their own money in at all? They didn't have to put any of their own money in. Putting their own money in and receiving a tax break equivalent to 39.6% of the money still puts them behind unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. It just doesn't add up.
|
On October 20 2016 04:55 RolleMcKnolle wrote:
Guys, please. The whole discussion is really only centered around the fact, taht GH is involved. Whether he is right or wrong, whether he made outlandish claims or not, whether he attacked Clinton or whatever. The whole style of arguing and speaking personally to Gh just shows taht people are hot for proving him wrong. And taht made the last pages really a shtshow. So could we just change the topic and abstain from that useless argument?
i second this. i could not care less about his library
|
On October 20 2016 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
LOL You guys saw the CNN video where they cuts off the congressman ? That's so fake ...
I have a policy of not watching contextless YouTube videos in this thread. But I'm not shocked it is superfake.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 05:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
LOL You guys saw the CNN video where they cuts off the congressman ? That's so fake ... I have a policy of not watching contextless YouTube videos in this thread. But I'm not shocked it is superfake.
I watched it - I don't think Whitedog is saying the video is fake, but that the cut off is super fake.
|
On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way.
Okay, so the corruption is that Bill and Hillary are desperate to spend $10+ million to buy an apartment just for Hearts, and will go through the clinton foundation to possibly pay only 10million?
Am I understanding this right?
|
United States43259 Posts
On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way.
But why? The only way you can make it cost effective for them to scam using the CFF to get an apartment is it they already had all the money from other donors that they needed to build a library but were short exactly one apartment of money so they put in the difference themselves to get a tax break on buying an apartment through the foundation while using all of the other peoples' money to camouflage the fact that really they were using buying an apartment. That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario. A much more likely scenario is that the charity could have built a library with an apartment in it, with or without their donation but that they chose to donate anyway.
Again, it's not optimal
A) Get $10m, pay taxes on it, have $6m left. Find some suckers to donate to your library fund, build a library with an apartment in it, free apartment, use it to store your $6m in it.
B) Get $10m, pay taxes on it, have $6m left. Buy an apartment. Find some suckers to donate to your library fund. Build a library.
C) Get $10m, donate it to the library fund. Unfortunately you can't just build an apartment with the library fund because it needs to have books and shit so you find some suckers to donate to build a library around your apartment. Unfortunately they donated exactly the amount of money needed for a library but none of the money needed to offset the cost of your apartment so you had to donate the full $10m yourself.
C is never optimal.
|
On October 20 2016 05:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. But why? The only way you can make it cost effective for them to scam using the CFF to get an apartment is it they already had all the money from other donors that they needed to build a library but were short exactly one apartment of money so they put in the difference themselves to get a tax break on buying an apartment through the foundation while using all of the other peoples' money to camouflage the fact that really they were using buying an apartment. That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario. A much more likely scenario is that the charity could have built a library with an apartment in it, with or without their donation.
Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Maybe they believe in opportunistic corruption?
|
|
|
United States43259 Posts
On October 20 2016 05:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:13 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. But why? The only way you can make it cost effective for them to scam using the CFF to get an apartment is it they already had all the money from other donors that they needed to build a library but were short exactly one apartment of money so they put in the difference themselves to get a tax break on buying an apartment through the foundation while using all of the other peoples' money to camouflage the fact that really they were using buying an apartment. That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario. A much more likely scenario is that the charity could have built a library with an apartment in it, with or without their donation. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Maybe they believe in opportunistic corruption?
"Hi Bill, we ran the numbers, a library with an apartment will cost $135m."
"But we only have $125m. How much will a library without an apartment cost?"
"Exactly $125m."
"What if we made a $115m library with a $10m apartment, could that be done? We'd still get the apartment and we'd use the current donations."
"Nope, sorry, it's just not possible to make a library for less than exactly the amount of money you have right now. Libraries always cost $125m."
"Well, I guess if I want to have a $10m apartment I'll just donate $10m myself, at least I'll come out ahead due to the tax break for the donation."
How it went down.
|
On October 20 2016 05:21 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. Okay, so the corruption is that Bill and Hillary are desperate to spend $10+ million to buy an apartment just for Hearts, and will go through the clinton foundation to possibly pay only 10million? Am I understanding this right? I don't know about "corruption", "desperate", or even what "just for Hearts" is.. But yes I am saying that under the assumption that they are going to spend $10m on an apartment they could get an even better apartment ($15m+) by just donating the $10m to the CF and building a library around it (totalling, say $135m) for "charitable purposes". My only point being that maybe you shouldn't receive tax benefits from donating to a charity that you help run.
If they worked with a different charity would this kind of thing not happen or is this unique to the Clinton Foundation? I mean, assuming these assumptions are true.
|
On October 20 2016 05:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:13 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:05 KwarK wrote:
... unless their getting the apartment is conditional on their putting money in. I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. But why? The only way you can make it cost effective for them to scam using the CFF to get an apartment is it they already had all the money from other donors that they needed to build a library but were short exactly one apartment of money so they put in the difference themselves to get a tax break on buying an apartment through the foundation while using all of the other peoples' money to camouflage the fact that really they were using buying an apartment. That's a pretty specific and unlikely scenario. A much more likely scenario is that the charity could have built a library with an apartment in it, with or without their donation. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible. Maybe they believe in opportunistic corruption? "Hi Bill, we ran the numbers, a library with an apartment will cost $135m." "But we only have $125m. How much will a library without an apartment cost?" "Exactly $125m." "What if we made a $115m library with a $10m apartment, could that be done? We'd still get the apartment and we'd use the current donations." "Nope, sorry, it's just not possible to make a library for less than exactly the amount of money you have right now. Libraries always cost $125m." "Well, I guess if I want to have a $10m apartment I'll just donate $10m myself, at least I'll come out ahead due to the tax break for the donation." How it went down.
Boom, solid, strong investigation right there. Totally not ridiculous 
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 05:10 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 05:07 Plansix wrote:On October 20 2016 05:04 WhiteDog wrote:
LOL You guys saw the CNN video where they cuts off the congressman ? That's so fake ... I have a policy of not watching contextless YouTube videos in this thread. But I'm not shocked it is superfake. I watched it - I don't think Whitedog is saying the video is fake, but that the cut off is super fake.
Yes that is what I was saying. "Ho no we lost him it suck ..." lol.
Pretty pointless video tho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
