Who said I disliked him for giving away his money. I am just stating that many rich people give their money to charities or get their feet dirty. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happeneing. Why make a big deal about this guy.
I'm not talking about his money. I think it's great he is philanthropic with is, regardless of how much he can afford it. You think what you want.
Why make a big deal? Well, Tim started the thread -- so ask him. As for me, when someone is put down and I don't understand why -- I get curious. Besides, he's one of the richest people on the planet (like #13 or so) and is very active politically and philanthropically. He will surely be having impact on issues & policies for many years to come. I'd like to form a better understanding of him that I have now.
The correlation to this comment is "stop and Frisk".
The word is arse hole.
No. It really isn't.
Also, Bloomberg ran for Mayor originally because he had/has aspirations of running for president (see Giuliani). That $1 salary was well thought out from his initial election.
Fair enough. I still don't see that as a bad thing. This is one of those there is no way for the guy to win. If he's worth billions and take a salary, he's a jerk for that. If he's worth billions and doesn't take a salary, he's a conniving jerk for that. ~ I'm seeing this a lot with some people -- they just want to bitch and complain but no matter what, there is no solution they will like.
Bloomberg is the poster child for nanny state government. There's a fine line between governing and interfering with private lives, and he's crossed that line many times. It creates a state of dependence for the populace and in my view, that is never a good thing when the people start to depend heavily on the government.
Again, making a claim but with no details. You post what you want -- but I'm not hating on the guy just because others do.
Almost 50% of the entire US population relies on one govt. program or another. The takers are soon to outnumber the taken froms.
Probably more when you factor in corporations that rely on it -- and corporations employ people and make the products they buy. ~ I think government can be good or bad. I think there are things that government can do in a positive way to help people. I would have no problem if 100% of the population took part in (relied on) one government program or another. It's not the percentage that matters, it's the details that make it good or bad.
If he runs for president, wouldn't he perpetuate the dependence on the state/country.
Maybe. But there is little evidence for it in this thread.
...he'd probably do everything in his "power" to diminish the 2nd A.
Fine with me.