Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Stingy Liberal, Exhibit A: Joe Biden


From Jeff Jacoby's column today "Stingy Liberals":
Liberals, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, are not more generous and compassionate than conservatives. To an outsider it might seem plausible that Americans whose political rhetoric emphasizes "fairness" and "social justice" would be more charitably inclined than those who stress economic liberty and individual autonomy. But reams of evidence contradict that presumption, as Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks demonstrated in his landmark 2006 book, Who Really Cares.

However durable the myth, wrote Brooks (who now heads the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank), there is no getting around the data. For years, academic research and comprehensive national studies have confirmed that Americans who lean to the left politically tend to be much less charitable than those who tilt rightward. The Chronicle of Philanthropy's new report is only the latest in a long series of studies corroborating that fact.

The Chronicle's new study, which is based on IRS records from 2008 (most recent available), accounts for regional differences in the cost of living. It calculates charitable giving only from discretionary income -- the dollars left over after paying for taxes, housing, and food. But the economic differences are not nearly as significant as cultural differences. In parts of the country where conservative values dominate, charity tends to be high. Where liberalism holds sway, charity falls. "Red states are more generous than blue states," the Chronicle concludes. The eight states that ranked the highest in charitable giving all voted for John McCain in 2008. The seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.

Of course this doesn't mean that there aren't generous philanthropists in New England. It doesn't mean selfishness is unknown on the right. What it does mean is that where people are encouraged to think that solving society's ills is primarily a job for government, charity tends to evaporate. The politics of "compassion" isn't the same as compassionate behavior. America's generosity divide separates those who understand the difference from those who don't.
MP: Joe Biden's charitable giving, at least until his vice-presidential candidacy in 2008, provides a case in point of being a "stingy liberal."  When nobody was watching or scrutinizing the Bidens' tax returns, they gave less than $200 to charity in 1998, which was less than 1/10 of one percent of their adjusted gross income (AGI) that year of more than $215,000 (see table above).  According to income tax data available at Forbes, Americans earning the same AGI as the Bidens that year gave more than $5,000 to charity.  The Bidens got a little more charitable over the years, but their gifts were never more than 1% of their income until Biden became Vice-President.

And even now that the Bidens have "found religion" when it comes to charity (knowing that their tax records are now public), they are still only giving about half of the average amount of charitable giving for their income group. Joe Biden's stinginess demonstrates Jeff Jacoby's point that the politics of compassion and charity are often much different than compassionate and charitable behavior.

127 Comments:

At 8/22/2012 4:37 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

So what?

Romney pointed out that including his sharitable gifts his "taxes" were higher than the 13% advertized.

How do Romneys, and Rayans and Obamas and Bidens combined tax and charity amount to a a percent of income?


If the unspoken argument here is that whatever necesary support government does NOT provide will be provided by charity (somehow) then the money for that support will come form citizens one way or another.

Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?

 
At 8/22/2012 4:38 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

Read an interesting observation once about how liberals' and conservatives' brains are wired. Liberals think charity is the community's responsibility. Conservatives think it's the individual's responsibility. That's why one favors government (taxpayer-funded) programs and the other private charities funded by voluntary donations. And also why conservatives donate way more blood.

 
At 8/22/2012 4:42 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

"Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?"

Yes. Because the voluntarily funded charities are actually out to help their fellow man, while politicians are out to get re-elected. One is humane, the other power-hungry.

 
At 8/22/2012 4:48 PM, Blogger kuhchung said...

"Is the argument that dozens of poorly coordinated and forcibly funded government organizations, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs to be done better than private charity?"

 
At 8/22/2012 5:09 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Now, how about we see Romney's AGI back to 1998.....

I love the double standard here.

 
At 8/22/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Michael Wengler said...

Donations to your church, or to NPR count as charitable, but almost all of that donation should really be interpreted as "membership dues." Has any attempt been made to see if there is a systematic difference between charitable donations minus those best seen as membership dues? I would expect conservatives to be members of churches at higher rates than liberals.

 
At 8/22/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Michael Wengler said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8/22/2012 5:42 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Now, how about we see Romney's AGI back to 1998....."

How about we see your hero's college transcripts?

"I love the double standard here."

What double standard? Liberals are the ones who claim to champion the poor, while the evil right-wingers supposedly celebrate the plutocrats.

 
At 8/22/2012 5:45 PM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

One might consider Mr. Biden’s poor record of charitable contribution in an intuitive sense. What if we enter the counterintuitive world and consider Mr. Biden seeing “state” as the charity and ultimate distributor? Hence Mr. Biden doesn’t recognize or appreciate private charity and hence the low contributions.

Mr. Biden recognizes and appreciates state. However, rather than Mr. Biden making inordinately high contributions to state (voluntary extra tax as his charitable contribution) i.e. Mr. Biden’s charity, his path is other people’s money aka your money, as involuntary contributions to his favorite charity, state.

Therefore, Mr. Biden makes no extra effort toward private charity, makes no extra effort toward his favorite charity of state, but takes monumental extra effort when it comes to other people’s money being bestowed upon his favorite charity.

 
At 8/22/2012 5:45 PM, Blogger Paul said...

You want to see a real example of a stingy liberal, consider Obama's brother George who lives in a mud hut in Kenya, and doesn't even have the phone number of his millionaire brother and President of the United States. Meanwhile, Obama routinely lectures us all how we should all be "our brother's keeper."

At least Seamus the dog got to go on vacation with Mitt. That crate on top of Romney's car was more luxurious than George Obama's abode in Kenya.

 
At 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I thought he lived in Atlanta.

re: charitable giving

some folks take every single deduction they are entitled to while others just give to charity and do not claim it on their taxes.

the only evidence I see for liberals vs conservatives is red states vs blue states.

who is to say that the liberals in the red states are not the ones who give the most?

 
At 8/22/2012 7:28 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I do wonder what the numbers would look like if it includes non-deductible and other gifts. I know I donate a descent amount of money, but I don't deduct it because I am lazy and homeless people don;t give receipts.

 
At 8/22/2012 8:29 PM, Blogger Rick said...

Stingy Liberal, Exhibit A?
Only one as your data? No generous conservative as a counter example? This is anecdotal at best and hardly proves your point. You could have at least used a few from each party to try and draw some trends. As an economist you are fascinating. As a statistician you need practice. At least control for income and education when trying to show Liberal vs. Conservative giving rates.

Oh, and I'm sure Paul will say something snarky and change the topic at the same time.

 
At 8/22/2012 8:34 PM, Blogger hancke said...

Rick, Google and Bing are very powerful tools Try them out for yourself. This data has been out there for years. Liberals are only charitable if they think someone is watching or if it benefits them.

 
At 8/22/2012 9:24 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

The Romneys donated about 16.4 percent of their adjusted gross income of $42.5 million in the two-year period, according to their 2010 tax returns and an estimate for 2011 taxes.

Just for comparison: 16.4/1.46 = 11.23, meaning as a percentage of AGI, the Romneys give more than 10 times what the standard cheapskate liberal Bidens give.

You should try google sometime. It works.

 
At 8/22/2012 9:28 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?

This is so obviously true that it's surprising anyone would think differently. Look at all the redundant car agencies in the US car market compared to the Hindustan Motors of the 1970s and 1980s.

 
At 8/22/2012 9:36 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Larry,

who is to say that the liberals in the red states are not the ones who give the most?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Your claim is that liberals are so charitable that the most charitable ones move to red states so that red states look more charitable than blue states in an effort to be charitable to red states?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Thanks for the laugh!

 
At 8/22/2012 9:44 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?

You said dozens of uncoordinated, redundant bureaucracies, and government in the same sentence and weren't actually complaining about the government. Didn't think that was possible.

 
At 8/22/2012 9:58 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

" ...Because the voluntarily funded charities are actually out to help their fellow man, ..."

=============================

And of course there are no fraudulent charities and none that make mistakes or use the money badly.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:06 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Just for comparison: 16.4/1.46 = 11.23, meaning as a percentage of AGI, the Romneys give more than 10 times what the standard cheapskate liberal Bidens give.

You should try google sometime. It works.


================================

You did not answer the question.

The question was if you add together the charitable income and the income taxes paid for each of the four returnes, then how does the total amount of "giving" work out?

You only considered the charitiable amount and only for Biden and Romney.

How does it compare, in total, for Romney vs Obama and Ryan vs Biden?



BTW. I would ager that Romneys clothing budget is ten times whot Bidens is, too.



 
At 8/22/2012 10:07 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?

This must be why Warren Buffett has pledged to gift his fortune to the government and not any private charities ... oh wait.

I wish I could find the CNBC interview where he was asked why he was giving his money to charity and not the government.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:12 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You said dozens of uncoordinated, redundant bureaucracies, and government in the same sentence and weren't actually complaining about the government. Didn't think that was possible.

===============================

Maybe you ought to try thinking more often.

I never said the government does not have the same problems: I am merely suggesting that it is not alone.

Suppose that you were made czar over all charitable collecting and giving. How would you organize it?

Would you send ten thousand porganizations out to radomly knock on 200 million doors? And then have them each give to their favorite need, regardless of what other priorities might be out there?


Wouldn't you suggest taht some kind of organization or corporation would be required to make the best use of resources?

 
At 8/22/2012 10:20 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

Suppose that you were made czar over all charitable collecting and giving. How would you organize it?

I would stay completely out of it and let people give their own money to whom ever they want.ed and leave the burden of deciding which charity was worthwhile to them.

Maybe you should try Google. There are literally 1000's of websites which rate, evaluate, allow users to provide feedback, etc. on charitable organizations.

Maybe you ought to try thinking more often.


Maybe you should stop being a pompus asshole. I hope you die of dysentery.

You certainly implied that the government charity was more efficient than the charity free-for-all in the private market.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:20 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

This is so obviously true that it's surprising anyone would think differently...

==============================

I don't see that it is obviously true. But then, I believe in entropy and not in spontaneous order.

Sure, there is some statistical chance that a bunch of random hunters will bring back more meat than a hunting party, but it isn't a plan you would bet your civilization on.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:26 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I would stay completely out of it and let people give their own money to whom ever they want.ed and leave the burden of deciding which charity was worthwhile to them.

==============================

So you would do nothing and assume that the volunteer rating systems and more or less random activites are doing enough to prevent waste, duplication, too much funding for some needs and too little for other more life threatening ones, etc. Not to mention outright fraud.



Look, our charities do a fine job, so far as it goes, but do you really believe that nothing can be done to improve it?

There used to be lots of car manufacturors, each doing their own thing, but it pretty soon boiled down to a handful.

Why would charity be different?

 
At 8/22/2012 10:29 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Maybe you ought to try thinking more often.

===============================

Lighten up. You said you did not think it was possible to mention those things and not be talking about the government.


Not only is it possible, it is not that hard. Of course if your thinking involves opening a can of canned dogma, you might be missing some other ideas.




 
At 8/22/2012 10:30 PM, Blogger Ken said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:39 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

But then, I believe in entropy and not in spontaneous order.

These are not mutually exclusive. Increasing entropy is true for the ENTIRE system, not for its component parts. Unless you believe evolution somehow violates the laws of entropy.

Maybe you should leave science to those that understand it.

there is some statistical chance that a bunch of random hunters will bring back more meat than a hunting party, but it isn't a plan you would bet your civilization on.

This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of civilizations. Things don't just randomly come into being. Spontaneous order works pretty much the same way evolution does. Different things are tried. The things that survive are those things that are selected for.

Hunters don't go out and try random things. However, hunters go out and try variations on previous hunting strategies. The ones that work best according to the hunters' definition of what "best" is are the ones that are selected for. You try enough variations on everything (not just hunting) and select better and better things, over time civilizations are built.

One of the things people like you don't understand is that the more variation tried, the more trade offs are found to satisfy more and more people's preferences. Having variations only tried by government bureaus and agencies, the most risk averse groups of people to be found on the planet, fewer things will be tried and fewer things will be selected for.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:41 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Are there any credible studies on who gives more?



On paper I am a cheapskate in giving. I rationalize it by considering all those people (and in my area they are mostly republicans) who claim it is oh so important to save our family farms, but don't to anything to contribute. Since I shell out a pretty big pile of money to support this place for them, most of which goes straight to locals anyway, I count that as part of my charitable giving.

If I was in some other situation I might have more left to give, but the question stands, are there any credible studies that show that conservatives are more charitable and altruistic than liberals?

If they are so good and decent, why can;t they let it be, instead of beating their chest and slapping each other on the back about how great they are.

I think my first sentence is the one you guys never picked up on:

So what?

What makes you think anyone cares how much more one person gives than another? Isn't anyone who cares aout such things simply demonstrating that they are driven by a deep seated selfish comparison anxiety?



 
At 8/22/2012 10:45 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

So you would do nothing and assume that the volunteer rating systems and more or less random activites are doing enough to prevent waste, duplication, too much funding for some needs and too little for other more life threatening ones, etc. Not to mention outright fraud.

So you would have everyone give to one central charity and let that charity dole out money as they see fit?

There is a large over donation to breast cancer research and awareness when compared to prostate cancer research and awareness. So what? I would not use the power of force to tell people donating to breast cancer that they had to donate to prostate cancer.

There used to be lots of car manufacturors, each doing their own thing, but it pretty soon boiled down to a handful.

Not the same. "lots" of car manufactures was dozens(?) "lot" of charities is tens of thousands. Why is it a bad thing for the market to determine which charities are successful anyway?

Lighten up.

Sorry about the dysentery comment. After posting it I realized that you were probably old and never played the game "Oregon Trail" as a kid and wouldn't get the reference.

Not only is it possible, it is not that hard. Of course if your thinking involves opening a can of canned dogma, you might be missing some other ideas.

Sorry my years of working for The Empire has left me jaded and cynical. Very Large Organizations (government of private sector) are NOT more efficient than smaller ones.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:50 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

Are there any credible studies on who gives more?

Yes.

If they are so good and decent, why can;t they let it be, instead of beating their chest and slapping each other on the back about how great they are.

I love unintentional irony from one of the biggest chest thumper on this site.

What makes you think anyone cares how much more one person gives than another?

Because lefties and "liberals" constantly tell people how oh so caring they are, especially about the poor, despite the fact that lefty policies are responsible for the catastrophes of inner cities.

Isn't anyone who cares aout such things simply demonstrating that they are driven by a deep seated selfish comparison anxiety?

That's what mostly drives liberals. When the chest thumping moral superiority turns out to be just a lot of hot air, then those same chest thumping morally superior (by which I mean inferior) people then as "So what?"

 
At 8/22/2012 10:51 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Let me get this straight.

I should want to vote for Romney to run the government because he is better at giving money away?

 
At 8/22/2012 10:54 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

Obama's Tax returns

So basically until he thought someone was looking and had more disposible income than he could spend, Obama held onto his own money.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:58 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

Let me get this straight.

I should want to vote for Romney to run the government because he is better at giving money away?


Both Romney and Obama have given away very large sums of money, but with very important distinctions:

Romney gave away millions of his own money.

Obama gave away trillions of other people's money.

 
At 8/22/2012 10:59 PM, Blogger Itchy said...

I should want to vote for Romney to run the government because he is better at giving money away?

No, but maybe you should question why people who claim to be champions of the "little guy", "the working class", or "the poor" don't seem to give their OWN money to those causes.

 
At 8/22/2012 11:03 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

one of the biggest chest thumper on this site.

==============================

You are talking in terms of humility, right?

I say what I think. Sometimes it followas a conservative line and sometimes not. I dislike spin, whichever side it comes from.

Beating up on Romney by taking his gaffes out of context is as distasteful as doing the same to Obama. On one side Romney can do no wrong and Obama can do no right: on the other Obama can do no wrong and Romney is pure evil.

It is possible that one side is right and the other is wrong but I think it is more likely that both sides are liars and the truth is someplace else.

I don't think I will find it under a pile of ad hominem attacks.

 
At 8/22/2012 11:07 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

don't seem to give their OWN money to those causes.

==================================

Maybe I will, but so far all I see is the claim and not the evidence. What seems to be snd seems not to be seems to me to be highly speculative in this venue.



 
At 8/22/2012 11:13 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

That crate on top of Romney's car was more luxurious than George Obama's abode in Kenya.

===============================

George lives in Kenya by choice, right?

Was the dog in the crate by choice?

Anybody ask the dog about it? WE pay extra to ride around with the top down, what makes anyone think it was a problem for the dog? Don't dogs ride around with their head out the window for the panorama of scents they can enjoy?

Don't dogs ride around in pickups with no seat belts? Can we get off of Romney being cruel to dogs, for crying out loud?

As for George, I imagine you would not have to look very far to find some Romney relatives who aren't exactly basking in the sun.





 
At 8/22/2012 11:19 PM, Blogger Ken said...

Hydra,

Your last three comments were pure entertainmnet. Thanks!

 
At 8/22/2012 11:48 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Obama gave away trillions of other people's money.

==================================

Obama did not give it away by himself: he had lots of help from both sides of the aisle and even from his predecessor.

The trillions he pumped went right back to the people it came from. What good is all that money if it does not go round and round?

If it gets invested it gets spent, if it gets spent it gets invested. But if it sits there doing nothing because its owners are paralyzed with fear, what good is it?

When you talk about giving away other peoples money, it sounds as if you believe it is a static piece of pie.

I think we should all just stop spending money. We should all save it and stash it away in only the most conservative of investments: the ones with little risk. That way we can have a vibrant economy, like the Japanese, who save much more than we do.

Shoot, cell phones are going to supplant money anyway: the next disruptive technology will be Portable Electronic Bartering. Get the government out of the money business.

We will have an immense virtual database that can tell us exactly what represents a full and fair trade, in real time. Assymetric knowledge will disappear, and with it, asymmetric profits. There will be no such thing as a "smart" businessman, because the robotic virtual marketplace will make everyone nearly equally smart.

It will be the retail verion of microtrading.




Look, the governments primary job is the protection of people and their property. Of all the coprporate and private entities out there, no one has a bigger stake in keeping things moving than the government.

The government is not doing its job of protecting people and their property if it just lets the economy collapse. It is not doing its job if it lets robots foreclose on people.

To be sure, the government has its own self interest in mind. Just as surely the government (bush and obama) were faced with Sophies Choice.

And lets face it, if you have major banks that are shorting the same products they are inventing, promoting and selling; that is a license to print money.

Had the POW in Chief been elected, he would have been stuck with the same actionable choices, and I doubt the result would have been much different.

Yeah, it is other people's money, I get it, and I am a strong believer in property rights. But, we trade rights every day, along with the property. From the governments perspective there are lots of conflicting property rights, and their job is to protect as many of them as equally as possible.

So it comes down to this, for esample, who would you rather have a license to print money, the government of the banks?

For myself, I just do not think it is quite so easy as saying that Obama spent trillions of other peoples money, even if those people have not been born yet.







 
At 8/22/2012 11:52 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Your last three comments were pure entertainmnet. Thanks!

===============================

Thank you. I accept that as genuine and not sarcastic.


It is all entertainment, even politics. What would comedians do for material without politicians?

It is just a question of whether the price of the ticket is worth what you get, and who is doing the scalping.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:36 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

“The wealthy but uncharitable socialist ceases to be a mystery once you understand relative prices. Voluntary charity is costly to the giver, but voting for charity ... is virtually free.” -- Bryan Caplan, George Mason University

 
At 8/23/2012 12:40 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

When you look at the data,” says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, “it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: “their religious participation.” Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money — four times as much.

But doesn’t that giving just stay within the religion?

“No,” says Brooks, “Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.” -- "Who gives to charity", John Stossel

Just "membership dues".

 
At 8/23/2012 12:46 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

But, hey, leftists can be charitable as well.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:50 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...


The director of a Detroit food bank wants to know what happened to 60 turkeys -- 720 pounds of frozen birds -- that his charity gave to members of DEMOCRAT U.S. Rep. John Conyers' local staff two days before Thanksgiving to give to needy people.

Conyers' Detroit office promised an accounting of any turkey distribution by Dec. 27, but the Gleaners Community Food Bank had received no paperwork as of Tuesday, said the charity's director, Agostinho Fernandes.

Fernandes said he became suspicious that the turkeys didn't get to poor people after hearing from a friend that a federal court worker had said he was offered free turkeys from a member of Conyers' staff. -- Instapundit

Democrats, the caring party.


 
At 8/23/2012 12:52 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

 
At 8/23/2012 2:05 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

The federal government continues to spend over $1 trillion a year more than it has, while many people, who support government programs, don't seem to understand they'll ultimately pay, one way or another, and don't realize the opportunity costs.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:47 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"some folks take every single deduction they are entitled to while others just give to charity and do not claim it on their taxes."

Stuff from ass.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:58 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Suppose that you were made czar over all charitable collecting and giving. How would you organize it?"

Right away you go off the rails by assuming that charity needs to be organized by central planning.

 
At 8/23/2012 3:02 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Mr. Biden recognizes and appreciates state. However, rather than Mr. Biden making inordinately high contributions to state (voluntary extra tax as his charitable contribution) i.e. Mr. Biden’s charity, his path is other people’s money aka your money, as involuntary contributions to his favorite charity, state."

I'm sure you are correct. Amtrak would be one example of a Biden favorite charity supported by other people's money.

 
At 8/23/2012 3:08 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I do wonder what the numbers would look like if it includes non-deductible and other gifts. I know I donate a descent amount of money, but I don't deduct it because I am lazy and homeless people don;t give receipts."

You should insist on getting a receipt. Without one, how can you be sure those people correctly report your donations as income on their tax returns?

 
At 8/23/2012 3:09 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"And of course there are no fraudulent charities and none that make mistakes or use the money badly."

What a beautiful straw man!

 
At 8/23/2012 3:14 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I don't see that it is obviously true. But then, I believe in entropy and not in spontaneous order."

You would believe in it if you understood what it is.

 
At 8/23/2012 3:30 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I should want to vote for Romney to run the government because he is better at giving money away?"

Oh my! Another outstanding strawman. You may have outdone yourself.

 
At 8/23/2012 3:41 AM, Blogger marmico said...

Is charitable giving as measured by itemized deductions on tax returns determined by religious affiliation or political affiliation as the dominant variable?

The "red states" that voted for McCain in 2008 are the Utah-Idaho mormon corridor and evangelical protestantism states in the south.

I say religious affiliation. Are there any studies disaggregating religious and secular giving by state? As far as I understand it, religious organizations receive about one of every three charitable dollars.

 
At 8/23/2012 5:47 AM, Blogger geoih said...

What does the amount of money a person gives to charity have to do with how they might do their job? Maybe you should think less of Ronmey because he only gives to charity so he can claim the deduction on his taxes. Do you even know what charities he gives to?

How is this anybody's business? What an asinine discussion.

 
At 8/23/2012 5:56 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: asinine discussion

indeed.

The referenced report says that the biggest givers were the poor and middle class - in the red states of which many do not or cannot claim such charity on their taxes.

Those who do not make a lot of money and/or do not have a mortgage often cannot claim any of their charity on their taxes.

the stingiest people according to the report - were the rich.




 
At 8/23/2012 6:14 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I also wonder what the numbers would look like if we included time, not just money.

Now, this is just pure speculation, but what if blue states spend more time volunteering than red states (or vice versa)

 
At 8/23/2012 6:21 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

good point Jon! Volunteering is as important or more important that dollars in many cases.

and yet.. it's not deductible as far as I know.

the other thing to keep in mind is that unless you can qualify to itemize your deductions - you cannot claim your charitable donations nor your volunteer time (anyhow).

What if BOTH could be claimed regardless of whether you took the standard deduction or itemized?

 
At 8/23/2012 6:48 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Right, Larry.

My problem with statistics like these is they only measure the measurable (I know, this statement is so profound). There is a much larger story going on that the numbers don't cover.

Now, I'm not making a judgement on this specific report, but talking about statistics in general.

I am a baseball guy, which means I am obsessed with statistics. It also means I am superstitious.

To stick with baseball, I do believe the non-measurable is just as vital.

"Why do you want to keep this guy on your team? He bats .230, hits just 5 home runs a season, and only gets on base 30% of the time. He's not that good."

"That's what his stats say, but he makes everyone around him better. He keeps the clubhouse loose, keeps everyone happy. A happy clubhouse is a winning clubhouse."

 
At 8/23/2012 7:09 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Yup - I can give some examples:

people who volunteer at the food pantry and donate cash without receipts towards buying food for the pantry.

people who do AARP taxes for the elderly and those of modest means.

people who volunteer at schools and buy supplies and shoes/clothes for kids who show up needing them.

people who volunteer at day care for kids or the elderly.

people who volunteer to drive the elderly to their medical appointments.

there is a LOT of undocumented charitable donations going on beyond what is shown on IRS returns and a LOT of it is done by people who are not affluent - sometimes people who themselves would be classified as deserving of charitable efforts.

 
At 8/23/2012 7:34 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Just briefly reading this survey, I think the concrete conclusion that can be drawn is more people are generous that thought. various stereotypes exist, but they are incorrect.

This, to me, validates one of my strongly held beliefs: Americans are good people who will help their countrymen in times of need.

 
At 8/23/2012 11:04 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"good point Jon!"


Yes, by all means, whatever straw Larry can grasp to help his beloved liberal hypocrites save face.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"people who volunteer at the food pantry and donate cash without receipts towards buying food for the pantry.

people who do AARP taxes for the elderly and those of modest means.

people who volunteer at schools and buy supplies and shoes/clothes for kids who show up needing them.

people who volunteer at day care for kids or the elderly.

people who volunteer to drive the elderly to their medical appointments.

there is a LOT of undocumented charitable donations going on beyond what is shown on IRS returns and a LOT of it is done by people who are not affluent - sometimes people who themselves would be classified as deserving of charitable efforts.
"

Don't these examples of basic human generosity argue against your usual claim that without forced redistribution by government, people in need would be just flat SOL?

 
At 8/23/2012 12:35 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Don't these examples of basic human generosity argue against your usual claim that without forced redistribution by government, people in need would be just flat SOL?

I think they show that there is a lot of charity that is not "reimbursed" by the govt like it is for the rich who get to write off and get real money back for it.

Many folks give regardless of being able to claim it on their taxes.

others do not make enough money to claim it but they still give.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:38 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"the stingiest people according to the report - were the rich."

Perhaps it's the rich who are doing most of that volunteering and undocumented giving you used as support for your argument about tax returns.

Or, if that doesn't fit your world view, maybe the rich feel that after having as much as half of their income taken from them, much of which supposedly helps people in need, they have given enough.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Perhaps it's the rich who are doing most of that volunteering and undocumented giving you used as support for your argument about tax returns.

Or, if that doesn't fit your world view, maybe the rich feel that after having as much as half of their income taken from them, much of which supposedly helps people in need, they have given enough.


I know quite a few folks who volunteer their time and give significant amounts of money and do not claim it on their taxes.

how do you "measure" that?

Some folks are charitable with no need to claim it on their taxes, you know.

I realize that to some "stingy" types that that is dumb... but to folks who help others.. it's part of who they really are.

we have enough selfish and stringy people in the world who want "credit" every time they "help".



 
At 8/23/2012 12:43 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"This, to me, validates one of my strongly held beliefs: Americans are good people who will help their countrymen in times of need."

One of mine also, and it seems likely they would help even more if so much wasn't being taken from them by force.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:45 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

One of mine also, and it seems likely they would help even more if so much wasn't being taken from them by force.

no.. that's the excuse given by niggardly types...

 
At 8/23/2012 12:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I think they show that there is a lot of charity that is not "reimbursed" by the govt like it is for the rich who get to write off and get real money back for it."

Nice evasion, Larry, you didn't answer the question.

 
At 8/23/2012 12:49 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Nice evasion, Larry, you didn't answer the question

oh but I DID. It was ON TARGET!

 
At 8/23/2012 12:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"no.. that's the excuse given by niggardly types..."

And, what would that be, Larry? How would you describe a niggardly type?

 
At 8/23/2012 1:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"oh but I DID. It was ON TARGET!"

Then you didn't understand the question. Try again.

 
At 8/23/2012 1:34 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Is the argument that dozens of uncoordinated and voluntarily funded charities, with all their redundant bureaucracies can do all that needs done better than government?"...

Absolutely you silly commie hydra...

Anyway what is the federal government doing in the 'charity business' anyway?

 
At 8/23/2012 1:37 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Now, how about we see Romney's AGI back to 1998.....

I love the double standard here
"...

Hmmm, guess what larry g?

The double standard is that you're NOT paying as much in taxes as Romney is...

 
At 8/23/2012 1:41 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"And of course there are no fraudulent charities and none that make mistakes or use the money badly"...

hydra do you mean charities that are just as loathsome as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

 
At 8/23/2012 1:42 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry says: "I know quite a few folks who volunteer their time..."

Translation: "I have some anecdotal evidence I will cling to rather than confront actual, statistical evidence.

 
At 8/23/2012 1:45 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"BTW. I would [w]ager that Romneys clothing budget is ten times whot Bidens is, too"...

Well hydra I would also wager that any fence post on Romney property has an IQ that is 10 times higher than Biden's also...

 
At 8/23/2012 1:48 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Juandos,

"Well hydra I would also wager that any fence post on Romney property has an IQ that is 10 times higher than Biden's also..."

I wish these comments had a "like" button like Facebook.

 
At 8/23/2012 1:50 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

many folks who volunteer their time and money do not itemize their taxes.

how to you MEASURE that?

re: niggardly

yes.. there are those who know about every penny of their and those who don't when helping others.

how do you measure that?

some folks keep detailed records and receipts. In fact, they will not donate unless they get a receipt. Others don't let the lack of a receipt stop them.

I would assert that those nasty liberals are among those who freely give of their time and money and don't keep as tidy records in that regard.

Conservatives OTOH tend to be stingy and selfish as evidenced by their attitudes toward those who are in need of help even those in those circumstances though no fault of their own.

:-)

things are boring here as of late... let's stir it up...



 
At 8/23/2012 1:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"here used to be lots of car manufacturors, each doing their own thing, but it pretty soon boiled down to a handful.

Why would charity be different?
"...

Yeah hydra, just look at them now...

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

Mind you this is after how many billions of extorted tax dollars thrown at this company...

 
At 8/23/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Is that the same GM that Paul Ryan voted to bail out?

when does the Romney/Ryan budget reach balance?

 
At 8/23/2012 1:54 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"The trillions he pumped went right back to the people it came from. What good is all that money if it does not go round and round?

If it gets invested it gets spent, if it gets spent it gets invested. But if it sits there doing nothing because its owners are paralyzed with fear, what good is it?

When you talk about giving away other peoples money, it sounds as if you believe it is a static piece of pie.
"...

The monker says hydra but the logic oozes pure Rachel Maddow...

 
At 8/23/2012 2:00 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Is that the same GM that Paul Ryan voted to bail out?"...

I don't know one way or the other how Ryan voted on this larry g but do you have something credible that shows that he did?

It wouldn't suprise me in the least if Ryan had voted for that turkey...

"when does the Romney/Ryan budget reach balance?"...

Well without spinning the numbers I would say the possibility of a REAL balanced budget could come within a couple of decades after the last 'pander to parasites' program is given a permanent dirt nap...

 
At 8/23/2012 2:02 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Veep pick Paul Ryan voted for auto bailout opposed by Mitt Romney

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/paul_ryan_voted_for_auto_bailo.html

oh and he voted for stimulus also...as well as the bank bailouts and the Medicare Part D subsidies.

re: balanced budget...

what is his plan?

 
At 8/23/2012 2:13 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"I would assert that those nasty liberals. ."

And you would have zero evidence for that assumption.

I would assert those nasty liberals think their moral superiority exempts them from actually following the life guidelines they preach to the rest of us. We have Obama and Biden as perfect examples.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I would assert those nasty liberals think their moral superiority exempts them from actually following the life guidelines they preach to the rest of us. We have Obama and Biden as perfect examples.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros?

all good guys ...very generous and very UN-niggardly UNLIKE folks like Romney and Ryan who would kick a homeless guy just for yuks.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I know quite a few folks who volunteer their time and give significant amounts of money and do not claim it on their taxes."

Heh! Well then by all means, extrapolate your anecdotal evidence to apply to all people generally.

"Some folks are charitable with no need to claim it on their taxes, you know.

I realize that to some "stingy" types that that is dumb... but to folks who help others.. it's part of who they really are.
"

Do you mean that it's "part of who they really are" to be wasteful?

After all, from a practicle standpoint, if a person claimed the deduction, they could give that amount of tax savings to a charity of their choosing also. Wouldn't that be better than just throwing it into the general trough and hoping it is put to good use by government spenders?

"we have enough selfish and stringy people in the world who want "credit" every time they "help"."

Would you recommend eliminating the deduction for charitable giving?

 
At 8/23/2012 2:15 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"re: balanced budget...

what is his plan?"

Seriously? It was passed by the House 2 years in a row. Your hero Obama's plan didn't receive a single Democrat vote 2 yrs in a row.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Seriously? It was passed by the House 2 years in a row. Your hero Obama's plan didn't receive a single Democrat vote 2 yrs in a row.

that "plan" balanced the budget?

hahahahahbhbhahahahh

it was hypocrisy personified!

the man is a grade A HYPOCRITE!

Show him the budget sequester or similar and he runs screaming to hide in the closet.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:19 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Paul

"I wish these comments had a "like" button like Facebook."

They do, you just can't do it with one click. :)

*like*

 
At 8/23/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"George Soros?"

Figures you'd lionize the parasite who bankrolls Media Matters. He's known as the "The Man Who Broke the Bank of England," was convicted for insider trading in France, and was a Nazi collaborator against his fellow Jews in WWII. Quite a benefactor for the libs you have there, Larry.

Hey Larry, I guess in this thread do you admit you're a liberal? It's so hard to tell sometimes when you have your "pragmatist just asking questions and trying to solve problems" hat on.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:29 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Show him the budget sequester or similar and he runs screaming to hide in the closet."

I love this coming from one of the douchebags who still licks Obama's boots. I wish Ryan's plan cut more than it does, it certainly cuts more than Obama's, but selfish geezers like yourself would riot in the streets if anyone touched their cushy entitlements.

Hey Larry, here's tax cheat Tim Geithner admitting to Ryan the Obama crew has no plans to fix the debt time bomb, but they'll work overtime to stop Ryan's. You've never seen that before, have you?

Let me repeat: Geithner admits no plan, but promises to fight Ryan's.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:29 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: Soros .. my BAD! :-)

re: "liberal"

nope.. I just find what some say passes for "conservative" or "libertarian" these days as just totally hypocritical.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:32 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I wish Ryan's plan cut more than it does, it certainly cuts more than Obama's, but selfish geezers like yourself would riot in the streets if anyone touched their cushy entitlements.

I'm all for cutting entitlements but I'm also all for cutting DOD and any self-professed libertarian or "conservative" worth their salt would be also.

"cutting" Medicare basically means charging more for it - and I'm in favor of that AND I'm in favor of vouchers IF they include health care inflation indices because it's the cost of health care that is the problem for everyone not just seniors and the answer to it is to address the problem rather than just penalizing one segment of society.

In other words, I am in favor of real answer not the blather coming from the GOP.

 
At 8/23/2012 2:40 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"cutting" Medicare basically means charging more for it - "

No, it doesn't. It means seniors would have to pay more out of their pockets rather than out of mine, something that would put downward pressure on prices.

"IF they include health care inflation indices because it's the cost of health care that is the problem for everyone not just seniors "

I suggest you research the Ryan concept of "premium support."

"and the answer to it is to address the problem rather than just penalizing one segment of society."

Your hero Obama "addressed the problem" by swiping $716 billion from Medicare. He "addresses the problem" by appointing an unaccountable board of bureaucrats to centralize medical decisions in Washington D.C.

"nope.. I just find what some say passes for "conservative" or "libertarian" these days as just totally hypocritical."

Good lord. What is it with liberals and their bullshit lies? Like your hero Obama, you claim an absence of an ideology that is obvious to everyone here who reads your mindless liberal drivel.



 
At 8/23/2012 2:41 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"re: balanced budget...

what is his plan?
"...

Well larry g a liitle googling around and voila, stuff I only had the haziest ideas about have been more solidified...

CNSNews Nov. '11: GOP Budget Chair Ryan Votes ‘No’ on GOP’s Balanced Budget Amendment: Will Lead to ‘Bigger Government,’ ‘More Taxes’

CNSNews Mar. '12: Paul Ryan: My Plan Can Balance the Budget in 10 Years

Now remember larry g there is a very distinct difference between a Republican and a conservative, far more difference (IMHO) than between Republicans and Democrats...

I think the only real budget plans that would actually balance the budget over time are the plans offered up by Sen. Rand Paul...

Rand Paul's budget proposal for FY 2011...

Rand Paul's budget proposal for FY 2013

 
At 8/23/2012 2:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"very generous and very UN-niggardly UNLIKE folks like Romney and Ryan who would kick a homeless guy just for yuks"...

Hmmm, really?

How many homeless people in the Seattle area has 'ole four eyes' gotten off the streets and into something better than a lean to?

 
At 8/23/2012 2:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos


"General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again"

Thanks for the link. interesting article.

 
At 8/23/2012 3:02 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"cutting" Medicare basically means charging more for it - "

No, it doesn't. It means seniors would have to pay more out of their pockets rather than out of mine, something that would put downward pressure on prices.


they already pay 20% EXCEPT that when the GOP passed Medicare Part D subsidies they also passed another big give-away for Part C ( Medicare Advantage).

I'm in favor of higher deductibles, higher co-pays, higher premiums and removal of Prescription drug and "gap" subsidies.

"IF they include health care inflation indices because it's the cost of health care that is the problem for everyone not just seniors "

I suggest you research the Ryan concept of "premium support."


I have and he does not address the real problem. His approach is to screw the seniors and screw anyone who cannot get employer coverage.

"and the answer to it is to address the problem rather than just penalizing one segment of society."

Your hero Obama "addressed the problem" by swiping $716 billion from Medicare. He "addresses the problem" by appointing an unaccountable board of bureaucrats to centralize medical decisions in Washington D.C.


you're drinking the kool-aid here. What Obama did (in part) was cut the subsidies to Part C and Part D because those subsidies are indexed to health costs inflation and the index was too generous.

here, get yourself educated:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

 
At 8/23/2012 4:00 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

~G Gordon Liddy

 
At 8/23/2012 4:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"..they already pay 20% EXCEPT that when the GOP passed Medicare Part D subsidies they also passed another big give-away for Part C ( Medicare Advantage)."

True. Bill Clinton and Al Gore used the phony late '90's surplus to badger for a new entitlement. Bush unwisely went along with the public pressure, but the Democrat plan was 2x as expensive.

"His approach is to screw the seniors and screw anyone who cannot get employer coverage."

Your approach is to live high off the hog in your EZ chair screwing the rest of who pay for your idle golden years.

" What Obama did (in part) was cut the subsidies to Part C and Part D because those subsidies are indexed to health costs inflation and the index was too generous."

That's one way to spin it. The honest way is to point out official Medicare actuaries have determined that approximately 15 percent of hospitals will be driven out of business in less than ten years if these cuts go through, and have called the cuts “clearly unworkable and almost certain to be overridden by Congress.”

Price controls never work, but that won't stop ignorant liberals from trying them over and over and over...

"here, get yourself educated:"

I love the irony of an ignoramus like you imploring someone else to get educated.





 
At 8/23/2012 5:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

That's one way to spin it. The honest way is to point out official Medicare actuaries have determined that approximately 15 percent of hospitals will be driven out of business in less than ten years if these cuts go through, and have called the cuts “clearly unworkable and almost certain to be overridden by Congress.

remember there are FOUR Medicares

Part A
Part B
Part C
part D

of the 4, Part A - Hospitalization is the ONLY one that is paid for through FICA Payroll taxes and the one that will be the easiest to fix.

The other 3 are subsidized directly by taxpayers and are the ones that will ultimately bankrupt the country if changes are not made.

But the whole issue is fogged up by the anti-govt, anti-entitlement folks who really don't care what the facts are at all as their goal is to kill Medicare all together which is totally off the wall in terms of realistic prospects.

If you really want to fix Medicare, you must fix the outrageous taxpayer subsidies that are present in Parts B,C,D.

Not a single person in the GOP is willing to tell the truth about this much less advocate anything with a chance of getting enough support to go forward.

The anti-govt types might like that - but it's not leadership, it won't solve problems and it will lead to further gridlock - which if it continues WILL bankrupt the country.

but when Medicare bankrupts the country, it will only be part of the bankruptcy as all health care costs will contribute to the destruction of the economy.

It's irresponsible and feckless.

we pay twice as much per capita than any other industrialized country in the world and all we have is excuses and blame rather than actually dealing with it.


 
At 8/23/2012 5:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"remember there are FOUR Medicares"

Unable to deal with the issues presented or the questions asked, Larry resorts to his usual educational series on Social Security and Medicare, with its central theme of more government involvement being the key to fixing them.

 
At 8/23/2012 9:05 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I have and he does not address the real problem. His approach is to screw the seniors and screw anyone who cannot get employer coverage"...

Well larry g if these aging parasites had fought LBJ's great society crapola as they were urged to they wouldn't be in this predicamnent now...

The fools thought they were going to get something for almost nothing...

 
At 8/23/2012 9:30 PM, Blogger hancke said...

I have not seen any proposals from the pro-government, pro-entitlement bunch that address the problem other than to add to it or transfer it.

 
At 8/24/2012 4:16 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

I have not seen any proposals from the pro-government, pro-entitlement bunch that address the problem other than to add to it or transfer it. .

I think the problem is - finding an acceptable solution - as opposed to advocating something that is so politically untenable as to cause gridlock.

The first thing is to recognize that Medicare itself is only a part of the problem - especially compared to MedicAid which is twice as much in the budget.

Both of them are symptoms of a bigger problem which is the cost of all health care in this country - which ends up being twice, three times what it is even if countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, etc.

We say it is because we get better health care - but we do so only for those who have it. Those who cannot get it without entitlement "help" end up transferring those higher costs on all taxpayers.

If you actually could get rid of Medicare and MedicAid, all you would be doing is having more and more people who cannot afford health care - and as the costs continue up, more and more people would either lose their health care or the costs of it would eat up any productivity gains.

Eventually, the greatest country on Earth would look like a 3rd world country when it comes to health care with a small minority able to afford it and everyone else just out of luck.

Is this REALLY what we want in this country?

If you listen to the anti-govt, anti-entitlement folks, you might believe that.

But most Americans do not support that outcome - even as many, if not most, do not like "entitlements" and "socialism" either.

Most folks support payroll taxes to sock away money for their retirement and health care needs in retirement.

They do want guaranteed assurance of their savings and access to health care.

It's an honest question as to how much of a role govt can play in meeting those two wants.

but people also realize that putting your money in the stock market has no guarantees either.

What people want is - insurance.

that's not a foreign concept.

Most folks buy home, auto and life insurance and they actually depend on the govt - to assure that the companies that provide that insurance actually do - as opposed to taking people's money and then not paying off when the time comes.

So people depend on the govt even when they buy private insurance.

the only folks who do not "need" insurance are those who are rich enough not to.

On a percentage basis - how many is that? 5 or 10% ?

 
At 8/24/2012 10:46 AM, Blogger 434AT3M3 said...

AMT and my high real estate and state income taxes make it impossible for me to give much money...maybe 1%.

 
At 8/24/2012 10:46 AM, Blogger 434AT3M3 said...

AMT and my high real estate and state income taxes make it impossible for me to give much money...maybe 1%.

 
At 8/24/2012 11:10 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If you are paying amt then you need a better tax accountant.


Or, you could earn less income, and pay less taxes. I, have never seen anyone actually take that approach, but it is an option if you really hate paying taxes.

Shucks, if you hate it enough, you could Lowe r your income to the point at which the government pays you. But then, government had a requirement that you work to get those benefits. How does minimum wage sound to you?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:16 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If these aging parasites had fought obj great society cupola they eiuld be in far worse shape now.

Take a look at any society or nation that has no such plans: if you cannotn find one.

 
At 8/24/2012 11:20 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Ron, we got Medicare because the previous plans find not work. When you hav e an honest plan that is not essentially moving backwards to a grilled system, please let me know.

 
At 8/24/2012 11:24 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Bush unwisely went along with the public pressure

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷


So you mean he did what the people he represented wanted done?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:26 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

This is a joke right? You are actually quoting s felon ssh someone yhodr active we should respect?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:29 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Paul: hoe many seniors do you figure you are supporting out of the taxes you pay?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:33 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

So the best system would be to let them all go broke, until we eventually have one mamufacturor?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:36 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Romney's property has fenceposts.

Biden's dies not.

 
At 8/24/2012 11:38 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Nope, nor is he able to pay as much. Nor does he use as much government service as Romney.

 
At 8/24/2012 11:39 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Yes

 
At 8/24/2012 11:43 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

So you do not believe tat any concerted corporate enterprise can achieve any more than we might get by random chance and individual effort?

Are you in favor of outlawing corporation?

 
At 8/24/2012 11:48 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Gifts under s certain level need nit be reported.

 
At 8/25/2012 6:08 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

Seniors pay significant taxes especially if they had other income other than social security - they end up with their social security taxed.

Seniors also pay 20% of Medicare which in the case of a major operation is a lot of money if all you have is Social Security.

Medicare does not cover teeth or eyes or long term care either.

About 1/2 the people in the US die without any assets and many die in that condition because of end-of-life expenses for medical care and nursing homes.

And the most important thing to keep in mind if you are not old - is that you will get old - and worse, you will die - and if you are lucky, you will die cheap and not end up spending all your assets in the process.

but I can guarantee you - you will get old and you will die - as you contemplate what role govt might play (or not) in that destiny.


 
At 8/25/2012 11:56 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Was the dog in the crate by choice?"

I can't believe I'm actually responding to this stupid question, but yes, the dog was in the crate by choice.

 
At 8/25/2012 12:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"About 1/2 the people in the US die without any assets and many die in that condition because of end-of-life expenses for medical care and nursing homes."

What's wrong with that?

And do you have a reference for that 1/2 figure before I suggest that you pulled it from your ass?

"...but I can guarantee you - you will get old and you will die..."

No one has argued against that notion anywhere on this thread, Larry.

"...as you contemplate what role govt might play (or not) in that destiny."

Are you suggesting I should force others to pay my final expenses so I can leave my assets to my estate?

 
At 8/25/2012 12:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Nope, nor is he able to pay as much. Nor does he use as much government service as Romney."

I can only assume that this is an incomplete reference to someone's previous comment about Biden and Romney.

Based on that assumption, I have to ask how you could possibly know that "he" doesn't use as much government service as Romney?

 
At 8/28/2012 10:05 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I will believe in it when someone shows me an instance that occurs without the input of energy from somewhere.

There is no spontaneous order. There is, however spontaneous disorder.

That is one reason we maintain and pay for government: to prevent spontaneous disorder.

 
At 8/28/2012 10:10 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I dont see that you have restated my position. I believe that is the crux of the argument, is it not? That we should support Romney as a conservstive who gives away more than his opponents?

Do you know what a straw man is? It is not what you call any and every obsrrvation that you have no response for.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home