Obama and O'Reilly

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Coonass

Whats the matter ER, don't you think I'm a big enough boy to decide where its best spent? Or are you not confident that your money is going where it should? You give more so your a bigger man? Is this really a relavant question? Or are you the absolute arbiter of all things charitable.

It's relevant because you're claiming that you would more efficiently distribute your money to help the poor than the government. I couldn't care less what organization you pick. But here, the government is giving you exactly what you want--more of your tax dollars back--and how much of it are you giving to the poor (as you claim you would, and so much more efficiently than the government)?

That's my point--we cut government programs and the poor will suffer. In the end, people really just want to keep more of their money.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Where did your money from your tax rebate check go?

Why is this the point you've chosen to hang your hat on? Does this somehow conclusively prove that opposition to federal welfare stems solely out of a desire to screw our fellow man? I mean seriously, what the hell?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I didn't get a tax rebate. Why do you assume everyone got a rebate? Why is it even called a tax rebate when a lot of people who paid a lot of taxes didn't get one.

It was a handout to stimulate the economy. I have no problem with it and that I didn't get one, but I am tired of hearing it was a "tax rebate".

I agree...it's a welfare check for the most part. But I'm hearing plenty of people on CB who did...and who spent it on bigscreen tvs, cameras, etc.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Why is this the point you've chosen to hang your hat on? Does this somehow conclusively prove that opposition to federal welfare stems solely out of a desire to screw our fellow man? I mean seriously, what the hell?

Because it's a concrete example of what people will do with tax relief. They can claim all they want, but when it comes down to it, they'll keep it for themselves, and the evidence bears this out.

[Coonass]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

That's my point--we cut government programs and the poor will suffer. In the end, people really just want to keep more of their money.

I'd say that's more of a rational philosophy than wanting to give it to government.

By the way, I'm just curious of your definition of "the poor". Is that a global definition or distinctly american?

And yes, I KNOW I do a better job of helping people with my money than the government.

Are you so sure of where your money went that you can tell me the exact location of its use?

[Coonass]

Let's see If I've got this right. Obama thinks its the neighborly thing to do to force us to give our money to charity. Hmm, this is like de ja vu.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[2][3]"

Why hide it? What you're advocating is pure socialism....only under a different name. How convenient. Who stops this train once it starts? Or do we get to have the acquaintance of or buddies Stalin and Lenin.

By the way, any of you all advocating so strongly for this Obama culture ever visit the soviet union in it hay day? Damn, probably not.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Because it's a concrete example of what people will do with tax relief. They can claim all they want, but when it comes down to it, they'll keep it for themselves, and the evidence bears this out.

Bull. How people spent their tax rebate is no "proof" of how charitable people are generally. You're taking a very narrow slice of income and generalizing from it, and doing so quite poorly.

I wish I had the studies in front of me ... Googling quickly brought up one.

Here's one abstract for a study that says 2/3 of households report charitable contributions, and that the totals add up to 2% of GDP. The full PDF is here.

Some snippets:

The estimates suggest that personal income is a key factor affecting household giving in the United States. Controlling for other determinants of giving, the model suggests that an increase of 10% in average personal income increases average giving per tax filer in a state by approximately 8%.

The model also indicates that (independent of personal income) net capital gains affect giving. More specifically, the estimates suggest that an increase of 10% in average capital gains increases average giving in states by about 2%.

It's apparent that when people are allowed to keep more of their money, they are more charitable. That's far more concrete evidence than your anecdotal experience of surveying those around you (didn't you decry my anecdotes?).

Maybe you just associate with selfish people.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Coonass

Let's see If I've got this right. Obama thinks its the neighborly thing to do to force us to give our money to charity. Hmm, this is like de ja vu.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. [1] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[2][3]"

Why hide it? What you're advocating is pure socialism....only under a different name. How convenient. Who stops this train once it starts? Or do we get to have the acquaintance of or buddies Stalin and Lenin.

By the way, any of you all advocating so strongly for this Obama culture ever visit the soviet union in it hay day? Damn, probably not.

I should have listened to Lebowski on this. So predictable...

[myboynoah]

Nice debate.

On Obama and redistribution of neighborly wealth, he and his wife have got to be some of the stingiest charitable givers in the U.S. Especially for people that have done so well by giving back to the community by not taking those big wall street jobs.

Notice the increase when Obama considers running for President.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...-releases.html

[Coonass]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I should have listened to Lebowski on this. So predictable...

You mean predictably sane?

ER you ever visit the soviet blocs or Soviet union in its prime? If so, maybe you'd look at it distinctly different.