Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

TAXES: Charity does not depend on government

Letter by David C. Woods, University Place on Dec. 23, 2010 at 1:16 pm with 125 Comments »
December 23, 2010 2:22 pm

Re: “It seems that we voted our values” (letter, 12-23).

The letter writer extols the virtues of paying taxes so that some of our taxes can be used to support social services. She states that voting Christians should not to vote to limit taxes, because by doing so, we are avoiding our obligation to love our neighbors.

This is complete hogwash. Our society today has moved to the point where we are more and more dependent on the government to do everything for us. If taxes were limited to fund just the basic government services, there would be more available in private hands to to donate for charitable causes.

There is no law requiring government to fund all social services. With true love in our hearts, we should give freely to support such causes. This could be done through the private sector, utilizing nonprofit organizations in place of government-supported organizations.

In the true spirit of Christmas, we should all examine our hearts to determine whether it is possible to turn society away from government reliance to reliance upon ourselves.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 125
  1. truthbusterguy says:

    Well said Mr. Woods. It’s a fact that govenment is running out of money at all level and we must take care of our neighbors and friends. We need to return to a better time when we did this naturally. Find a family or a friend that needs some help and help them.

    We will be a better country if we go back to personal responibility and helping our neighbors in need. Depending on government has only turned us into an entitlement society.

  2. In the meantime, the rich are either setting on the hordes of wealth or using it to ship American jobs overseas.

    Bring our jobs back, and protect the Country from unfair foreign products made with wage slaves, and force the military to control and reduce its pork barrel budget, and we just might eliminate or at least reduce entitlement.

    That is if government, labor, and business start cooperating to do what is best for the country as a whole.

  3. Welcome back xring. Where have you been these days? Other regulars have been missing too. We haven’t heard from aislander in a while, I think. I miss the down to earth wisdom of aislander.

  4. First_Lefty says:

    David – in the true spirit of Christmas, the government should quit providing farm subsidies for Michelle Bachman and make her get behind the plow and work that farm to earn her money.

  5. First_Lefty says:

    I think we need more commenters that whine to the moderators, while attempting to start issues with other commenters.

  6. First_Lefty says:

    “We will be a better country if we go back to personal responibility and helping our neighbors in need. Depending on government has only turned us into an entitlement society.”

    Maybe old Truth can explain why Michelle Bachman gets a farm subsidy.

  7. truthbusterguy says:

    xring, you said:

    Bring our jobs back, and protect the Country from unfair foreign products made with wage slaves

    I will bring back some jobs once unions stop raping me and government leaves me alone so I can make a product for a profit. Until such time I will use people in other countries that want to work andhappy to have my company there. Unions and government interference caused me to leave the country. And thanks to Obama for the tax break. I will use every penny to rent a home in the country that welcomes by company and the jobs I sent them.

    When will you liberals get it. We run this country not you.

  8. First_Lefty says:

    “When will you liberals get it. We run this country not you.”

    And they haven’t even taken office yet……..LOL

    Truthbusterguy, I see that you are threatened by your employees organizing to negotiate wages and benefits. Considering your last sentence, it certainly doesn’t amaze me.

    “Government interference” – job safety, compliance with laws, taxation

    I’m truly blessed to work for an employer who embraces their relationship with the union workers and understands the need for conformity.

    Merry Christmas to me.

  9. Maybe someone could stick to the topic and not throw crap in the wind and hope it sticks.

    What the hell does Michele Bachmann (maybe you could spell both of her names correctly) have to do with this letter anyway?

    Farm subsidies are the darling’s of the Democrats, so what is your point?

  10. Copy That

  11. Well, it all boils down to “choice” and “freedom”. The folks that give to charity should have both, to determine where their charity goes. The government hasn’t been a very good stewart of the peoples money.
    .
    The question about Aislander?
    Not sure who that is ;)

    Perhaps she figured it wasn’t worth the effort to do a run around the censor. Because obviously … nevermind.

  12. First_Lefty says:

    “The government hasn’t been a very good stewart of the peoples money.”

    The myth that started with Reagan and continues.

    The funny part is that when you want to find real abuse of federal money, you need look no further than the Pentagon.

  13. First_Lefty says:

    “In the true spirit of Christmas, we should all examine our hearts to determine whether it is possible to turn society away from government reliance to reliance upon ourselves.”>/b>

    What the hell does Michele Bachmann (maybe you could spell both of her names correctly) have to do with this letter anyway?

    If she’d learn to spell her name the way everyone else does……

    Amazing how you can take to task the needy for taking government money, but when a Congresswoman takes a cool quarter of a million……….

  14. First_Lefty says:

    Whoops….I made a typo when I entered the b/f.

    Add that to my spelling of the crazy lady’s name.

  15. First_Lefty says:

    “Roll_On says:
    December 23, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    Maybe someone could stick to the topic and not throw crap in the wind and hope it sticks.”

    just because you can’t make the connection, doesn’t make everyone ignorant

  16. What’s with the spammer and his all bold font?

  17. Truthbuster – with so many of our jogs already gone overseas whom do you expect to BUY your products?

    Hope you do better running your adopted country better than you and yours have ran this one.

    ps: make sure to pick a country that actually lets you buy/own property.

  18. ItalianSpring says:

    David- You are so spot on, and history will prove it to those who can see and do simple math.

  19. Love thy neighbor! It’s kinda hard to do when 1 member of the family refuses to get a job till the other gets a job. Or another quits so they don’t have to pay child support. Then theirs the neighbor who lies to social security to get Ssi when the real reason he’s just fat and lazy . I don’t recall growing up that it was my duty to support the stupid and lazy. Finally when the state stops allowing to have cable w/ Dvr,broadband Internet, smoking cigarettes, consuming alcohol & expensive coffee & free college I will lead the way to have my tax raised to help those in need…..you can take that 2 the bank

  20. redneckbuck says:

    Even if the rich were taxed to the point that the socialsist were happy it would not be enough to expand the social safety net they desire. The marker that defines rich is coming to an income bracket near you.

  21. “We will be a better country if we go back to personal responibility and helping our neighbors in need.”

    I don’t totally buy that. I think you are over simplifying.

    “Our society today has moved to the point where we are more and more dependent on the government to do everything for us. If taxes were limited to fund just the basic government services, there would be more available in private hands to to donate for charitable causes.”

    Or we would just spend the money on ourselves. I suspect soliciting donations from folks is less successful at rising money then taxing folks.

    However, giving folks a helping hand doesn’t mean we can’t expect some kind of work in return for able-bodied-folks.

  22. “Even if the rich were taxed to the point that the socialsist were happy it would not be enough to expand the social safety net they desire.”

    Perhaps, but socialism doesn’t speak in one voice.

  23. I find it rather comforting, knowing that those of us who are down on their luck have a place to go for basic needs, a place that all of us support with our tax dollars. Yes, I am a taxpayer.

    Hopefully, this recession will subside and those in need will once again become part of our productive society.

    Our sense of unity is obviously lost on some people.

    I see nothing wrong with providing a safety net for those who need it.

    We’re all in this, together.

    Happy Holidays!

  24. First_Lefty says:

    Trollin’, trollin’, trollin’ on the discussion thread….

  25. Fatuous writes: We will be a better country if we go back to personal responibility and helping our neighbors in need.”

    I don’t totally buy that. I think you are over simplifying.

    This MAY sound oversimplified, but I believe one of the problems we face now is that we actually over-complicate some pretty simple things.

    I agree with Polago that it’s good to live in a country that doesn’t ignore people down on their luck. I think I speak for many when I say I do not resent taxes that are used in such situations.

    BUT when a society creates a welfare state and when entitlement rules the minds of the masses…we teeter on the edge of collapse.

    Human beings are perpetually conflicted…we’ll take free stuff and NOT work if we’re given the chance (intentional generalization about the human condition) BUT in reality, people want and need to work, to labor, to earn their keep and be responsibile for their children and for themselves.

    Shame is the toxic ingredient in welfare systems gone amuck, and shame leads to anger (as displayed in the streets of European cities this winter).

    So one aspect of this really IS simple, government leaders who want us to be strong and healthy will encourage support the basic infrastructure of our society, do all they can to create jobs; encourage independence, responsibility and charitable giving, respecting the freedom of the individual to choose charitability — which also strengthens the character of a nation.

    Kinda comes down to the old adage about teaching a man to fish, which makes me feel compelled to add that we should spend way more time teaching our children “how to fish” rather than all the rules of political correctness, and oh yes, how to put a condom on a banana.

  26. Note, the post above appears confusing in the opening lines. I am quoting fatuous through the line “I tihnk you are oversimplilfying.” Sorry I forgot the quotation marks.

  27. Yea, people with no jobs have tons of money to give. Thanks reagonomics and repukeicans for the outsourced land of the poor that we reside in now! Hurry, we have a dollar left on the visa. Isn’t there a needy millionaire that can use that?

    There was a recent story that something like 21,000 kids in our state are homeless. Have any extra space David? Charity can begin in your home!

  28. I forgot to mention Bill Clinton and Nafta. Give credit where due!

  29. “BUT when a society creates a welfare state and when entitlement rules the minds of the masses…we “teeter on the edge of collapse.”

    Again, I am not a big fan or giving handouts to able-bodied folks without some kind work done in return. Heck they might even learn a useful skill.

    I like the Habitat for Humanity model.

    However, I am also concerned about the concentration of wealth and free but unequal trade. I don’t think either one is healthy for America.

  30. 14% of Americans are under the poverty line. Most of them work full-time (or more) or used to until they recently were laid off.

    Our unemployment is close to 10%.

    CEOs receive 400% more compensation that their workers. This number has increased tenfold from 40% in 30 years of supply side deregulation.

  31. First_Lefty says:

    “Kinda comes down to the old adage about teaching a man to fish, which makes me feel compelled to add that we should spend way more time teaching our children “how to fish” rather than all the rules of political correctness, and oh yes, how to put a condom on a banana.”

    Political correctness is nothing other than good manners with a different name. Unfortunately, you can’t stop people from being boorish.

    Hopefully children will learn about safe sex. Less hungry children, less diseases.

    Teach them to fish and try to figure out how to feed a family on one fish that is diseased from septic waste in the water.

    Yes, oversimplified.

  32. Roncella says:

    First_lefty, Your beliefs are so left its amost sad to read your posts.

    “Teach them to fish and try to figure out how to feed a family on one fish that is diseased from septic waste in the water “. How can you actually believe as you do ?

    David your letter makes alot of sense. However the lib/progressives who want America to become a third world country where the government controls and distributes the wealth as they see fit, won’t agree with any you have said.

  33. First_Lefty says:

    “”Teach them to fish and try to figure out how to feed a family on one fish that is diseased from septic waste in the water “. How can you actually believe as you do ? ”

    Two words for you, Roncella – “Puget Sound” . I supposed I could say “Hood Canal” as well

    Are you really as naive as you seem? You are so busy making up theoretical garbage about “libs/progressives” that you don’t have the time to see what is going on right under your own nose.

    Remember, Roncella, the “Founding Fathers” were progressives, otherwise we’d be answering to a monarchy.

  34. huffington says:

    “I like paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization.”

    — Oliver Wendell Holmes

  35. First_Lefty says:

    “So one aspect of this really IS simple, government leaders who want us to be strong and healthy will encourage support the basic infrastructure of our society, do all they can to create jobs; encourage independence, responsibility and charitable giving, respecting the freedom of the individual to choose charitability — which also strengthens the character of a nation.”

    This must be the Conservatives that empowered business to offshore jobs and cut taxes that maintain infrastructure.

  36. In 1917, the first social programs, like vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities, started targeting returning vets so they could have the medical care and job training that would allow them to return to work. Since then, our nation has realized that safety net programs, especially medical care, food assistance, unemployment and job training support is not charity, but an essential part of an economic system that depends on healthy trained workers who can focus on their jobs and not just on day-to-day survival.

    We the people, in our democratic way, realize that private charity, no matter how wonderful has never been enough in this country to lift the huddled masses out of poverty, disability and misfortune. Some private charities, but especially those affiliated with churches, spend very little of their receipts on actual services or assistance. And, because of the nature of the timing and location of private giving, funds do not often reach those in most need.

    Basic government social programs are much more effective and efficient as compared to most private charities and have much better screening and outreach programs and audits. I am very happy that some of my taxes are used for these programs. I am also very happy to give privately to agencies that are effective and efficient in their programs, like Goodwill. Neither the government nor private agencies can do the enormous work by themselves. They each need each other to be effective

  37. Roll_on: Glad to be back. Tis the season, so I have been busy teaching my bedbugs to hum.

    Farm subsidies may be the darlings of the Dems, but there are many Repbs who reap a bundle from them.

    Red, soon the truly rich will be those of us who have good, well paying jobs, with benefits.

  38. Tuddo, As I’ve said “some” social aid programs via the government are right and reasonable. But we all know about incidents of incredible waste and absurd bureaucratic dysfunction.

    I will hold fast to my opinion that insofar as we are able, we should guard against social welfare that encourages folks to abdicate responsibililty and leads to a collective entitlement mentality.

  39. Bill Maher’s Christmas message:

    …This is why everything in America gets sucked down a hole. Because what people really value is acquiring crap. Oprah’s show purports to be a lot about spirituality. If it was, then wouldn’t she tell her worshipping flock to sit down and stop losing your s__t over material stuff. As for me, I don’t really know what spirituality means, but I know if you’re weeping over a sweater you don’t either. Merry Christmas everybody!

  40. donjames says:

    Uhmm, shouldn’t that be maher’s Hanukkah message?

    Happy Hanukkah, Bill.

  41. sozo, please let me know which programs you would cut. Administrative costs in the State of Washington for social programs run from 3%-5%. Private charities usually run from 10%-90%. Audits show relatively waste and fraud, and many people are caught if they try. Public programs do not discriminate. A huge bulk of private charities, the churches, discriminate on religion, race, and other factors many people find disgusting. Sure we hear about the few who manage to play the game in public programs, but that percent is so low compared to the people who defraud private agencies who have little or no audit regimes. Yet Republicans want us to give our money to inefficient, ineffective and discriminatory programs of churches and private charities instead.

    Tea Partiers first and then most Republicans want to cut out one of the best programs for making sure our economy works, the one program shown to help the economy recover from recession and unemployment the most, unemployment compensation. It targets people, who have contributed (or their employers) to their own insurance for this program and targets people who are actually in the work force looking for jobs. I don’t have much hope for Republicans looking at this issue in anything but an emoptional, name-calling way like they did in the unemployment discussion. Because of the shock of Republicans arguing against extension of unemployment in a high unemployment economy for the first time since the program was started, I would say that most current Republicans cannot use logic, facts or proof provided by prior experience in this issue, and they will continue to throw out meaningless phrases like “bureaucratic dysfunction” without even looking at how effective and efficient these programs really are, especially compared with the “bureaucratic dysfunction” of private charities.

  42. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, Merry Christmas.

    As a true liberal your very confident in more government handouts being the right way to go for folks in need of a helping hand.

    You must realize that your far left liberal beliefs color your opinion and disire to defend Government programs, or social redistribution of wealth.

    Tuddo, just how long would you suggest that un-employment be extended. If 99 weeks is not enough then should it be extended for another 99 weeks ?

    It has been researched and proven over and over again that many unemployeed will not look for work seriously until the very last weeks of their unployment running out.

    Its human nature to stay home and and relax and collect checks until you absolutely have to make a serious attempt to find another job.

    Thomas Jefferson warned us all when he said ” A government powerful enought to give you every you want or need is powerful enough to take every you have”.

  43. Roncella, I would love to see your research that you say has been proven “over and over” that “many” will not look for work. I doubt such exists except in the minds of Fox News hosts, but I am always willing to look at legitimate science. I suggest that, as in the past, unemployment be extended until companies are hiring again and jobs are available,. which they are not at present. I also agree with proposals to retrain many workers who do not have the skills for our current economy.

    One of the differences between conservatives and progressives is how they view the human spirit. The deep and historical Puritanical view in this country is that humans are evil, nasty, lazy and will always do the worst thing for themselves and others. Your comment makes me believe that when you say that people will not look for work until their unemployment runs out. I take a more pragmatic view. People do want to work. Most people are not lazy bums looking for the meagerest handout. They want to be productive citizens. I think that difference in philosophy is a defining one for progressives and conservatives. Progressives believe in hope and the good parts of being human. Conservatives think all humans except themselves are base and evil creatures, ready to scam anyone and everyone.

    Merry Christmas to you, too.

  44. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, I know of many folks and some relatives who have stated they will not begin to look for a job seriously until their unemployment is about to end.

    Thats not from a national poll or a scientific study its my observations real close to home.

    However I have read the experts opinions on this, I will try and find some sources that made the charges after researching the problem of unemployment.

  45. The Wall Street Journal, citing a Princeton Study in November, 2010, said that actually, people on unemployment have the most activity in looking for jobs during the first 12 weeks of unemployment compensation. Toward the end of the compensation, job searches slow down, not increase. After unemployment ends, people who have been chronically unemployed cease their job searches and drop out of the labor market completely. Here’s from the article:

    “Most economic models say the amount of time spent job hunting should be steady — or rise — the longer a worker is unemployed, in part because they know they’re nearing the exhaustion of jobless benefits. But the researchers found the opposite: The economists posit that workers may run out of suitable jobs to apply for — or could simply get more discouraged the longer they are on the hunt.”

    Capitol Commentary, a right-wing conservative blog is quoted over and over by the conservative press and politicians about unemployment and how it causes dependency and is not productive, but harmful. Here is the “fact,” as they call it, that this blog bases its entire denunciation of unemployment extensions. It is a quote from the minutes of the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee. “The several extensions of emergency unemployment insurance benefits appeared to have raised the measured unemployment rate, relative to levels recorded in past downturns, by encouraging some who have lost their jobs to remain in the labor force”. The unemployment rate may have been raised by as much as 1%, according to The Fed.

    The blog goes on for several articles using this “fact” as a basis. The blog is actually upset that people remained looking for jobs and thus were counted as unemployed rather than dropping out of the labor force altogether. How un-American can one get, actually looking for work?

  46. MarksonofDarwin says:

    If you subsidize something, (anything) then you get more of it.
    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t subsidize **anything**, but we need to be mindful of the very real moral hazards of entitlements.

    Here’s an interesting, rather un-biased article on unemployment:

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/no-the-real-unemployment-rate-isnt-17-3/

    Snip:
    “What is unique about last year’s unemployment was its typical duration — doubling the number of weeks people remain on the dole. Because those who have been unemployed 12–18 months do not leave the ranks of the unemployed until their benefits are about to run out (after an unprecedented 79 weeks or more), it doesn’t take many newly unemployed to push the rate above 10%. Congress tripled the number of weeks people collect unemployment benefits (describing that and other transfer payments as a “stimulus”) and now wonders why so many people take so long to accept a suitable job offer. If you subsidize something, you get more of it — and that applies to unemployment too. Many of those same clueless legislators may be equally surprised to find themselves out of a job next November.”

  47. First_Lefty says:

    “Here’s an interesting, rather un-biased article on unemployment:”

    From the Cato Institute???????????

  48. First_Lefty says:

    “doubling the number of weeks people remain on the dole”

    There is a great example of Cato’s “unbiased” article.

    Unemployment is an insurance benefit that is paid for by employees and employers.

    Cato’s idea of a SSI disability recipient would be they are “on the dole”.

    Cato is “on the take” from the same people that financed the GOP campaigns in November.

  49. The same WSJ citation of the Princeton study of people on unemployment states that people with more than 10 years left in the labor market accept jobs if they are within $10,000 per year of what they were making previously. Older workers, with less than 10 years left in the labor market, accept jobs that are much lower in pay than they previously held. All of those right-wing theories that unemployed people do not accept jobs that are available and would rather keep getting unemployment benefits is proved nothing but hot air when tested in real life. That is why I brought up the thought pattern of conservatives being skewed to make up the worst about humans instead of looking at reality.

    The WSJ reiterated that the jobs people are looking for do not exist in the economy at present because businesses are taking profits, paying their shareholders, increasing CEO wages, and paying huge bonuses because they do not see the demand for products and services which would allow them to expand their work force. When there is no demand, people do not buy, and when people do not buy, the economy suffers.

  50. theogsters says:

    David Woods is kidding himself and trying to deceive us as well. America is increasingly a materialistic society, with decreasing concern for the have-nots and increasing concern for personal gain. That is not said critically, it’s just human nature — provide for yourself and yours before worrying about others.
    And as our growing population places more demands on finite resources, the rising cost and greater competition for those commodities makes the situation even worse. Taxation is the last resort, probably the only way to distribute wealth more evenly. And I don’t see those who have more wealth wanting to raise taxes.

  51. Good Lord theogsters – you are buying right into the communist manifesto.. the class envy, resource allocation, and all of it – hook, line and sinker!

    Nobody is kidding anybody but you, my friend. You should learn civics and your statistics better. The United States is down the list as far as money given when disaster [tsunami, quake, flood, etc.] hits. The citizens combined give more than all other [nations - including ours] combined. As a people we are very generous… thank you very much.. and need for government would / could be more diminished if we’d get it together even more and NOT think we always have to run to (rely on) them – as democrat party left want us to.

    We use things – stuff – right. We CREATE wealth.. which is not money – mere medium of exchange. Think about it – we came here with a few cabins and canoes. Look around you – hello?! yeah.. all the building of civilized life has been good – don’t buy into Avatar James Cameron who has the largest carbon footprint of most all… for little reason – like Gore – hypocrites rocketing around telling you to do with less.. don’t buy it. If we could get more manufacturing back from the Chinese – that we do with scrubbers and enviro more friendly usage of resources that would be a good thing. Lobby for the right things.. like the global competitors doing better or law taking business back! Manufacture more that provides comfort.. more health care comfort.. more porcelin toilets and baths, more cars, more and better – cleaner energy Not go back to the stone age

  52. Why don’t they care about Pelosi huge subsidies? They are hypocrites these leftists reporting on here. They want to turn the blind eye.. say Republicans like Michelle Bachman cause all our problems… The borrowing from the Chinese is to pay the rich… NO.. it is to pay for hug slush funds of stimulus, power grabs on ‘care’..etc. They want the military geared up when the enemy is at the door.. but then forget, blame war problems on Republicans, and cry whaaaaa! Let them have bake sales to pay for high tech missiles so we can pay huge amounts to our bureaucratic education, entitlement, etc. programs.

  53. Strange last few posts…

    So if taxation is the only way to redistribute wealth, I ask once again how that would work. Will the government cut checks to the bottom 98% from the “wealth’ they take, via taxation, from the top 2%?

  54. bobcat1a says:

    Davehill, I hope you were drunk when you did those last two posts. If not, Dude, you need to look into a remedial English language and composition class.

  55. MarksonofDarwin says:

    So because Cato is a Libertarian think tank, you refuse to read an article that in all probability aligns with your own opinion on the subject.

    Weird.
    Your loss….

  56. MoD – the snip you took of the article didn’t seem “rather unbiased” to me.

    It doesn’t matter where it came from. Using the word “dole” which is most commonly associated with welfare to stand-in for unemployment is biased.

    The statement “so many people take so long to accept a suitable job offer.” assumes that the unemployed are staying unemployed because they are turning down job offers.

    “clueless legislators” – do I really have to point out that that isn’t really “rather unbiased”?

  57. There we have it, if you can’t dispute the information, impugn the source.
    “clueless legislators”, sounds all inclusive to me. It would be interesting if you could point out how that’s partisan.

  58. MarksoD, I did read the article from CATO. It has a thesis that people are not taking jobs that exist in the economy because of unemployment compensation benefits extensions. It takes as a basic premise that employers are hiring and people should take whatever job is available, no matter whether it is part-time or full-time. IT makes no mention of skill match or locations of jobs.

    The very basic premise, that people stay on unemployment and do not take jobs until it runs out has been debunked by actual studies, not theories of right-wing cranksters.

    If you think this is a fact-based article, then please continue to watch Fox, which the author approves of while attacking MSNBC as unfair and unbalanced without giving any shred of support for that. This is a typical hit job that people take as gospel if they do not have any intelligence to parse through the garbage that this relies on.

    The author is very critical of the DOL statistics and the fact that DOL calls people who are working part-time but looking for a full-time job as “marginally unemployed”, but even in the article, shows that DOL defines terms very specifically for each type of unemployment number. What does that even have to do with his basic premise that the unemployed are not taking available jobs? He tries to muddy the waters to make it look like these people are getting unemployment and should not be. The article is a mixture of myth and obfuscation, and you want us to take it seriously?

  59. A “rather unbiased” response to whatIdo:

    I don’t answer deliberately obtuse questions from “clueless posts”…….

  60. redneckbuck says:

    Conservatives like myself give 10% of our incomes to a local church. We are usually involved in other charitable giving as well. Liberals focus their attention on attempting to give other people’s money away.

  61. red – I hope you don’t teach your physics students to jump to conclusions based strictly upon personal anecdotes and biases.

  62. redneckbuck, Congratulations on your generosity. The average amount for people giving to charity (including to churches) is 2.0% of income per year in 2009 according to Giving USA. The poor give relatively the most at 20% of income and the top 10% give the least at .8%. Giving is actually up in terms of percentage from the boom time stock market incomes during the Bush Administration when giving fell to an all-time low. Charitable giving included arts, education, research, medical, environmental and other activities besides assistance to the needy.

    You are correct that those who give to churches usually give the greatest amount, at 3.9% of income on the average for total giving.

    Giving USA says, out of a total of $303.75 billion given to charities, only $27.08 billion went to human services and the needy. Over 33% of all giving went to churches, and out of that amount to churches an average of 3% went to non-religious activities. Larger churches, on average used 10% of giving for non-administrative and non-religious teaching activities. Smaller churches ranged from none to much less than 10% of income for non-religious activities.

    People who advocate that churches and private charities should do the work the government is doing in human services had better be ready to pay out a bundle to those charities. Charities on the whole averaged 35% administrative costs, while those in human services averaged 27%. Administrative costs for government programs fun 3-5%, so the amount needed will be much higher for private giving because of the higher overhead costs.

  63. First_Lefty says:

    “Roncella says:
    December 25, 2010 at 10:47 am
    Tuddo, I know of many folks and some relatives who have stated they will not begin to look for a job seriously until their unemployment is about to end. ”

    Malarky. That would be setting yourself up to fail. Most employment specialists will tell you it takes one week for every $1,000 you make a year, to replace your lost job. Since you only qualify for 26 weeks – possibly an extention – you’d better hustle your posterior if you don’t want benefits to run out.

    Scan the help wanted and find out how many $40K per year jobs there are waiting for someone to apply. The Goodwill started a mentoring program last year and was offering $40K for a Director. They had over 200 applicants.

  64. This letter and several of the subsequent posts are based upon a black and white, false dichotomy that leaves no room for anything gray:

    They maintain that there are only two options:
    Private Charity or Government Social Services (aka Commies!)

    Any clearheaded discussion with any but the most extremist libertarian (which, therefore wouldn’t be clearheaded) wouldn’t utilize that either/or paradigm but see that our society needs both private charity and government social services.

  65. First_Lefty says:

    Tuddo:

    Check “give.org” for the administrative costs of the mainstream charities. Most are between 15 and 20%. Religious based charities are known for higher admin costs and many refuse to report to give.org (BBB)

  66. I know of many folks and some relatives who have stated they will not begin to look for a job seriously until their unemployment is about to end.

    Apparently my circle of relatives, friends and acquaintances is of a higher caliber than yours because I know of no one who is utilizing that strategy.

  67. David Woods needs to study American history. The social programs of the state arose because most Americans would not give anybody the price of a cup of coffee- the old 5 cent cup, not the Starbucks latte.

    Giving dollars to support your local none essential charities, such as museums, do nothing to aid the poor. Even donating to churches only produces a minor expenditure of the total donated going to the poor. If you’re neighbor has lost his job, will you feed his family, pay for his housing and utilities, clothe them, pay their doctor bills, etc.

  68. tuddo hit it right on the money. The church I belonged to worked out its local budget to support their house of worship, pastoral salary, etc, and, then added 20% to that total for charitable giving outside the congregation. It was never known how much of those funds actually went to assist the poor- cash it hand or food or clothing.

  69. MarksonofDarwin says:

    OK, perhaps it’s because I read more Libertarian sites than most, that I recognize their brand of snark and sarcasm.
    The author was NOT praising Fox, but rather showing a particular disdain for their dishonest reporting. He clearly has no love for Krugman either. He started the piece with the premise that BOTH SIDES numbers are what muddy the waters.
    That’s typical. Most Libertarians have a bone to pick with both sides.

    I pasted the closing paragraph before, and apparently that was a mistake!
    This one might be more interesting:

    “Many people believe (incorrectly) that unemployment is a measure of how many jobs were lost. But people can also be unemployed because they quit their job, or because they never worked before, or haven’t worked in a long time. Job losers accounted for 63.7% of the unemployed in December, down from 66.1% in September. If we counted only those who were unemployed because they lost their jobs, that measure of unemployment was 6.3% in December — down from 6.7% in October.”

    I know that anecdotes aren’t really helpful, but my own circumstance could serve as an example of what he’s getting at.
    I work part-time freelance. I have for years. I freely made this choice because it gives me more flexibility to be with my family. Because of ths, I am included in the “un/under-employed” statistic, even though it doesn’t really fit what most people think that statistic represents. (people who have recently lost their jobs)

    Although there are any number of reasons that people choose to work part time, (and he gives a few examples) to include them in the unemployment number that makes it balloon to 17% (as those at Fox apparently are doing) is dishonest.

    He goes on to say the percentage of people who DO find **full time** employment generally don’t find that job until shortly before unemployment runs out.
    Is that what has heads exploding? Why?
    He doesn’t link to any specific study, but neither has anybody here. Find one on moveon.org, huffington, kos, (anywhere but some guy’s blog) that debunks this claim, and I WILL read it.

    At any rate, it seems as though I got more out of the Cato piece than anybody else did. *shrug* ..it happens. It doesn’t mean I know more, or am blessed with higher intellect….we ALL know that’s not the case!!!

  70. MarksonofDarwin says:

    The 6.3% unemployment rate represents ONLY those who have recently lost their jobs. When those who have been on long-term unemployment are included, THEN we get the 10% number.
    With unemployment extensions, we are simply subsidizing those who have been living on unemployment for 18 months or more already…..NOT the guy who just lost his job.

    Make more sense?

  71. First Lefty, I have no problem giving to mainstream, effective organizations like Goodwill and others who keep their admin costs low and focus on effectiveness and public disclosure. I agree with beerBoy, however, that we need both public and private. People give to a lot of charities that have little orno effectiveness and have high admin costs, and that is why the averages are so high when you look at the total. The idea that private charities with voluntary giving could supplant or take over for the basic safety net programs of the Federal Government is highly preposterous. A lot of assumptions the right makes when they talk about this is myth and conjecture.

    Also, if people like redneckbuck who give to their church want to feel superior because they give more of their income to “charity”, which includes those highly inefficient churches, then I have no problem with that. They just need to realize that it furthers their church’s interest and not necessarily that of assisting those in need. I give to my church because I do believe in religious education and maintenance of our congregation, not because I am under any delusion that much of it goes to “charity”, although my particular church is a leader in support for social programs in Puget Sound. I also give to private charities, and I willingly pay my taxes knowing that most government programs are effective, effficient and absolutely necessary both from a humanitarian standpoint and for the maintenance of a healthy, capitalistic economy that depends on people buying goods and services.

  72. “very basic premise, that people stay on unemployment and do not take jobs until it runs out has been debunked by actual studies”

    Such as?
    .

    “I don’t answer deliberately obtuse questions from “clueless posts”……. ”

    Because you can’t rectify your statement with the fact the poster did not specify or imply any single party.

    Oh, and I may be “diliberately obtuse”, but you seem “ignorantly obtuse”.

  73. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, Niice that you give to your church, and you don’t mind paying taxes for government programs. However folks like you need to give more to the federal government because thats who you really believe does a better job at providing government programs to the needy.

    One big difference in Conservatives and Liberals.

    Conservatives don’t believe in forcing others to have to contribute their money to causes or special government programs that they happen to believe in.

    Liberals on the other hand want to” tax and force” everyone to contribute to their special programs.

  74. Roncella says:

    beerBoy, It warms my heart that your family and aquaintances are of a higher caliber than my relatives and aquantiances are.

    As a liberal I’m certain that you would not associate with some of my aquantances or relatives, thats a given.

  75. First_Lefty says:

    davehill90 says:
    December 25, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    Why don’t they care about Pelosi huge subsidies? They are hypocrites these leftists reporting on here. They want to turn the blind eye.. say Republicans like Michelle Bachman cause all our problems

    >b>Dave – why don’t you tell us about Pelosi’s subsidies and then tell us when Pelosi called it Socialism, as did Bachmann

  76. Oh, and I may be “diliberately obtuse”, but you seem “ignorantly obtuse”.

    Is that why you misspelled deliberately even though you could have cut and paste it from me? Or is that why you chose an redundant adverb? Perhaps it is because you are obtuse in spite of your best efforts……

    Obtuse
    a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

    Ignorant
    Unaware or uninformed.

  77. ron – one of my best friends is further right than you are…..we just don’t talk about politics.

  78. Roncella says:

    beerBoy, Your right about that. Sometimes we just need to get past the politics and agree with and enjoy the friendships we make along the way.

  79. whatido, please see my previous post for the study conducted for the Wall Street Journal by Princeton University and published in the WSJ November 2010. People take jobs as soon as they find one that is within $10,000 of previous jobs and do not wait for benefits to cease. People within a few months of retirement from the job market are the exception and will take a job with much lower pay. The WSJ says that taking a job that has a greater than $10,000 disparity severely restricts future earnings and worth in the job market and limits availability for jobs when they are available. Same with part-time.

    The WSJ says that jobs are not available for people with skills in many sectors, even though profits are high right now because employers are putting money into CEO pay, employee bonuses and stock buybacks. There is still little demand for goods and services because of the limited purchasing power of the middle class, so companies are not expanding production, except in a few sectors. Unemployment compensation was found by several studies to be the biggest stimulator for demand in the economy, and therefore the biggest stimulator for future hiring and lowering the unemployment rate. Next was food “stamps”.

    The recent Christmas purchasing may be enough to stimulate increased production,a ccording to some analysts, so we may see more jobs available. When the jobs are available, people will take them and they will not wait for unemployment to be extended again. That’s how it has worked in every recession with high unemployment where unemployment compensation was extended, and I’ll bet that is how it will work again.

  80. Roncella, we’ve had this discussion before. You get some things that you like the government to do, like wars and providing big huge wastefully redundant highways, and I get a few that I like, like vocational rehabilitation for people with disabilities and mass transit. I am afraid we are going to have to cut a lot of what we each like and think government ought to do, because you are right, people do not want to pay for things that are useful to our economy in general, but do not specifically target themselves. Too bad, since I thought we were a nation and not just a collection of greedy and selfish individuals.

  81. Roncella says:

    Tuddo, Americans are quick to come to the aid of their fellow citizens when shown the problem, especially with pictures or through investagative reporting.

    Americans are very generous with World disasters and have given millions to help, rebuild or for Medical assistance etc.

    We all have different priorities that we believe in. Yours and mine are
    different both are worthy.

    What you see as being greedy and selfish some might see as being self sufficient & independent, holding Government spending to a min. when ever possible.

  82. “Unemployment compensation was found by several studies to be the biggest stimulator for demand in the economy, and therefore the biggest stimulator for future hiring and lowering the unemployment rate. Next was food “stamps”.”

    The above comment by tuddo caught my eye. I am curious about the logic behind these studies. They seem to imply the “stimulus” effect of buying what was consumed before they lost their respective jobs will be the same. If a person loses a job they tend to reduce expenses and in turn consumption, especially in non-essential areas – typically entertainment.

    I speak from experience (Fall 2008), when I was unemployed and it appear that it might go on a while, I immediately reduced expenses to match my reduced income. I still don’t see how receiving an unemployment check “stimulated” the local economy, all I did was maintain the demand for essential goods while significantly reducing demand for non-essential goods. I am just one person but add the 5 million or so that lost their jobs at that time, and it becomes significant.

    The same for food stamps – they are just maintaining the current demand in the local area. The income baseline is not zero, it is what a person was spending before they lost their job. Most people spend less when they lose their jobs even with unemployment to make up some difference.

    Anybody see it differently help me out…

  83. rr98411, the studies were in light of what the government could do during a recession to increase demand for goods and services and put money directly into private businesses to stimulate hiring. We do not extend unemployment compensation when we have a good economy with low unemployment, even though there might be individuals out of work for long periods of time. It doesn’t do much during good times.

    If people have no unemployment compensation and/or no food stamps, they do not purchase essentials from the marketplace. So, if we did not have those things, or extend them, for the unemployed, they would not have funds to put back into private business through their purchases. That lessens demand for goods and services and often takes people out of the capitalistic system altogether. When these are provided, almost 100% goes back immediately into the economy.

    The spending is in contrast with tax cuts for the top 10%. These were shown to be the least stimulative of anything the government could do. People put that extra money into savings or investments that are not taxed. They do not increase their spending. They do not create demand for more goods and services.

    The “baseline” as you call it if the studies is what spending would be if there were no extensions of unemployment or if food stamps were reduced, both of which were proposed by Republicans.

    Economists theorize that just by passing the extension of unemployment, even before the benefits actually roll out in terms of payments, it created an optimistic effect where people went out and purchased more than they would have if we had not passed the extensions. They may be right with this Christmas spending breaking all estimates.

  84. Not sure what you mean, but if you were the original author and I got it from you…

  85. First_Lefty says:

    rr – regardless of how much money is spent, SOME money stumulates the economy better than NONE.

    As the uncompensated unemployment increases there is NO money to spend, which affects the marketplace at large.

  86. Tuddo – Separating out the food stamps for now. I make the assumption that 10% unemployment is the aberration. In my view, that person would move from full salary to @ 50% of income when that person receives unemployment. Hence reduce available dollars, in turn a reduction in demand. At zero income (no extension for example) the demand side would fall even more… bad times made worse.

    I see what you’re saying though I am coming at it from the 100% (full employment/income) side of the equation. If I were to come from the zero side (no income) of the equation then yeah, I can see how it could be seen as stimulative though my view is that your just preventing demand from going off a cliff. I see that term in this context as political spin from the boys and girls in DC.

    I will also agree that 100% of my unemployment check went back into my mortgage (New York), my truck (Alaska), Insurance (Illinois), Food (Safeway in Tacoma), Utilities (Tacoma)… it was just to maintain my current standard of living, I created no more demand for products or services.

  87. MarksonofDarwin says:

    Tuddo,

    Perhaps you are mis-remembering what publication you read the Princeton study you keep alluding to. I have googled several different searches that yield zero results of a Princeton study in the WSJ, or I get an entire list of articles and op/eds that bolster what has been said by those here that you oppose.

    A link to that very specific study would be very helpful. You seem to have it at your fingertips, but either you posted it and I missed it, or you simply refuse to post the link. Several people have asked for a link, but you keep ignoring all requests. Why?

    I’m sure you understand that for anyone to believe *any* part of your “quotes” from a Princeton study, they must be able to read it for themselves. Clearly, we can all read, and don’t need someone to interpret a study for us.

    I am interested in learning something new, and I hope you will forgive me for being a bit blunt, but polite requests have been disrespectfully ignored.

  88. MarksonofDarwin says:

    I did find this Princeton study: (pdf)

    http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/175krueger.pdf

    It seems to coincide with some of what you’re saying, but of course, you could be quoting an entirely different one.

    The summary says in part:

    “We also find that job search increases sharply in the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion, in line with Mortensen‟s (1977) model. These findings highlight the utility of simple search models for understanding job search behavior and UI.

    A finding that is inconsistent with Mortensen‟s (1977) search model, however, is that search effort appears to decline after week 26, when benefits run out, rather than remain constant. This finding deserves further attention. One possible explanation is that the unemployed become discouraged if they fail to find a job despite substantially increasing their search effort before UI benefits run out at 26 weeks, and consequently stop searching”

    They also recommend a longitudinal study, as these are preliminary findings.

  89. I will also agree that 100% of my unemployment check went back into my mortgage (New York), my truck (Alaska), Insurance (Illinois), Food (Safeway in Tacoma), Utilities (Tacoma)… it was just to maintain my current standard of living, I created no more demand for products or services.

    But you didn’t decrease the demand by defaulting on your expenses…..

    Studies conclude that every dollar in unemployment benefits results in $1.60 to the general economy.

  90. MoD – as one of the currently underemployed (never having received unemployment) in a field that is not highly valued nor supported yet extremely competitive, I can attest to the despair of the job search leading to rejection letters. It is difficult not to give in to the feeling that revising/sending out applications to the few positions that are available (last year there were less than 15 job searches in my field nationwide) is a rather worthless discipline (yet I continue to strive).

    I have no reason to doubt that having benefits run out will lead to a flurry of activity on the job hunt. However, there is a leap of logic that is made by some that the job-hunter’s activity is the only variable determining whether s/he will be successful in landing a job. Some aver that the unemployed stay unemployed due to the benefits being an incentive to stay unemployed while ignoring the reality that, yes, the job-hunter must do his best to find work but, if very few are hiring then very few job-hunters will be successful. And that isn’t going to be changed by losing one’s benefits.

  91. “But you didn’t decrease the demand by defaulting on your expenses…..”

    True that… I did not decrease my “need to pay or else I am homeless or hungry” expenses. The UI help to stabilize my income while I controlled and in turn reduced expenses where I could, hence decreasing demand in those areas. I was not looking for a new house, new car, nor did I spend more than necessary to survive. Did I create a demand… No. Did UI stabilize my household… sure did and if that what you mean by the quote above then we agree. I’m adding the caveat – …in those areas where household expenses are necessary to provide shelter and food as well as directly related expenses.

    There is a 55 inch TV waiting for me at Best Buy. When I feel I have recovered from my recent bouts with unemployment, I will then create a demand by going to pick it up. Until then…

    If you are referring to the Moody’s / Zandi study… That one is another can of worms. We can wait for a letter on a related subject to tackle that one.

  92. Studies conclude that every dollar in unemployment benefits results in $1.60 to the general economy.

    That is a hell of a return on an investment. Where can I sign up to turn $1.00 into $1.60?

    Maybe I need to invest in cattle futures……

  93. Tuddo, let us know when you find the study you keep refering to by posting a link.
    .
    ” job-hunter’s activity is the only variable ” , false dichotomy/strawman, take your pick. I have never seen anyone imply or make that assumption.

  94. “Studies conclude that every dollar in unemployment benefits results in $1.60 to the general economy”

    Again, links people! (huffpo doesn’t count if Fox doesn’t count)

  95. Since whatyoudo isn’t to provide links for your posts……I will, of course, comply with your request:

    Congressional Budget Office:

    Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.

    Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics:

    No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency UI benefits, providing a bang for the buck of 1.61–that is, for every $1 in UI benefits, GDP one year later is increased by an estimated $1.61…
    http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2380

  96. PS Huffpo counts if it supports a RW talking point just as FOX counts if it supports a LW talking point.

  97. MarksonofDarwin says:

    bB,

    According to that study, statistically, people spend the most time looking for work just after losing their jobs and then right before benefits run out.

    Sounds like human nature to me, and I agree that it’s a leap to conclude that the reason all people wait is out of laziness. However, to deny the facts requires a stubborn un-willingness to acknowledge reality out of fear that one many “lose” the argument. It creates a “WHAT are you talking about” moment, because everything else that’s said makes no sense. That’s what I was responding to.

    Frankly, studying human behavior is a messy business with so many variables for each individual, that I’m not the least surprised that the ultimate conclusion of that particular study is cautious, with recommendations of more study.

    At any rate, reading it left me with more compassion for those seeking work, not less. Bad things happen to good people, and there is nothing more soul darkening than being out of work.

  98. redneckbuck says:

    Our government has created an atmosphere that benefits Chinese workers. I would start a manufacturing company myself if I felt I could compete. As things stand right now, it looks impossible.

  99. fbergford says:

    Well Merry Christmas to you all! ANd yes I am saying Merry Christmas because this holiday wouldn’t be around if us Catholics didn’t celebrate it! I will not be Politically Correct…if you can’t hang well get tougher skin, that’s your bad not mine!

    I agree with this letter writer, cut off government programs and you will see that local charities especially churches, non profits start sprouting up to take over and help the less fortunate out. The reason why alot of people don’t want to see these programs leave is because they are the same people who won’t volunteer or help out. THEY DON”T WANT TO LOOK IN TO THE EYES OF THE POOR, they want to live in their little bubble and act like everything is all peachy in the world.

  100. LOL! From the soon to be former speaker’s web site. (wow, that’s sure non-partisan)
    Can’t quite remember who said “it is hard find any economists who aren’t idiots.”

    Anyway (while we wait for a credible link other than the outgoing speaker’s) if beerBoy would be so kind as to provide anything to substantiate his claim I have ever made a claim w/o providing a link, it would be much appreciated.

  101. So….because the Speaker cites them you can just ignore the Congressional Budget Office and the Chief economist for Moodys.

    With a little research you could find the original documents that those quotes came from – but I ain’t doing it for you.

  102. CBO – Though the CBO is non-partisan, “… Budget and mandate cost estimates are based on the text of the proposed legislation. …”

    So, let’s take a health bill and in the legislative text we tax for 10 years and provide services for the last six years… and oh, yeah let leave out the “Medicare Fix” from the bill and make it a separate one. Wow, lookie it’s deficit neutral…. (as I mumble, until the tenth year when the cost begin to exceed the revenues. But then again who has time to read a bill).

    I am not saying don’t believe the CBO, I am saying follow the assumptions used in the bill and determine whether it is GIGO.

    As far as the Zandi link. That paragraph is one but one of a nine page transcript. He makes no analysis of cost just “bang for the buck” based on the Moody’s Analytics econometric model. Whatever that is.

    Consider this gem: “Given their own (the states) daunting fiscal problems, states have difficulty coming up with even a 20% contribution (to the TANF Emergency Fund). Increasing the federal contribution to 90% or even 100% would significantly increase the use of the fund to support job creation.”

    Translation – States can’t print money, the Feds can, so let’s just give them the money even though they can’t balance their own budgets.

    I’m just saying read the source, consider the politics of the source and determine for yourself the validity of their argument for (or against) something.

    I tried to read the Krugman link but I couldn’t stop dryheaving… Like I said consider the source of opinion in this case.

  103. First_Lefty says:

    fbergford says:
    December 27, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Well Merry Christmas to you all! ANd yes I am saying Merry Christmas because this holiday wouldn’t be around if us Catholics didn’t celebrate it! I will not be Politically Correct…if you can’t hang well get tougher skin, that’s your bad not mine!

    Prior to you Catholics, there were Christians of the early churches outside of Roman. Aside from that the Winter Solstice was celebrated by pagans long before the recognition of Jesus the Christ, and said holiday was stolen and renamed by the Christians.

    None of this has anything to do with the letter, but if you’re going to bring it up, at least attempt to be historically accurate.

  104. Well beerBoy, as a “friend” of mine once said,

    “Basic rule of internet rhetoric , you make the assertion – you provide the supporting evidence. It is taken as a sign that you don’t really have anything to back up your claims if you come back with a variation on “do your own research” or “it’s self-evident”. ”

    And, I’ll go out on a limb and suggest had it been a republican speaker’s web site I provided, you would reject it as well.

  105. bobcat1a says:

    Roll-on
    How $1.00 turns into $1.60 is an economic principle called the “multiplier effect.
    It refers to the fact that when a dollar is spent, a part of that money is re-spent in the economy, and a part of that is re-spent, and so on with each additional increment less than the previous but cumulatively adding to the total. You can find reams of info by googling multiplier effect.
    That’s why unemployment checks have a large impact on the economy…the money thus received is instantly spent, starting the multiplier. That’s why money to wealthy people has little economic impact because there is no urgency to spend it so the multiplier is foreclosed.

  106. bobcat1a says:

    whatido, here’s your link:
    http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf

    it’s long and fairly thick but you can skip down to the chart near the bottom for a concise view.

  107. “That’s why unemployment checks have a large impact on the economy…the money thus received is instantly spent, starting the multiplier.”

    Yes the money received is spent immediately… But considering that the unemployment check is approx. 50% less than when the recipient was fully employed, the money is first spent on essential items to maintain a current status of living. What is typically reduced is non-essential and/or entertainment/hobby type spending.

    An unemployed check is money initially coming from insurance, sounds good. Once that insurance runs out, that money is coming from taxpayers, from the productive to the relatively unproductive (When unemployed, I was not making anything nor providing a service. Thanks for helping me not to go over a fiscal cliff). That being said, I was paying essential bills not non-essential and/or entertainment type expenses. I was a relatively a small group of individuals that was maintaining the economy in essential areas not part of a group that was growing the economy in any area.

    I wonder what the multiplier effect is for a person who is receiving borrowed money (in the form of unemployment benefits) at a rate that is approx. 50% less, spending it on essential items and not on non-essential items.

    “That’s why money to wealthy people has little economic impact because there is no urgency to spend it so the multiplier is foreclosed.”

    Are we talking unemployment checks or taxes rate cuts? If we are talking about unemployment for a well-off individual then I submit that the entire unemployment check is spent, along with some savings to maintain the status of living. Because they are dipping into “savings” there is a reduction in assets for that family. I am sure there is a multiplier for that scenario also.

  108. So Jimm…..you reject the CBO and Moody’s as sources?

    Why don’t you just come out and admit that you don’t accept any sources that aren’t FOX ‘news’ or Heritage Foundation types?

  109. Roncella says:

    beerBoy, Whats your beef with the Heritage fundation ?

  110. First_Lefty says:

    I keep looking for “whatIdo’s” links to support claims

    Roncella – the Heritage Foundation (although I do like your faux pas) is a Conservative funded “think tank” that comes up with new inventive ways of keeping the Conservative voter intellectually off balance on issues.

  111. First_Lefty says:

    Why is “paying essential bills” not credited as being part of the overall economy?

  112. I keep looking for “whatIdo’s” links to support claims

    He is good a copying and pasting quotes out of context though…..

  113. “Why is “paying essential bills” not credited as being part of the overall economy?”

    I never said that, my apologies at my lack of clartity if you think I meant that.

    When I was paying essential bills from unemployment, I was part of the overall economy but part of the 9.8% that was barely holding on. Thank God for the 90% that had productive income, typically not from the government.

  114. Gonna flag the comments from fbergford and radec – ad hominem comments about someone and their real world connections are not appropriate – keep the comments to the content of what is written here.

  115. fbergford says:

    FL you remind me of Brainy Smurf….a big dork that thinks he knows it all! hahaha

  116. When someone claims to be an expert about every topic under the sun, then it is appropriate to challenge his or her credentials. It’s not an attack, just the truth.

    A Smurf, LOL!

  117. LOL ! “…keep the comments to the content of what is written here.”
    I’m sure we will all look forward to you leading by example. I will advise, however, that no one hold their breath.

  118. The Working Poor Families Project has just released their policy brief for the winter of 2010-11. The new US Census Bureau data is that 30% of US families are now earning less than 200 percent of the official poverty threshold, and are thereby defined as “low-income.”

    That’s nearly one in three American families now being low-income.

    http://www.examiner.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/1-3-us-families-low-income-economic-controlled-demolition-continues

  119. The Smurfs? Seriously, you are referencing the Smurfs in order to put down the caliber of another’s posts!

    To quote someone’s witty repartee, “You told him………….not”

  120. Roncella says:

    first_lefty It would enhance your understanding of Conservative thinking alot if you tuned into the Heritage Foundation.

    You won’t like or agree with what they say but it would give you something other than a delusional leftest/liberal point of view on alot of issues.

  121. Roncella, lefty is not interested in other points of view, only his opinion matters. You should see some of the stuff written on the hate blog he operates. Calling a caribou hunter a murderer, making fun of a young woman for buying a home in AZ, using foul language against people they disagree with. He needs help that none of us in here can provide.

  122. radec – have you posted anything that isn’t an attack on FirstLefty?

  123. Roncella says:

    beerBoy, you think First_lefty is being unfairly picked on ?

  124. ron – I have no problem with going after someone based upon what they have posted. I do have a problem with bringing up their children and/or anything in their private lives. That is stalking.

    radec has contributed nothing but ad hominem attacks upon First_Lefty which tends to hijack the thread(s). He is a troll.

  125. Bobcat sez – “How $1.00 turns into $1.60 is an economic principle called the “multiplier effect.”
    So why do we even need a stock market, bonds or a market based economy, hmm? If one can get a 60% return why do we need a savings account or CD’s?

    Honestly, the CBO can only use numbers that are given to it prior to the study and report phase. Slight-of-hand timing fools no one for very long. So with the so-called ( theoretical Pelosi-ism) “multiplier efferct better known as the monetary perpetual motion machine, we will only need to release the non-federal non-reserve to print (or “plint” in Chinese vernacular) currency as fast as possible and we will all be filthy wwwrrrichhhh.
    Mr. Madolf, meet Mr. Amway…

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0