Surprise! on the Saturday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan
“While the wealthiest families completely benefit from the tax cuts targeted towards the upper brackets, middle-income families were hit with the unwelcome surprise of higher taxes on tax day.”
Rep. Tim Bishop, D-New York
December 8, 2012 - 9:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7pe3_VQbUM
If the Democrats gave a rats rear-end about the poor, they could have cleaned up the ghettos of the major cities decades ago. Heck, Obamas Eight Hundred Billion waste of the Stimulus could have driven a stake in the heart of poverty, however, the leftist politicians would rather `keep them down`, `dumb them down`, and continue to collect the inner city vote through community organizing. “None so blind as those that will not see.“
Welcome to Charlie Crist who has found his way out of the4 forest of darkness and into the sunlight of sanity.
http://news.yahoo.com/ex-fla-gov-charlie-crist-tweets-hes-proud-095012968.html
Jeff Doto argues for a big ticket War on Poverty. Wow, who knew the sons of Reagan were so confused? (Hint: everyone).
Ideological Sons of Reagan, that is, not Ron jr.
dave, I wonder if we’ll be seeing a wave of such switches, similar to (if less dramatic than) the 1964-72 period. And when it happens at the local level, it is seldom noted, but then tends to work its’ way up to the likes of ex-governors. It may be that in the future this time is identified as another era of political realignment, and I really won’t be at all surprised that the GOTP hardcore are missing the possibility that it’s underway, given their reality bubble.
As is his custom, Jeff Doto has just spouted an unsubstantiated piece of drivel which bears no relation to what really happened with the 800 billion stimulus and completely underestimates what it would take to actually fix the inner cities and problems of massive poverty, lack of education and hopelessness that that pervades them.
the ‘quote of the day’ is the first time I have seen actual acknowledgement that the Bush tax ‘cuts’ actually did raise taxes on some of the lower income folks. Unfortunately, those are many of the folks who continued to vote for W and other Republicans who claim to cut taxes but who only cut them for the rich.
I guess the Republicans are gaining from the ‘dumbing down’ perpetrated by the dim-wit Democrats.
Yes, I detest both parties.
Jeff Doto, please inform us how “they could have cleaned up the ghettos of the major cities decades ago.” If it’s such an easy task why haven’t any Republican politicians “driven a stake in the heart of poverty”? We have had a few Republican presidents the last few decades, you know.
Warren
It mmay be too early to tell about the realignment, but I know that some of my friends who have been Republicans forever have been patently disgusted with the radical shift in their party. They are mostly a long ways from becoming Democrats, but a three party system would not surprise me in the coming decades.
I wish Jon Huntsman would switch parties. He’s wasted in the Republican party.
I agree Debbie…he’s someone I could take seriously as a presidential candidate. Unlike the rest of the GOP field last year.
It may console Jeff Doto, who now faces the same presidentially supported modest tax increases that happened repeatedly under President Reagan, to learn that there’s a a new group he can join along the lines of the Sons Of Confederate Veterans (the SCV). It’s called the Sons Of Reagan Everywhere Learning Other Stuff Even Reagan Supported (the SORELOSERS).
Hey I think I recognize that pic. Is it from Mr. Cecil’s garden?
Warren, let’s assume that Obama will get a “modest” tax increase on the wealthy. What good will $80 billion of revenue really do in the grand mess that is our debt? Is it so Obama can win one of his social justice battles? Or, is it as warren buffet said, the increase on the wealthy will improve the moral of the middle class?
Below is a quote from a summary of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s study regarding the possibility of raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67. At the bottom is a link to the whole study if you want the details. I admit, up front, that I don’t agree with raising the eligibility age. This study gives two reasons why. Be careful what you asked for.
“The study estimates that raising Medicare’s eligibility to 67 in 2014 would generate an estimated $5.7 billion in net savings to the federal government, but also result in an estimated net increase of $3.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs for 65- and 66-year-olds, and $4.5 billion in employer retiree health-care costs. In addition, the study projects that the change would raise premiums by about 3 percent both for those who remain on Medicare and for those who obtain coverage through health reform’s new insurance exchanges. The study assumes both full implementation of the health reform law and the higher eligibility age in 2014 in order to estimate the full effect of both the law and the policy proposal.
In the absence of the health reform law, raising Medicare’s age of eligibility would result in an increase in the uninsured, according to other studies, as many older Americans would have difficulty finding affordable coverage in the individual market in the absence of Medicare. With health reform, virtually all 65- and 66-year-olds would be expected to obtain alternative sources of coverage.”
http://www.kff.org/medicare/8169.cfm
TBell,
That’s on Tillet Road, near Guilford. Is that the name of the garden — Mr. Cecil’s? I didn’t know that.
Another Chuck,
Let’s assume I’m your boss and am considering giving you a “modest” pay increase of $80 a week. On second thought, nah, I’m not going to give it to you, because I think you’re overextended on your mortgage and you drink too much beer. Heck, I’ll just keep it for myself, because in the grand scheme of your debt, $4,160 a year is too little to make any sizable dent in your debt.
Check out the video at this site http://tinyurl.com/8krg2uu
.
.
Below is a link to some proposals to fix Social Security. I don’t agree with all the recommendations, but believe each has some merit and should be considered. Just as the Baby Boomers, I’m one, are putting a big challenge on both Medicare and Social Security, over the course of the next 25 or 30 years those challenges will be relieved. That’s because most of we Baby Boomers will have gone on to our ultimate reward (whatever that is).
http://www.fpanet.org/ToolsResources/SocialSecurityPredictor/ProposedFixestoSocialSecurity/
Yep, Cecil Black. You should stop and talk to him sometime. Talking about a story – he’s lived in this neighborhood since there was a trolley running to downtown and the house at the corner of Montgomery & Woodlawn was a hunting lodge.
More on climate change:
http://tinyurl.com/cb4nnum
**
Arctic Report Card: Dark Times Ahead
Conditions in the Arctic, where several environmental records were broken this year, are slipping rapidly from bad to worse as the pace of climate change accelerates in that region
By Richard Monastersky and Nature News Blog
Conditions in the Arctic are slipping rapidly from bad to worse as the pace of climate change accelerates in that region. That’s the message from an annual environmental assessment of the far North, released on Wednesday.
“Conditions in the Arctic are changing in both expected and sometimes surprising ways,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The changes are having an impact far beyond the far North, she added. “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t always stay in the Arctic. We’re seeing Arctic changes that affect weather patterns in the US,” Lubchenco said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, where the Arctic Report Card was previewed. The online report was written by 114 scientists from 15 countries.
SNIP
**
I couldn’t agree more and it bothers me: http://tinyurl.com/cnakelp
**
Think Tanks or Partisan Advocates? Distinction Is Getting Harder to See
By Janie Lorber
Roll Call Staff
Dec. 8, 2012, Noon
Washington’s think tanks are morphing into powerful activist organizations, blurring a longtime distinction between academia and advocacy.
SNIP
“Heritage over time, and CAP to the same degree, have really pushed the envelope in terms of 501(c)(3) status,” said James McGann, who studies think tanks at the University of Pennsylvania. “It not only puts in peril the institution but the entire think tank community because it blurs the line.”
“Historically, in terms of the IRS, think tanks have not had a problem,” he added.
But that may soon change as some institutions push their policy ideas aside and more outwardly embrace their party affiliations.
SNIP
**
Dan, I could care less if I got a $4000.00 per year raise because my salary would be $832,000 using comparible percentages. I would also be receiving a huge raise(more deficit spending)anyway next year.
Back to the Federal debt and tax increase. The economy is fundamentally the same as it was 2 years ago and BO was against any tax increases. More importantly, is the taxation worth the risk of losing up to 700,000 more jobs? Note: The 700,000 jobs number is based on an Ernst and Young study…don’t no if its accurate and neither do any of you. So lets not argue about that.
AC,
1. Obama was not against any tax increases two years ago. He was in favor of raising rates on the rich, just like now. But he could not swing that deal through Congress, and by reluctantly signing the bill to postpone the increase, he actually got a lot of more stimulus than he would have otherwise.
These are facts, AC. They are not in dispute. And I’m disappointed, though not surprised, that you’ve mischaracterized the record.
Jeff Doto appears to believe Presidents not only have a magic wand, they just refuse to use it.
Dan is right. President Obama’s position on the Bush tax cuts has remained consistent.
Just when you think you can’t get enough of Wesstboro Baptist Church… here ya go! LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JAErHl7lZ4&feature=g-high-rec
Dan, I am disappointed in your response. I laid out the futililty of the tax increases in regards to the overall debt and the potential loss of jobs. You decided to argue with me regaring whether Obama has been consistent about raising taxes on the wealthy. Additionally, you came up with bizzare analogy of a $4000 pay increase which is not relavent to the debate.
OK,I will ask again, outside of Obama being a social justice warrior, what does the punitive increase in taxes on the wealthy solve in the grand scheme of reducing out debt and deficit? The answer some in between miniscule and nothing. That is a FACT! So why is happening?
“So why is happening?”
Because we can. Next?
“Dan, I am disappointed in your response. I laid out the futililty of the tax increases in regards to the overall debt and the potential loss of jobs. You decided to argue with me regaring whether Obama has been consistent about raising taxes on the wealthy. Additionally, you came up with bizzare analogy of a $4000 pay increase which is not relavent to the debate.
OK,I will ask again, outside of Obama being a social justice warrior, what does the punitive increase in taxes on the wealthy solve in the grand scheme of reducing out debt and deficit? The answer some in between miniscule and nothing. That is a FACT! So why is happening?”
AC, you THOUGHT you laid out “the futililty of the tax increases in regards to the overall debt and the potential loss of jobs.” But you didn’t. $80 billion over 10 years = $800 billion. This is not rocket science. That is real money.
In addition to increase revenue from tax hikes on earners above $250K, some cuts a necessary. Obama recognizes that. It will happen — unlike during the spendthrift GWB administration.
The “grand scheme” of reducing our debt, and certainly our deficit, is both increased revenue from those who can afford it and spending cuts for what we fund. Period. It is called a “balanced approach” and I am not surprised that Another Chuck and other conservatives do not see that as correct. Imbalance has become the norm for too many.
AC
Economists and Simpson/Bowles seemed to agree that there is some magic to reaching a figure of 4.2 trillion spread over 10 years to get control of the deficit, and get to a point where we are not adding to the debt. Not renewing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy takes care of 800 billion of that over the ten year period. I would hardly call that inconsequential in the big picture of things. It doesn’t get us there put it cettainly gets us started. Closing loopholes, eliminating corporate subsidies unless they can certify new jobs created, raising the capital gains tax, means testing medicare, allowing medicare to negotoiate prescription drug prices, ending the Afghanistan war, and cutting duplication and unnecessary military programs would do the rest along with an infratructure program that would create more jobs and increase tax revenues. If Republicans were serious about the financial logjam, they would agree to the expiration of the upper level tax cuts and start meerting the President halfway on accomplishing the other measures needed tro gewt this under control. WEe cannot cut our way out of this crisis. The resulting recession at this point would be disastrous.
Ok, spending up $9.6 trillion in the next 10 years vs an $800 billion increase in revenue. So, we are still $25 trillion in debt. The only honest liberal on this board is Art Hill. He has the guts to say what you all think. Our debt doesn’t matter, so keep spending. I disagree with Art, but he is making his point without bogus excuses.
If some of you believe the debt is a problem, the only answer is to deal with entitlement spending reform and hope for economic growth where more tax payers are created. The class warfare battle does not solve problems.
Sandi, Wrong! The only way to increase revenue enough to matter is strong economic growth. Taxing the people that have the ability to create new revenue is not the answer.
Why haven’t they created the jobs already, Chuck? The trickle down theory does not work. Never has, never will.
Another Chuck,
Let’s start cutting back on entitlements by eliminating most, if not all, of these entitlment programs, subsidies, and corporate tax breaks. It would save the budget $100 billion each year. By the way, even the Koch brothers want to eliminate corporate welfare programs.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/corporate-welfare-costs-taxpayers-almost-100-billion-fy-2012-cato-report-finds
Its not trickle up, down or sideways, the key is to find a new avenue for economic growth. My suggestion is using our natural resources. Coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear,uranium and renewables. Renewables will be the final destination, but in the meantime, let’s do all of the above.
Taxing the wealthy a little more is just peeing into the wind. The problem is spending and how to reform the entitlements and defense spending.
You’ve got to hand it to Frank Luntz. Suddenly the old age savings account that you’ve paid into all your life is an “entitlement.” Will someone please explain to me why the deficit suddenly matters? Go over the cliff, President Obama. The Bush tax cuts disappear, the military doesn’t get the 2 billion it didn’t ask for and SS and Medicare are left basically intact. Make the Republicans come back and vote on a middle-class tax cut, when they balk and tie it to the 2% they’ll pay at the polls in 2014 and we take the House. No deal is better than a bad deal. Simpson-Bowles can go back to playing Mah-jong at the old-folks home. Have the Democrats have finally grown some stones? We’ll see.
Ron May, I agree with your suggestion. A flatter corporate and individual tax system makes sense without government incentives.
From Daily Beast; Send this person a card, please.
Here are a few recommendations for tax reform that I could live with.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-03/a-bipartisan-way-to-cap-deductions.html
Well, Art, Sandy, etc., etc.,….Lets all just sit back and watch..Oh, I don`t know…lets say..CHICAGO…Lets just see how a socialist like Rohm Emanual does with that City…Will he deliver, or will he continue the `norm` of the previous democratic mayors ? I know which way I`ll be betting. HINT: If you live in a utopian bubble, don`t bet on the aforementioned…See, I care abut your $$$$
#7…Hey Dave..You and your ilk claim to care for the less fortunate, yet your ideology would suggest differently..You back Obama, whose policies ARE only exascerbating the problems of the poor…Major restaurants are already cutting hours for part-time employees by 1/2 to cover the costs of Obamacare…Rents are being raised by Management companies to keep up with rising costs…Its happening all around you… Whether you pretend to acknowledge it or not, is up to you.
Ron, I like the $50k limit on deductions. We are already doing better than the bums in DC!
John Long sure seems to have his head on correctly(`Fiscal Cliff` article)
Jeff Doto, in case you haven’t heard, Olive Garden and Red Lobster won’t be following through on their threat to cut full times jobs. They changed their minds. They found out it’s better business wise to spend a little money to take care of your employees, rather than lose money because customers don’t like to support companies that don’t value their employees.
http://eater.com/archives/2012/12/06/olive-garden-wont-cut-fulltime-employees-after-all.php
Btw, you never answered the question I asked you yesterday, regarding your post #2.
9.Jeff Doto, please inform us how “they could have cleaned up the ghettos of the major cities decades ago.” If it’s such an easy task why haven’t any Republican politicians “driven a stake in the heart of poverty”? We have had a few Republican presidents the last few decades, you know.
Comment by Debbie — December 8, 2012 @ 11:30 am
I’d prefer to see Obama put his foot on the accelerator and take us full speed over the “cliff” than give the House GOP anything they want at all. The time to try and work with those goons is over.
I am not poor and I also do not make $250k a year. (I probably do meet the federal guidelines for a family of 5 with one earner as far as the poverty level goes but with no debt we manage) I would be willing to bet that this describes most of the posters on this blog. If we stand back and really look at the way politics work we really see that no group or party really gives a flip about us. They really only care about the folks who can spend 50k or more on dinner to help a campaign. There are ways to help the people in our situation become part of the upper middle class or the 1 percenters. We would not attain it overnight, but we would change the economic outcome of our legacy in the end for sure.
My first suggestion would be to let those of us who are comfortable taking the risk of our fellow americans ingenuity over the simple interest earned on SS to do so. I would gladly give up all benefits I have earned to date in SS to be able to take the risk of the stock market from today on. I would eliminate the future need of the govt to sustain me and I bet an enormous amount of people would be willing to do that as well. It would be a burden on the system for a while with the lost revenue but eventually it would settle out to be a positive for the system.
I would also suggest that the govt allow a one time withdrawal of 401k funds completely tax free after retirement. If you wanted to take it all out so be it. Or just some to give early inheritance so be it. You will pay taxes on interest earned and dividends paid on everything you do with the money afterwards but you wouldn’t pay 40-70 percent in taxes if taking it all out at once, thus destroying your life savings.
These two simple things would do more for the average person and the economic success of thier family than any govt tax and spend incentive would.
Lets get back to believing in ourselves and each other and let the govt elites lie to each other and exchange thier money and not ours.
The only way to increase revenue enough to matter is strong economic growth. Taxing the people that have the ability to create new revenue is not the answer.
Comment by Another Chuck — December 8, 2012 @ 9:49 pm
So AC thinks voodoo economics is the answer. Haven’t the republicans tried and tried this tired old method of screwing up the economy enough times to know that the wealthy are NOT “job creators”? And more profits for the largest American corporations do not translate into more American jobs…nor more American “revenue”…
Why you ask?
◙ Profits at big U.S. companies broke records last year, and so did pay for CEOs. So where are the jobs?
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20120525-average-ceo-pay-broke-record-at-9.6-million-in-2011.ece
◙ Bank Profits Hit A Five-Year High Amid Huge Layoffs, Pay Cuts
in the banking industry. So where are the jobs?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/bank-profits_n_1307552.html
And if corporate tax cuts were the answer to profit making and hiring, then why all the layoffs?
◙ The effective corporate tax rate is already at a forty year low, so where are the jobs?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330.html
◙ “…according to the latest data, President Obama has been very good for America’s biggest businesses. Last year, in fact, the Fortune 500 made a record $824 billion, topping the previous record set before the Great Recession” – where are the jobs?
◙ Even with huge profits, corporate income taxes accounted for just 9 percent of federal revenues.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
Ummm – here’s where the jobs are…here’s why there is no increasing “revenue”…
◙ More than three-fourths of the jobs created in the past two years by 35 of the biggest US companies were outside the United States – companies were creating 1.4 million new jobs abroad and fewer than one million in the States.
◙ The giant retailer Wal Mart added 100,000 jobs in 2010-2011. ZERO of them were in the U.S.
◙ Honeywell International cut its U.S. workforce by 1000 in the same period and added 11,000 jobs abroad.
◙ Kraft Foods lopped 4000 workers off its U.S. payroll and hired 33,000 overseas.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303990604577367881972648906.html
◙ “In the 2000s, these sorts of giant companies shrank their U.S. workforces by 2.9 million, while upping their overseas employment rosters by 2.4 million. http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2011/04/19/jobs-at-big-u-s-firms-move-overseas/
Where oh where has the revenue gone? Out of the country…along with the jobs…
Sorry Another Chuck, but I am not wrong. Yes, we will increase revenue with strong economic growth, that is not what is happening now and those people that have the ability to create new revenue have not done so for many years now. A balanced approach with the wealthy and the rest of us giving something is the only way we will stabilize the economy and create the atmosphere where enough people that have the ability to create new revenue will do so. It absolutely is the answer. And it is not the least contingent on you liking or agreeing with it. Cutting spending alone is not the answer at all.
For people who wanted us to “listen to the voters” in 2010, I think they should take their own advice in 2012.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-voters-want-to-raise-taxes-on-wealthy-84675.html
As for unemployment benefits running out at the “cliff.” Does anyone honestly believe the Republican House would vote to extend them? Make them part of the deal, along with presidential power to automatically raise the debt ceiling, no cuts to SS and Medicare and a tax increase on the bloated 2%. Force the GOP to protect the military-industrial. If not, full speed ahead!!
As for unemployment benefits running out at the “cliff.” Does anyone honestly believe the Republican House would vote to extend them?
What’s it been? Three years running? Nothing compassionate about keeping people on the dole and taking away their drive, is there?
Another Chuck, if “The class warfare battle does not solve problems” why are you still fighting it? How exactly does government safety nets cause dependency and not help the poor and your private charity does? In what realm does one not do the same as the other? In what realm is one good and the other bad? You all have created the class warfare with your language of “entitlements”, “dependency” and “takers” (as if the poor are the only ones), but you have yet to offer any better plan. Where are the jobs for people who do want one, much less for those “dependent” on the government or charity? Where is the incentive if there is no incentive?
If you want to end class warfare, then stop fighting any demand on the rich and making demands on the poor. How fair is that?
If you really want to end dependency, come up with a plan that will. If you are so much smarter and better at this than Dems/Libs, show us your plan.
The wealthy have had tax cuts and increased profit, and look what is has wrought.
Nothing compassionate about taking jobs out of your own country and moving them to a foreign one so that you can pay the workers a pittance and line your pockets, while still living in the country that you took the jobs from.
Sandi Saunders:
“How exactly does government safety nets cause dependency and not help the poor and your private charity does?”
At least with private charity, I think there is more oversight to ensure that more of the money is doing the good it was intended to do. With government programs, there is more tolerance for throwing good money after bad and more bloated structure to run the programs themselves. It’s just taxpayer money, so who cares, right?
So the structure of the government system causes the dependency and does not really help, but the structure of the private charity does not cause dependency and does really help? Is that your final answer?
“The idea that churches can tackle national poverty, take care of those who are ill, and rebuild communities after natural disasters requires a spoonful of bad moral theology and a cup of dishonesty.” ~Robert Parham
http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com/dialogue/society/private-charity-isn%E2%80%99t-enough
“It is not enough. Even with the generosity of the American people, and the work of groups like the Saint Vincent de Paul Society and so many others, much more needs to be done, and not just by private charity. The government must continue to play its part as well.” ~Cardinal Timothy Dolan
http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/09/celebrating-st-vincent-depaul-dolan-notes-charity-not-enough
“The problems with private charity for all with government aid for none are so many, that it is hard to know where to start. On a relatively minor level, there is the known fact that many millionaires and billionaires tend to give their money to causes close to their hearts, not those most in need.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/10/31/no-mitt-romney-private-charity-is-not-enough/
And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
What I think is rather sickening about the religious helping the needy is they force them to participate in their religious practice in order to receive the help. Which is not uncommon with religion, but I think if you are going to help someone, then help them! Don’t force them to lie to you.
I think we should all take part in helping our “village”. Because it still does take a village to do anything in this world. Regardless of your faith, or lack thereof, if you need my help you will get it.
@47 Kristen, while I agree with you emotionally, I don’t logically. The best compromise for the entire country is one that will make every single person just a little bit uncomfortable in some way. It really must be a compromise between the two positions that make both sides squirm a bit or it just isn’t going to be enough and/or worth it.
What I think is rather sickening about the religious helping the needy is they force them to participate in their religious practice in order to receive the help.
That’s a crock. You can’t cite one example of that.
So the structure of the government system causes the dependency and does not really help, but the structure of the private charity does not cause dependency and does really help? Is that your final answer?
Thanks for the opportunity to explain the difference.
Personal voluntary giving is the kind Jesus intended. It’s the personal interaction between the two parties that makes both parties feel blessed. It also forces more accountability on the process. Givers see the actual need and remedy it, but withhold resources when they don’t see the actual need. Truly needed people will accept resources offered them. Fakers are less likely to look people in the eye and accept their gifts. It’s an efficient system. Most recipients shouldn’t feel comfortable accepting endless aid. For most, the assistance should be temporary.
Government coercion is not giving. It deprives people of the opportunity to help out and know they are helping out. As with everything, government depersonalizes and dehumanizes. Continuous checks in the mail from faceless people actually creates resentment that the ‘givers’ are not doing more. In turn, people who receive resources may do so long after the need; or they may not be needy at all. When the government is involved, the money is never temporary. It becomes permanent and expected, and therefore creates dependency where it shouldn’t.
“Personal voluntary giving is the kind Jesus intended. It’s the personal interaction between the two parties that makes both parties feel blessed. It also forces more accountability on the process. Givers see the actual need and remedy it, but withhold resources when they don’t see the actual need. Truly needed people will accept resources offered them. Fakers are less likely to look people in the eye and accept their gifts. It’s an efficient system. Most recipients shouldn’t feel comfortable accepting endless aid. For most, the assistance should be temporary.”
That certainly doesn’t sound like mikeO’s experience. His family, he says, tried to help a single mom and all they got in return was a lecture on how to milk the greatest amount of benefits from the system, as evidence by all her son’s video games, which caused no small amount of envy.
It also forces more accountability on the process. Givers see the actual need and remedy it, but withhold resources when they don’t see the actual need. Truly needed people will accept resources offered them. Fakers are less likely to look people in the eye and accept their gifts. It’s an efficient system. Most recipients shouldn’t feel comfortable accepting endless aid. For most, the assistance should be temporary.
So the person doing the giving exercises control over the person receiving the gift and gets to judge them for their need or for what they do with the gifts received. So I’ll give you a hundred bucks so thet you can provide C hristmas dinner for your family, but I get to decide what you buy. As long as its beans, peanut butter and jelly, rice, and canned spaghetti its ok with me. But none of that fancy stuff like turkey or ham
or pumpkin pie. That’s for us wealthy types. Here’s a hundred fifty to buy presents for your kids. Just one condition, you have to go on down to walmart and spend it on cheap Chinese crap so you get the biggest bang for your buck. None of thoise high falutin’ things like video games or the stuff that the rich kids get. I’m giving you the money so I control what you buy with it.
Somehow that’s not my idea of Christian charity.The idea that the person receiving the gift has to stand in front of you, look you in the eye, and justify the gift makes it begging and is demeaning to the person receiving the gift .
Dave @ 1:23 am Well said!
Nothing says Jesus, like conditional judgmental giving!
Please, anyone not overly familiar with the teachings of Jesus, do not use the words of someone who is obviously so far from those teachings as any kind of guide!
Jesus not only gave and kept virtually nothing for himself and his own comfort and with no expected return on his giving, he told people of means in Mark 10:21 “Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”
And in Matthew 20:25–28 Jesus made it clear that government exists to serve those governed: “But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Please do not be misled. The “Christianity” of right wing America is not the Christianity of the Bible or Jesus. It is not!
Please do not be misled. The “Christianity” of right wing America is not the Christianity of the Bible or Jesus. It is not!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 11, 2012 @ 7:58 am
There is no “right wing” Christianity. You are misled.
So the structure of the government system causes the dependency and does not really help, but the structure of the private charity does not cause dependency and does really help? Is that your final answer?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 10, 2012 @ 12:30 pm
Correct.
Taxing the wealthy a little more is just peeing into the wind. The problem is spending and how to reform the entitlements and defense spending.
Comment by Another Chuck — December 8, 2012 @ 10:39 pm
Agreed. Reduce the size of the Federal government by 75.0%, reduce entitlement spending by 25.0% and defense spending by 25%. Why do liberals think the government can continue spending more than it takes
in? This is zero common sense.
Miriam,I think there are lots of people who are extremely uncomfortable now, and a group who’ve managed to insulate themselves from the results of the economic downturn – even benefitting from it at the expense of others. I have no interest in asking for more sacrifice from people who did nothing to create the crash but have shouldered all of the repercussions, while the Masters of the Universe who authored our problems walk away unscathed.
I did not vote again for Obama for him to waste another 4 years trying to build consensus with a bunch of ass clowns with no other goal in mind than further enriching their corporate owners.
We are paying people to live in poverty. How smart is that?
What I think is rather sickening about the religious helping the needy is they force them to participate in their religious practice in order to receive the help.
That’s a crock. You can’t cite one example of that.
Comment by Suzie — December 10, 2012 @ 10:26 pm
Here: http://hardlynormal.com/blog/2010/11/08/a-homeless-services-faith-based-model-that-works-the-rotating-shelter/
Here:http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/12/31/church-to-hungry-homeless-pray-first-eat-later/
Wait a minute… it doesn’t matter how may examples I give, Suzie will just say they aren’t real Christians, or they need to say the rosary a few more billion times.
Suzie, you have already proven that your charity is conditional, so why wouldn’t your churches charity be conditional as well?
“…reduce entitlement spending by 25.0% and defense spending by 25%. ”
You’re going to get in big trouble now. Many right wingers think our military has already been reduced too much. We need to be able to take on the whole world at once. Only the U.S. is right. Everybody else is wrong.
So the person doing the giving exercises control over the person receiving the gift and gets to judge them for their need or for what they do with the gifts received. So I’ll give you a hundred bucks so thet you can provide C hristmas dinner for your family, but I get to decide what you buy. As long as its beans, peanut butter and jelly, rice, and canned spaghetti its ok with me. But none of that fancy stuff like turkey or ham
Yes, the giver gets to decide if there is a real need and responds accordingly. Wouldn’t you want your gift going to a group that didn’t need it? For example, I wouldn’t donate to the American Bar Assocation because hey don’t need it.
The whole thing works best when the giver feels appreciated and the recipient feels appreciative. But that’s not how the government system works. Right now, the ‘givers’ are treated like greedy SOB’s for not giving more, and the takers keep demanding more regardless of their needs.
Suzie, you have already proven that your charity is conditional, so why wouldn’t your churches charity be conditional as well?
The only condition I place on my charitable giving is true need. I want to give to the neediest people in the world first.
Here’s an example of government “giving”.
Saturday night after shopping, we ate at the Golden Corral. Prices have gone up even without the meals tax, and the bill is just over $12. It is a great buffet; shrimp, steak, and everything else imaginable. The place was bustling, too. One thing that struck me was the number of minorities there, particularly blacks. Part of it might have been the location of the GC, but I was surprised these 0bama voters were doing so well they could afford to drop $12 for a meal.
UNTIL I found out the GC accepts food stamps. Huh? Are you kidding me?
We know obama has expanded the food stamp program, and we know they can now be used at restaurants. But FOOD STAMPS FOR A $12 MEAL???? Is this how you liberals think food stamps should be used? I thought they were intended to provide basic food on a temporary basis. Is this what Democrats promised back in 1965?
I want to know: Are you liberals in favor of this? Do you think this is a wise use of taxpayer money? Is this what poster “Dave” means when he says “cuts” would be devastating? Would it be devastating if “poor” people had to stop eating shrimp and steak at the Golden Corral?
I am not in favor of the government allowing restaurants to accept food stamps/SNAP benefit cards.
My apologies. In my post above, I referred to “0bama”. I realize that is a violation, but I posted it out of habit. From now on, I will use the lower case “obama”. it reflects the smallness of the man and the emptiness of his policies and moral bearing just the same as the “0″, perhaps even more effectively, while staying within the revised rules (made just for Suzie) of the blog. If that post is deleted, I understand.
I will put forth the revision in the next post:
Here’s an example of government “giving”.
Saturday night after shopping, we ate at the Golden Corral. Prices have gone up even without the meals tax, and the bill is just over $12. It is a great buffet; shrimp, steak, and everything else imaginable. The place was bustling, too. One thing that struck me was the number of minorities there, particularly blacks. Part of it might have been the location of the GC, but I was surprised these obama voters were doing so well they could afford to drop $12 for a meal.
UNTIL I found out the GC accepts food stamps. Huh? Are you kidding me?
We know obama has expanded the food stamp program, and we know they can now be used at restaurants. But FOOD STAMPS FOR A $12 MEAL???? Is this how you liberals think food stamps should be used? I thought they were intended to provide basic food on a temporary basis. Is this what Democrats promised back in 1965?
I want to know: Are you liberals in favor of this? Do you think this is a wise use of taxpayer money? Is this what poster “Dave” means when he says “cuts” would be devastating? Would it be devastating if “poor” people had to stop eating shrimp and steak at the Golden Corral?
“One thing that struck me was the number of minorities there, particularly blacks. Part of it might have been the location of the GC, but I was surprised these 0bama voters were doing so well they could afford to drop $12 for a meal.”
So suzie doesn’t think that black folk can afford a $12 meal, and she thinks that all of the minorities at the GC are using food stamps. Man, the ignorance is appalling.
I am not in favor of the government allowing restaurants to accept food stamps/SNAP benefit cards.
Thank you! Finally a bit of sanity.
I’m stunned that it’s legal and I was inclined to call BS on this but halleluia, she’s not making it up.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2011/09/fast-food-chains-getting-into-the-food-stamp-act/
Dominos, McDonalds, Subway. WTF? I am coming down hard on the side that restaurant food shouldn’t be purchased with SNAP.
The place was bustling, too. One thing that struck me was the number of minorities there, particularly blacks. Part of it might have been the location of the GC, but I was surprised these 0bama voters were doing so well they could afford to drop $12 for a meal. -Suzie
Your comment is complete and total ignorance. Your comment is so absolutely despicable. Most of your comments on this blog are always about your religion, and Jesus this and Jesus that. Can I get a, “Judge not lest ye be judged ye self”? I don’t know if your comments were more racially driven, or just plain hateful.
If you are a republican, and you are doing so well, why are you eating with the common folk anyways? What makes you think that GC takes food stamps? That is absurd! I figured since you were doing so great, $12 meals is pocket change to you.
But I guess you are the quintessential Catholic. You want people to think that you have turned a new leaf, and that this supposed deity you hold so near and dear has changed you, and will change others. (You probably took all of your Bush tax cuts and spent them on porn, and Evan Williams, because that is what rednecks do). You obviously feel that your comments above were just, and true. I think they are disgusting and you should be ashamed. If I made blatantly obvious racist and discriminatory remarks such as yours, I wouldn’t post my name either. You are most likely not ashamed, but you should be.
The only way GC accepts food stamps is IF you are HOMELESS.
I don’t agree with using SNAP at any restaurants, or for that matter gas stations or convenience stores…though, I know for folks in some rural areas, that may be their only option within 20-30 miles so that’s a gray area for me. But definitely no restaurants. And I also think that certain food items like sodas and nutrionally-devoid items should not be permissible under the program. To me, it’s akin to giving someone assistance to pay their rent, and having them buy an XBox game instead.
“(made just for Suzie)”
Aww, the little darling still thinks everything’s all about her. Still hasn’t noticed that several liberals have had to temper their remarks. And that pammala was the first one we know of being deleted.
I am not in favor of anyone using their food stamps to eat at an establishment that I would never eat at. Personally, I think Golden Corral is rather disgusting. But, if that is the only way a homeless prson can get somewhat nutritional food, so be it.
I suppose some repubs would like them to eat spam and crackers.
Great. So now that we are all in agreement that the government should not allow food stamps at restaurants, we are left to ask WHY the obama administration did it. The only conclusions possible are he wanted to make people even more dependent or he wants to bankrupt this country.
Either way, this is obviously NOT an administration that has any desire to cut wasteful frivolous spending.
Next up? The MSM will write columns blaming these greedy private sector restaurants for balooning the SNAP program costs by accepting food stamps. That the government enabled the whole thing will be overlooked.
You know. The same way Dan blames LU for the government enabling PELL grants. The same way the left blamed the banks for causing the financial crisis by following looser Fannie Mae guidelines.
Your comment is complete and total ignorance. Your comment is so absolutely despicable. I don’t know if your comments were more racially driven, or just plain hateful.
Looks my surprise was justified. Other than that, I just stated the facts. Perhaps you like that the government is allowing restaurants accept food stamps. I think it’s horribly wasteful and unnecessary.
“I suppose some repubs would like them to eat dirt.”
Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.
Hey Suzie,
“Great. So now that we are all in agreement that the government should not allow food stamps at restaurants, we are left to ask WHY the obama administration did it.
SNAP benefits are administered by the States. I can find evidence that fast food chains in Virginia petitioned to have be able to cash in on SNAP/EBT funding, alas, I cannot find any information where that was granted. I do see some internet evidence that Florida, California, Michigan and Arizona allow several chains, including Golden Corral, to accept this funding, but see no evidence that Virginia does.
Perhaps you would like add some definitive information to disabuse me of my ignorance on this matter (or substantiate your own)? Given the lack of real information about this policy our State, I’m just gonna assume that the reason you see so many black folks at Golden Corral is cause is suits your current fictional story narrative.
I do know that you can obtain healthy food with EBT transfers here:http://leapforlocalfood.org/
This organization supports both the Grandin Market and The West End Community Market. I picked up a bundle of food at the latter location today and have been gratified to see the members of that community become interested in the beautiful produce and food found there.
MikeScott, are you doing the winter share? The West End market has improved a lot over last year.
I’m just gonna assume that the reason you see so many black folks at Golden Corral is cause is suits your current fictional story narrative.
You don’t have to assume, anything, Mike Scott. Just go to the GC this Saturday night. Tell us what you see.
I think Golden Corral is rather disgusting. But, if that is the only way a homeless prson can get somewhat nutritional food, so be it.
“I suppose some repubs would like them to eat spam and crackers. ”
“I suppose some repubs would like them to eat dirt.”
“You don’t think everybody deserves a nice meal out now and then?”
Sure. Steak and shrimp at a restaurant are the only eats homeless people can get now.
It’s taking all the willpower I can muster to refrain from unloading on some people.