Why is spending more money that we don't have the way out of a recession?

[Mensch]

I don't give to charity because I think most charities operate as a business instead. For example, donations to the Red Cross go to pay the salaries of administrators of that organization rather than to the actual cause.

Because of that, I only give to one charity. It's a local charity, and all the staff volunteer their time, which leaves more money to go to the actually charity work.

Nice grassroots sentiment. Now, what about those big, centralized welfare programs? Is the money there wasted by the administrators in the same fashion that you see non-profit businesses doing it?

 

[Mensch]

a nonargument, but what the hell, you have earned it.

We're talking about the deficit and taxes. How is discussing the debt ceiling a nonissue in this case? Is it a nonissue because you agree that politicians keep raising the ceiling so that we can better live beyond our means?

it has become almost a cliche among conservatives to cite kennedy's cuts.

Who you calling conservative?

But, remember, kennedy was cutting taxes while the ecomomy was strong and no real threat was looming... aside from the emerging conflict in S.E. Asia.

Or perhaps, the most cautious and suspicious time of the greater Cold War.

It was the increasing cost (among other considerations) that many who knew him insist, that compelled him to start looking for a way OUT of V.N. Too, there were other considerations.... an election loomed:

We can go by what his closest associates said about him, or by what he did. He drastically increased the number of military advisors in Vietnam, and paved the way for open attacks on American military personnal.

JFK never lived to do forestall the crippling of the economy that the war caused ... and johnson... well...

Yes, go on.

Other domestic policies - John F. Kennedy - policy, election

and... the historical view of JFK's cuts is not all that rosy. yes, there was considerable expansion in the economy, but not necessarily to the benefit of Mack from Hackensack. Corporations are those that benefited most in the long term.

I don't understand this line of thinking. If a corporation benefits from tax cuts and that opens the opportunity for expansion, how does that not help the guy who got a decent living wage from a new job offered by the company?

Kennedy was in something of a bind at the time. His economic advisors all advised against it and most economists thought it a bad idea. The outcome shows why:

dunno where you were in the 70's, but.... i know where i stand on that question. sorry.... i will have to return to the remainder later... off to work.
geo.

You must be joking. Ever heard of guns and butter?

Again, remind me of that marvelous nation that taxed itself to prosperity?

 

[Goobieman]

The title speaks for itself.

Its not.

If you simply let people keep the money that they had in the first place, rather than have them give it to the government which then returns it to them as 'stimulus', the effect would be greater and the government would be smaller.

This is, of course, exactly why the left opposes such things.

 

[mertex]

the people you know evidently aren't very indicative of the population as a whole:

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives are still peddling that piece of BS? Who did the survey? A right-winger? Of course.

That survey seems to be suspect as I don't remember the Red Cross or the Salvation Army asking me when I donated whether I was conservative or Liberal. So, how was that information gathered?

Was it a blanket assumption since most conservatives claim to be Christians? Did they go by the amount given to churches? Conservatives consider their offerings and tithes as "donations", but they really aren't true charity. Most of the money given to a church goes for Admin expenses of the church - or making the church fancier, not really charity, if you ask me. And besides, there are many Democrats (considered Liberals by the right) also go to church and donate. Is there money lumped in with "conservative's" donations?


According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Are they asking people that donate blood whether they are conservative or liberal? I don't remember being asked.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

Again, was the money donated to church counted? Not really truthful, if it was.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

Did they take into consideration that a lot of liberals voted for Bush over Kerry? Hmmm!

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

Again, not a clear indication of what is being donated by whom, but just another way for conservatives to feel more pious and righteous.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition...

Was there an income category given for this? Could it be these were the well off?

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative...

Again, they are considering church offerings. Many liberals attend church and give to the church. I believe this survey was extremely biased and based on inconclusive evidence.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

The real proof is on reality. Republicans want to do away with all the programs that help the poor and less fortunate. That is real charity for you.

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

That's funny, I read an article where Sarah Palin and her husband earned $166,080 in 2007 and her total charity contributions were $3,325. Being touted as such a good Christian by conservatives, I would assume she would tithe, and her tithe would have been $16k. If she gave the entire $3,325 to the church, that would only account for 1/4 of what her tithe should be, and would indicate that she is not too charitable.

 

[TurtleDude]

IDK about that.. I guess the real libertarians do, but a lot of republicans say they are libertarians and they're just Conservative-Republican. Like Glenn Beck.. he's isn't a libertarian. He is more of a neocon who's ashamed to admit it

do you have any clue what a neoconservative really is?

 

[hazlnut]

The title speaks for itself.

google 'multiplier effect'

the answer is too complicated for bumper stickers and thread titles

and we have the $$ - again, it's complicated...

 

[TurtleDude]

Conservatives are still peddling that piece of BS? Who did the survey? A right-winger? Of course.

That survey seems to be suspect as I don't remember the Red Cross or the Salvation Army asking me when I donated whether I was conservative or Liberal. So, how was that information gathered?

Was it a blanket assumption since most conservatives claim to be Christians? Did they go by the amount given to churches? Conservatives consider their offerings and tithes as "donations", but they really aren't true charity. Most of the money given to a church goes for Admin expenses of the church - or making the church fancier, not really charity, if you ask me. And besides, there are many Democrats (considered Liberals by the right) also go to church and donate. Is there money lumped in with "conservative's" donations?


According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Are they asking people that donate blood whether they are conservative or liberal? I don't remember being asked.



Again, was the money donated to church counted? Not really truthful, if it was.

Did they take into consideration that a lot of liberals voted for Bush over Kerry? Hmmm!


Again, not a clear indication of what is being donated by whom, but just another way for conservatives to feel more pious and righteous.


Was there an income category given for this? Could it be these were the well off?


Again, they are considering church offerings. Many liberals attend church and give to the church. I believe this survey was extremely biased and based on inconclusive evidence.



The real proof is on reality. Republicans want to do away with all the programs that help the poor and less fortunate. That is real charity for you.



That's funny, I read an article where Sarah Palin and her husband earned $166,080 in 2007 and her total charity contributions were $3,325. Being touted as such a good Christian by conservatives, I would assume she would tithe, and her tithe would have been $16k. If she gave the entire $3,325 to the church, that would only account for 1/4 of what her tithe should be, and would indicate that she is not too charitable.

you ought to compare her giving to the much richer al gore and bill clinton.

I think Biden made over 2 million in a certain period and gave a couple thousand

DIck Cheney gave massive amounts of his income to charity

libs tend to think voting for socialists fulfills their charitable duties or when they do give its to leftwing think tanks that advocate socialism and punishing the rich rather than to entities that actually help the poor

poor helped by private charities are less useful as pawns for more marxist income redistribution

 

[mertex]

you ought to compare her giving to the much richer al gore and bill clinton.

So, is Caribou Barbie the conservative's example of charitable giving? Bwahaha!

I think Biden made over 2 million in a certain period and gave a couple thousand

Yeah, and how many Democrats are on here patting themselves on the back about being so charitable? NONE! Put Sarah Palin's charitable contributions where the mouth is!

DIck Cheney gave massive amounts of his income to charity

You mean all that money he made after letting his companies have the contracts for government jobs? That was nice of him.

libs tend to think voting for socialists fulfills their charitable duties or when they do give its to leftwing think tanks that advocate socialism and punishing the rich rather than to entities that actually help the poor

Conservatives cry and whine about a little extra tax to help the poor, but gladly send in their donations to BP, to help them clean up the mess they made in La. They don't mind spending trillions and sacrificing lives to give Iraqi's (Muslims) a democracy, but cry and whine when asked to pay a little extra to help the American poor.

poor helped by private charities are less useful as pawns for more marxist income redistribution

Conservative's memorized retort to keep them from feeling guilty about not caring for the poor in their own country.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, is Caribou Barbie the conservative's example of charitable giving? Bwahaha!


Yeah, and how many Democrats are on here patting themselves on the back about being so charitable? NONE! Put Sarah Palin's charitable contributions where the mouth is!


You mean all that money he made after letting his companies have the contracts for government jobs? That was nice of him.


Conservatives cry and whine about a little extra tax to help the poor, but gladly send in their donations to BP, to help them clean up the mess they made in La. They don't mind spending trillions and sacrificing lives to give Iraqi's (Muslims) a democracy, but cry and whine when asked to pay a little extra to help the American poor.



Conservative's memorized retort to keep them from feeling guilty about not caring for the poor in their own country.

1) paying extra taxes doesn't help the poor-in fact it makes their situation worse.

2) your rant about Palin is hysterical

the rest of your spewage is psychobabble fueled by envy and hate

 

[mertex]

1) paying extra taxes doesn't help the poor-in fact it makes their situation worse.

Only the conservatives believe this. Makes them able to sleep at night.

2) your rant about Palin is hysterical

Another Palin idolizer, that can't stand the truth being exposed, tarnishes the image they have of her.

the rest of your spewage is psychobabble

Translation = I can't refute it, so I'll call it something despicable!

fueled by envy and hate

Your Magic Eight Ball isn't working properly, or is it Tea leaves?

 

[TurtleDude]

Only the conservatives believe this. Makes them able to sleep at night.


Another Palin idolizer, that can't stand the truth being exposed, tarnishes the image they have of her.


Translation = I can't refute it, so I'll call it something despicable!


Your Magic Eight Ball isn't working properly, or is it Tea leaves?

keeping people addicted to the government helps the dems but not the country and not the addicts

I think Palin is not ready for Prime time but she sure sends to moonbat flock into a frenzy

and envy is what motivates people like you

if you really believed in getting the USA back in order you'd be demanding drastic spending cuts which actually cause deficiets and cost taxpayers money-not soaking the rich who already pay far too much of the tax

 

[mertex]

keeping people addicted to the government helps the dems but not the country and not the addicts

I know a lot of conservatives that get help from the government. I guess they are willing to give it up? That must be the difference.

I think Palin is not ready for Prime time but she sure sends to moonbat flock into a frenzy

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Palin may be ready for Prime time at Faux News, they don't mind fakery, there.

and envy is what motivates people like you

That's why you criticize Obama, because you are envious of him?

if you really believed in getting the USA back in order you'd be demanding drastic spending cuts which actually cause deficiets and cost taxpayers money-not soaking the rich who already pay far too much of the tax

You should have done that when Bush was wasting our money on Iraq. Oh, but that was just fine then! Practice what you preach!

What you are saying is, we ought to let the unemployed suffer the consequences, (not extend unemployment benefits), right? Aah, the compassionate conservatives, if only they would learn the definition of words.

 

[Mensch]

google 'multiplier effect'

Isn't that a little misleading? It is impossible to calculate the effect of deficit-financed government spending on demand without specifying how people expect the deficit to be paid off in the future.

the answer is too complicated for bumper stickers and thread titles

and we have the $$ - again, it's complicated...

Quite right. It's too complicated, so let's just have an elite group of busybodies in D.C. manage our finances for us. They know better than us simple masses.

 

[phattonez]

google 'multiplier effect'

the answer is too complicated for bumper stickers and thread titles

and we have the $$ - again, it's complicated...

Let us examine the effect of an increase in the government's demand on an economy's overall output. In an economy, which comprises of a baker, a shoemaker and a tomato grower, another individual enters the scene. This individual is an enforcer who is exercising his demand for goods by means of force.

Can such demand give rise to more output? On the contrary, it will impoverish the producers. The baker, the shoemaker, and the farmer will be forced to part with their product in an exchange for nothing and this in turn will weaken the flow of production of final consumer goods. Again, as one can see, not only does the increase in government outlays not raise overall output by a positive multiple, but on the contrary this leads to the weakening in the process of wealth generation in general.

. . .

Likewise loose monetary policy cannot give rise to the expansion of real output. All that it will generate is a reshuffling of the existent pool of real savings. It will enrich the early receivers of the new money at the expense of last receivers or no receivers at all. Obviously then, a loose monetary policy which is aimed at boosting consumers' demand cannot boost real output by a multiple of the initial increase in consumer demand. Not only will loose money policy not lift production, but on the contrary it will impoverish wealth generators in exactly the same way as the enforcer in our previous example.

The Myth of the Magical Multiplier - Frank Shostak - Mises Daily

Are we done talking about the multiplier now?

 

[Geo Patric]

We're talking about the deficit and taxes. How is discussing the debt ceiling a nonissue in this case? Is it a nonissue because you agree that politicians keep raising the ceiling so that we can better live beyond our means?

oh, well, it would if that were what you were doing rather than making pithy remarks. or did i miss something? nothing wrong with pithy comments, of course, i indulge in them myself as the occasion permits. but they do not offer much room for rebuttal

Who you calling conservative?

everyone knows libertarians are just better dressed republicans who smoke pot....

Or perhaps, the most cautious and suspicious time of the greater Cold War.

can't argue that. but he should have been clear enough to avoid the horsehit... his brother was.

We can go by what his closest associates said about him, or by what he did. He drastically increased the number of military advisors in Vietnam, and paved the way for open attacks on American military personnal.

again, yes.

I don't understand this line of thinking. If a corporation benefits from tax cuts and that opens the opportunity for expansion, how does that not help the guy who got a decent living wage from a new job offered by the company?

a big "IF".

history suggests it simply does not work that way. it may, given the right circumstances. i am no economist, but what is often said and seems to make sense is cut taxes across the board when things are going well, the difference to be made up for in volume... more people making more money means more revenue, the same revenue with judicious cuts. this was the premise behind the first (prewar) Bush cuts. and it likely wudda worked IF he hadn't started the wars.

do not cut revenue when expenditures are great. nobrainer, right. Bush did anyway.

cut taxes on low income and middle class in dire conditions to protect them, firstly, and to fuel the economy.

maybe cut corportate tax in those instances to free development and payroll monies. not all corporations get the idea, though.

do not cut taxes on the rich in dire times. they do not need the assistance. cold? yeah. hard times oblige extra effort.

i will get back to that 'taxed into prosperity' tomorrow... gotta run to an archaeology class..

geo.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

Because the Republicans don't want to raise taxes, and even provide tax breaks to those who can afford paying more taxes, than cut government spending on their pet programs for their campaign donors, such as farm subsidies and defense contractors.

I know I've said this before and I'll say it again, this screams of Marxism, where the gov't owns 100% of what you make and then decides how much of it you get back.

So you should FORCE someone to give more of their money to the gov't because they can afford it? Man, if I ever heard a legit reason for NOT trying to succeed in this country, that was it.

 

[OscarB63]

I know I've said this before and I'll say it again, this screams of Marxism, where the gov't owns 100% of what you make and then decides how much of it you get back.

So you should FORCE someone to give more of their money to the gov't because they can afford it? Man, if I ever heard a legit reason for NOT trying to succeed in this country, that was it.

hell, why work to succeed if the govt is going to punish you by taking more of your income? hell, why work at all when the govt is going to send you a check every month for sitting on your ass. Why get an education when the govt is going to force an employer to pay you a minimum wage that far outweighs the value of the service you provide?

Want to lead to the downfall of a society? remove any incentive for its member to excell.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

we DO have the monies that we are spending. we have borrowed it. we were obliged to borrow it because we are not collecting sufficient revenues to meet our obligations. we are not collecting sufficient revenues because some dip**** turned off the revenue stream by cutting taxes and increased the obligations by starting two very expensive wars. so, we borrow.

Libertarian/Conservative translation: We briefly had a president that actually believed the money people earned belonged to them and not the gov't and believed that an attack killing 3000 people started by a terrorist group was enough to justify a war.

Oh and Hey Don, I see you reading this thread. You've been absent at iboats lately.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know I've said this before and I'll say it again, this screams of Marxism, where the gov't owns 100% of what you make and then decides how much of it you get back.

So you should FORCE someone to give more of their money to the gov't because they can afford it? Man, if I ever heard a legit reason for NOT trying to succeed in this country, that was it.

when you strip away all the contradictory psychobabbling (tax cuts have to be paid for or tax cuts increase the deficit but massive spending is needed) all you have left is the nonsense that those who are more productive ought to be soaked and those who are slackers need more and more handouts

 

[TurtleDude]

hell, why work to succeed if the govt is going to punish you by taking more of your income? hell, why work at all when the govt is going to send you a check every month for sitting on your ass. Why get an education when the govt is going to force an employer to pay you a minimum wage that far outweighs the value of the service you provide?

Want to lead to the downfall of a society? remove any incentive for its member to excell.

misery loves company and slackers resent success because nothing accentuates a feeling of misery than a slacker seeing someone who actually worked hard and smart and made it. Its sort of like cowards wanting to ban guns because armed people who make personal safety an individual responsibility accentuates the feelings of timidity among the yellow bellied

nothing reminds a loser of his loserdom more than a winner. high tax rates are how the losers fight back

 

[Donc]

Man you took an “Affirming the consequent” logical fallacy (dontworrybehappys post) and made it yours didn’t you?:2wave:

OscarB63

hell, why work to succeed if the govt is going to punish you by taking more of your income?

I guess your making big bucks if your worried about the 3% jump in taxes eh?

hell, why work at all when the govt is going to send you a check every month for sitting on your ass.

How are you going to stop yourself on this slippery slope your on?

Why get an education when the govt is going to force an employer to pay you a minimum wage that far outweighs the value of the service you provide?

Whee, look at me mom no hands as I slide down this slope.

Want to lead to the downfall of a society? remove any incentive for its member to excell.

I wonder how President Clinton managed to create more than 24 million jobs in eight years with a 39.6 tax rate.Baffling isn’t it?

 

[TurtleDude]

one of the biggest lies or false hoods I see on this board are the welfare-socialist apologists claiming the clinton obama tax hike is only a 3% increase

if you pay 36% on your next dollar and it goes to 39.6% that means you are paying around 10% more in taxes

if you are an investor and have mostly dividend income (which is the case with many widows who inherited stock from their deceased husband or have stock they bought with his life insurance) their taxes are GOING TO TRIPLE

stop the lies dems

 

[OscarB63]

Man you took an “Affirming the consequent” logical fallacy (dontworrybehappys post) and made it yours didn’t you?:2wave:

irrelevent crappola

I guess your making big bucks if your worried about the 3% jump in taxes eh?

I know it is a hard concept for some people to grasp..but the amount of the increase isn't the issue, it is the principle behind it.

How are you going to stop yourself on this slippery slope your on?



Whee, look at me mom no hands as I slide down this slope.

more irrelevent crappola

I wonder how President Clinton managed to create more than 24 million jobs in eight years with a 39.6 tax rate.Baffling isn’t it?

dotcom bubble, no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, republican controlled congress helped out quite a bit, benefitted from the policies and gains made by Bush I.

funny how many people fail to realize that most of the effects of policies are not felt for years. Clinton benefitted and got credit for gains created by Bush I policies and Bush II took the blame for losses caused by Clinton policies. Just as Obama is now suffering under the policies of Bush II and his democrat congress.

 

[TurtleDude]

I wonder if Donc will ever tell us at what point its not ok to make the rich pay more taxes

since the dems have no plans to cut spending (and cut their ability to buy votes) they will always claim the rich have to pay more to keep up with the dem spending

we need to make those who enable this spending to suffer more taxes to cure them of their irresponsible voting patterns

 

[phattonez]

I wonder how President Clinton managed to create more than 24 million jobs in eight years with a 39.6 tax rate.Baffling isn’t it?

The "jobs created" statistics is one of the greatest farces ever to face economics. Jerry Brown created a ton of jobs in the time he was in California, yet unemployment was higher when he left office than when he started. So does that mean he have a good jobs record because jobs were created under him? Absolutely NOT!