OT: 2008 Elections

[JackB1]

Well if we didn't have thousands of nuclear bombs "they" might attack us. I'm sick of all these liberal socialists who think feeding the hungry is a better idea than making bombs.

You wouldn't feel that way of YOU were one of the hungry.

Better check the batteries in your sarcasm detector, Jack.

Oops..my bad

It's sometimes hard to tell unless you include a or a

[wco81]

Never say never but China and Russia have discovered that they prefer to make money from us than threaten to destroy us.

They have too much to lose by getting into any kind of battle or war against us.

The Chinese leaders still believe in their cause and will crack down on dissent but have tied their economic fortunes to the West.

Putin has grabbed power left and right but he also likes selling oil and natural gas to Europe.

Now, these are horrible people and if that's a criterium for going to war, to effect regime change, maybe the US will start something, even though again, it's against everyone's interest to have any kind of conflagration between giants.

Some time in the future, there may be clash over claims on resources. For instance, Russia has laid claim to oil deposits in the Arctic, as several other nations have. Putin may also try to grab back some of the republics which broke away from the old Soviet Union.

But we basically watched him wage war on the Chenchens and did nothing.

[FatPitcher]

China might gamble that we would stand back and do nothing while they invade Taiwan. If we were not guaranteeing Taiwan's independence with a powerful military presence, they would have done it a long time ago.

[TheHiddenTrack]

Feeding hungry people is covered just fine by private charities, so that's a straw man. Of course there is waste in defense spending, just like there is waste in all government programs.

And of course if military readiness is not adequate when there's actually a war to fight, we can always blame the SecDef instead of a decade of spending cuts. If we or one of our allies gets hit by an ICBM, we can pretend that we never advocated cutting missile defense programs; we just wanted to be "smarter" about deciding where the money went.

Yes, you are correct Fat Pitcher, "private charities" are clearly working, homelessness is a mere myth made up by liberal socialists. That was clearly a "straw man" ... good call.

"if military readiness is not adequate when there's actually a war to fight"

I'm not advocating abolishing the military. But maybe if they didn't spend so much on the military the world police wouldn't get the bright idea that it can destroy and rebuild countries on a whim. And at this point if there is an actual war to fight it would be problematic because our irrational and incompetent leaders have diverted the resources of the military.

Maybe we should take all of America's wealth and invest it in the military, draft everyone between the ages of 12-65 and truly try to democratize the entire world, you know, "manifest destiny" and all that good stuff. Because death is true liberation.

[wco81]

China might gamble that we would stand back and do nothing while they invade Taiwan. If we were not guaranteeing Taiwan's independence with a powerful military presence, they would have done it a long time ago.

They might but they're probably not prepared to do so any time soon. From the Slate article cited above:

The report states many times that China's main priority, for the next several years, is to deter an attack on the Taiwan Strait, not to project power throughout Asia. However, even on this limited level, the report notes, "China does not yet possess the military capability to accomplish with confidence its political objectives on the island [of Taiwan], particularly when confronted with the prospect of U.S. intervention."

Lets say they try it anyways. Will Americans support intervention as the first response?

Or would it make more sense to impose trade sanctions and make it costly for China?

Besides hubris, what would be the incentive for China to invade Taiwan? For the past decade, a lot of manufacturing, particularly of electronics which used to be made in Taiwan, has migrated to China, with the initiative of Taiwanese industrialists.


We can go through the same exercise with the prospect of Russia trying to take over Ukraine or Belarus. Are Americans going to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Eastern Europe to fight those tanks?

Or worse, escalate to tactical nukes and destroy the global economy in the process, all in the name of preventing Russian invasion and occupation?

[XXXIV]

Economic sanctions ...if that...

[ProvoAnC]

Example of Pentagon being out of control.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184481/nav/tap3/

A tactical fighter designed for air-to-air combat is retrofitted with two air-to-ground smart bombs after the end of the Cold War. There is no air force in the world which poses a threat to American air supremacy.

But the Air Force keeps pushing for far more than the number which Gates would support.

They drag out the China canard, which they've been doing for over 40 years. China is a long ways from posing the kind of threat which would justify a huge fleet of F-22s:

it's probably not worth spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars now for a program like the F-22, which its own sponsors admit might be needed in case a threat develops 20 years in the future.

In fact, 20 years from now, the F-22 is probably obsolete.

yeah, but do you have any idea how f***in COOL THAT PLANE IS?!?!?

[FatPitcher]

Feeding hungry people is covered just fine by private charities, so that's a straw man. Of course there is waste in defense spending, just like there is waste in all government programs.

And of course if military readiness is not adequate when there's actually a war to fight, we can always blame the SecDef instead of a decade of spending cuts. If we or one of our allies gets hit by an ICBM, we can pretend that we never advocated cutting missile defense programs; we just wanted to be "smarter" about deciding where the money went.

Yes, you are correct Fat Pitcher, "private charities" are clearly working, homelessness is a mere myth made up by liberal socialists. That was clearly a "straw man" ... good call.

And yet another straw man...I never said anything about homelessness. If you want to talk about that, maybe you should do some research on homelessness in the socialist paradise of San Francisco, where I live.

[Leebo33]

Yes, you are correct Fat Pitcher, "private charities" are clearly working, homelessness is a mere myth made up by liberal socialists. That was clearly a "straw man" ... good call.

Maybe more people would give more to charities if the government(s) didn't take a third or more of our paychecks. I give to charity, but I don't think I've ever given much to feed the poor because I figure the government should at least be able to handle that considering how much I give them.

[JRod]

Yes, you are correct Fat Pitcher, "private charities" are clearly working, homelessness is a mere myth made up by liberal socialists. That was clearly a "straw man" ... good call.

Maybe more people would give more to charities if the government(s) didn't take a third or more of our paychecks. I give to charity, but I don't think I've ever given much to feed the poor because I figure the government should at least be able to handle that considering how much I give them.

Come on, you really believe people don't give more to because of taxes. That's just batshit crazy. People don't give more because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means.

[RobVarak]

Come on, you really believe people don't give more to because of taxes. That's just batshit crazy. People don't give more because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means.

Wow, you have some serious powers of insight there, JRod. Leebo just said that he would in fact give more but for his tax burden, so there's an example. Speaking more broadly, if people had more disposable income they may be inclined to use it to donate, if for no other reason than the tax benefits. But rationally speaking their tax burden may be such that it's not even an option for them.

I think it's far from "batshit crazy" to assume that the fact that they don't have more money is a restraint on charitable giving. Hell, I work on estates every day where donors would love to leave more to charity but for the fact that they are getting hammered with taxes, be they estate, gift, income or capital gains.

[wco81]

How do the foundations work? There's talk that some philanthropists are leaving most of their net worth as bequests to foundations. There must be some tax advantages to doing it that way?


So it sounds like the Clintons are fatalistic. Bill said if Hilary can't win all of the big 3 states, she can't win. Some had feared they might have a scorched earth strategy, go negative, try to cook up a deal.

But apparently in the debate, she struck some conciliatory notes.

[TheHiddenTrack]

Feeding hungry people is covered just fine by private charities, so that's a straw man. Of course there is waste in defense spending, just like there is waste in all government programs.

And of course if military readiness is not adequate when there's actually a war to fight, we can always blame the SecDef instead of a decade of spending cuts. If we or one of our allies gets hit by an ICBM, we can pretend that we never advocated cutting missile defense programs; we just wanted to be "smarter" about deciding where the money went.

Yes, you are correct Fat Pitcher, "private charities" are clearly working, homelessness is a mere myth made up by liberal socialists. That was clearly a "straw man" ... good call.

And yet another straw man...I never said anything about homelessness. If you want to talk about that, maybe you should do some research on homelessness in the socialist paradise of San Francisco, where I live.

I assumed you were referring to my second post where I specifically said homelessness. The homeless are often hungry. Private charities (and churches) are at best, okay at treating the surface problem. They have virtually no impact on treating the root causes of homelessness. And with, for example, food shelters they very often are once or twice a week and in locations that people have trouble getting to. I'm glad they are there, but they aren't going get people into homes.

[JRod]

Come on, you really believe people don't give more to because of taxes. That's just batshit crazy. People don't give more because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means.

Wow, you have some serious powers of insight there, JRod. Leebo just said that he would in fact give more but for his tax burden, so there's an example. Speaking more broadly, if people had more disposable income they may be inclined to use it to donate, if for no other reason than the tax benefits. But rationally speaking their tax burden may be such that it's not even an option for them.

I think it's far from "batshit crazy" to assume that the fact that they don't have more money is a restraint on charitable giving. Hell, I work on estates every day where donors would love to leave more to charity but for the fact that they are getting hammered with taxes, be they estate, gift, income or capital gains.

Come on Rob, his first sentence is, if the government didn't take a third or more of our paychecks. We all know what leebo is inferring.

You can make the generic statement people with more money would give more. That's like saying people with less money will give less. That's what you are saying. So the answer is to generate more for charities, one idea is to lower taxes.

The biggest problem with tax burdens isn't income related but other issues like the inheritance or here in the west where people are land rich but cash poor. Selling or leaving their land to their kids can hurt many families.

Oh and here's a great nugget for you all to chew on. Many charities out there are receiving YOUR tax dollars through government grants or appropriations.

It's silly for someone to say you can't give more to charity because of a tax burden. Maybe if you are living on a fix income like social security. But maybe one should look at our luxurious spending budget, like gaming.

[Jackdog]

Maybe more people would give more to charities if the government(s) didn't take a third or more of our paychecks. I give to charity, but I don't think I've ever given much to feed the poor because I figure the government should at least be able to handle that considering how much I give them.

Being an active member of a charity I couldn't agree with you more. I have people tell me all the time that they want to donate but things are too tight.

[FatPitcher]

Being unable to give money to charity because of high taxes is part of the problem, but I think the bigger issue is that people increasingly see paying their taxes and supporting politicians as the proper means of helping the less fortunate. Instead of volunteering at a shelter or donating to a charity, they spend that time, money, and effort on trying to use the political system to force everyone to help those people instead. This is far less efficient at accomplishing those goals for many reasons. It also imposes one person's values/morals on other people and limits their freedom. It causes the abdication of personal responsibility, because "society" will take care of them, and all I have to do is what I'm told. Finally, it takes away from the rewarding feeling we get when we help people personally, a feeling that increases our desire to do good.

It reminds me of a story that Tipper Gore told about coming across a homeless person on the street one day. She told her kid they couldn't help him directly, but they could help by "raising awareness." Which in my opinion is more about making yourself feel good and relieving your conscience than actually helping.

[matthewk]

Come on, you really believe people don't give more to because of taxes. That's just batshit crazy. People don't give more because they don't want to, not because they don't have the means.

When it comes to things like "being green" and donating to help others, we are ALL hypocrites at some level. By that I mean any one of us could do more than what we are doing right now.

Someone that gives $100 a month to help the homeless could still give more. Why only $100? Why not give half their paycheck? What gives one person the right to criticize what another does for charity? For a lot of people, money IS tight, and people tend to take care of those close to them before giving to strangers.

[pk500]

It's all about proportions, John. If taxes were lower, I don't think anyone is silly enough to suggest that people would donate all of that extra money to charity. They still would blow it on video games, HDTV's, health club memberships that are used once per month, gas for multiple daily trips to buy one item, etc.

But it IS batsh*t crazy to think that some people wouldn't donate some of that extra income on charitable donations at a proportional rate to which they now donate.

In other words, a guy who now donates $100 per year to charity might donate $200 if his taxes were halved. I don't think that's quite a stretch, especially since he'd have more money to satisfy his impulse purchases, too.

A rising tide of available cash theoretically will lift all boats, not just those that float in the aisles at Best Buy and Circuit City.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

That may be true, PK, but there's also a cause and effect on the government side. If you reduce taxes, charitable contributions may increase, but cutting social programs would also increase need. I don't think that charitable contributions would keep up with those cuts.

[RobVarak]

PK is right, JRod. I'm not suggesting there if taxes were x dollars lower, donations would be x dollars higher. But there is no question that if people had more wealth they would use some portion of that marginal difference for charity...if for no other reason than to realize the income tax benefits!

I work as an estate planner and I'm an advisor to the board for a 501(c)(3). I deal with this every day. People plan for bequests or set up charitable remainder trusts and would like to fund more, but they can't becuase of they are either on a fixed income or haven't got the disposable income to make a more sizeable charitable donations realistic. The people I really feel bad for are those who come to me via accountant referrals who need to minimize their income tax liabilty by finding charitable deductions but who can't afford to because their debt and expenses are simply too high. This is particularly common in families with 2 working professionals, as they typically have higher student loan debt and higher childcare costs.

Oh and here's a great nugget for you all to chew on. Many charities out there are receiving YOUR tax dollars through government grants or appropriations.

Not nearly as much as you think. And even those that do receive only a small portion of their operating budgets from such funding. And that's before we even address the issue of whether it makes economic sense to have the government apportion those charitable dollars rather than donors.

It's silly for someone to say you can't give more to charity because of a tax burden. Maybe if you are living on a fix income like social security. But maybe one should look at our luxurious spending budget, like gaming.

This is just ignorant, paticularly after my prior post. I work with people all the time who have to give less because of income (or especially capital gains) taxes. I maintain a charitable remainder trust for one client who wants to increase her contribution every year, but she's always treading water because of her income tax liability. And believe me the charity which will receive her donation is not getting a nickely of Federal money LOL

Now proper planning can help people realize tax benefits from their donations, obviously. But I think that most people who donate less than they would because of income tax liability are not those who have the inclination or the assets to do legacy planning.

wco81 wrote:

How do the foundations work? There's talk that some philanthropists are leaving most of their net worth as bequests to foundations. There must be some tax advantages to doing it that way?

There are many different ways to set up foundations, and all of them do indeed confer tax advantages. Most will create some mix of deductions in income, capital gains, gift and estate taxes. Just tonight I gave a workshop on charitable giving through estate planning, which is one of my favorite parts of my business.

But practically speaking most people do not contact an estate planner or accountant before donating. Moreover, those who would most likely feel the benefit of lower income taxes are not those who have the assets or inclination to set up trusts of this sort.

[RobVarak]

That may be true, PK, but there's also a cause and effect on the government side. If you reduce taxes, charitable contributions may increase, but cutting social programs would also increase need. I don't think that charitable contributions would keep up with those cuts.

That presumes several things that are not necessarily true: That social programs would be cut, that those that may be cut shouldn't be, and that the switch to private funding wouldn't result in more efficient distribution of funds. The last factor is actually two related issues: you could see the money accumulating where it needs to (that is with the "better" and more effective charities) and the charities would be free to make the best use of the funds. Federal money comes with lots of strings that makes the life of boards of directors very miserable.

[Jared]

Lower taxes would result in an increase in charitable giving. But as Rob stated, it wouldn't be the case that if taxes were x dollars lower, donations would be x dollars higher.

However, it also wouldn't be the case that if taxes were lowered, charitable giving would make up for whatever social services were lost because of lower taxes. So you might have more money going to charities...but the scope of aid for the poor would clearly diminish. That's why laws for these social programs were passed...the goodwill of the public wasn't doing good enough.

So if you cut taxes and social service programs, the poor will be worse off because charity won't be able to fill in the gaps.

[pk500]

You could cut wasteful spending from government programs -- both defense and social -- and provide Joe Taxpayer with a nice tax cut without nibbling much into either kind of program.

That's the part of the equation that's often overlooked by those who espouse continued big spending on social and defense programs, groups that usually never party together.

Cut the fat, and the meat still will remain. And nearly all government programs could use a lot of this:



Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

Cut the fat, and the meat still will remain. And nearly all government programs could use a lot of this:

That would make everyone of us happy and probbaly do it while cutting taxes....but I dont think the elected officials of either party give a flying f*** about that...they want the pork. they are the pork.

[Leebo33]

That's why laws for these social programs were passed...the goodwill of the public wasn't doing good enough.

That's really my point. To me the government has created these programs and is trying to establish the a mindset of "cradle to grave" care. That's fine. I'll give my tens of thousands for government services. But don't tell me private charities *can't* do a better job when the mindset is the government is taking our money for the purpose of taking care of these issues.

I'm not saying I *couldn't* give more to charity. We obviously *all* have areas that we could cut back. I'm just saying it's pretty likely that I *would* give more to charity if I had tens of more thousands in disposable income and knew that the goverment didn't already have things under control with these social programs.

edit: I just went back and read Fatpitcher's post. He said it much better than I did. That's what I meant.