ParanoiA

Good god, 20%? Added? Just to be meaningful?

The VAT is particularly disgusting and I would like to see a lot of protesting about it. I would support shifting the tax structure and eliminating income taxation, which is incredibly invasive to our privacy and way too easy and tempting to vote the burden on a minority. But as an added tax? Screw that.

It will never go away. If it did all the good the taxocrats claim it will, and we paid off our debt and balanced the budget, then we'll get the appeals to how much good it could do to keep it and "we're already used to the tax" so no need to eliminate such a "success".

How many have experience with this at the state level? How many "temporary" taxes have you seen eliminated after it satisfied its ends? It's just like the ole conservatives and their "small government" diatribe, while they never shrink government.

Yeah, ewmon, I think that's common ground.

Haven't seen you before. Hope you stick around.

It's a strange thing to pick Kucinich and Paul since the first sees UFOs and the latter warns of the coming race wars. Are there any sane congresspeople that aren't corrupt?

UFO's are unidentified flying objects. Are you saying that people are crazy if they can't identify every flying object?

And do you have anything recent on Ron Paul and this race war thing or are you still pretending as if he believes this today? And further, what is it about this prediction that you find fault with? Does it suggest racism to you, or just naive paranoia?

I think most would instead say that current political dealings have an aspect of reciprocity that is rather removed from the way most people do things. It has more of an under the table' date=' dirty business feeling to it when a politician has to make so many you-scratch-my-back concessions to get his bill voted for.

 

I don't think every politician is corrupt, but I don't cheat on my wife and taxes either. It's possible for some of them to be immoral people while not being a corrupt politician, but many Americans, possibly the vast majority, find it hard to distinguish the two.[/quote']

 

I think you nailed it here. The supreme court ruling overturning McCain-Fiengold carries that same reciprocity suggestion. Even though, there isn't anything inherently corrupt about donating money to the candidate of your choice, it's not the way the rest of us do business in our personal lives, and just feels dirty.

I doubt he'll ever call them out for placing signs on (eventual victim) kids. And did he call out Bush's political gimmick of talking about a "culture of life" while a ladies holding a child mouthed "Amen" on stage behind him?

 

(Among the countless instances of politicizing victims that Rush ignored because it came from the right-winged universe)

Oh well sure. We see (or hear rather) this on his show daily. Cherry picking when to follow principle and went to think around it' date=' based entirely on his ideology.

But noting his hypocrisy misses the point, in this case anyway. He still, as far as I know anyway, is virtually the only commentator willing to step so firmly on victim advocates and reject the notion they are somehow too precious to be assailed, despite whom they may be assailing themselves.

It's the social commentary that I find more value in. His hypocrisy, and most of the politicians in the single party dual-wing system we live under, is something I've had to learn to live with. I don't accept it, but I live with it.

You missed my whole point. I really do understand the strategy and I understand it hasn't been "tried" to any proponent's satisfaction. My point however goes to what specifically would be tried. I understand in principle how all the mechanics are expected to operate on a macroscopic scale, but this only explains the general outlook.

 

What I don't see is any plan to ease us from here to there in a deliberate, thought out way that can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects. Just a few mid-step strategies that can be weighed, considered, expectations laid out, and impacts measured going forward. Without that all we have are some vaulted ideals with no concept of how to apply them in a practical sense. Without practical application, I don't see how to fit them into our current system to improve conditions, and that's what it's all about.

I apologize if I'm still missing your point. Maybe I'm just thick headed (my wife certainly wouldn't disagree with that).

I think you're talking about a carefully laid out plan of action to implement my dream libertarian federal level government. I think that would require a level of expertise and experience that I and most of us here don't have.

And I really thought I spoke to your point, but maybe it didn't seem so obvious. When you say "...can adjust and respond to unexpected side effects" it seems to imply - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that as we eliminated government programs for instance, that we must "do something" if we get poorer performance here and there.

And that's why I was trying to explain in my previous post that I'm not as concerned about performance of government. I accept the advantages and disadvantages of intense individual liberty and the natural compliment of free market economics. For instance, if we wiped out Social Security and that resulted in an inflated quantity of destitute seniors, I don't believe that is for government to fix. If I understand your point at all, it means to fix such a thing through government predicated on an "unexpected side effect" resulting from eliminating SS.

I have no interest in evolving government and growing it to fit around us to solve our problems. Centralized external force is a need produced because of our imperfection, and is something to be ashamed of, not to be invested in and proud of.

My philosophy focuses on the human. It's the human that should evolve, not the government. It's the human fault that causes us to need government in the first place, thus it should be the human that undergoes the change. The onus for evolution is on us.

Individual freedom is the only way to get there. Maximizing individual freedom empowers the individual and the absence of force, itself, forces humans to cooperate more fully to reach expected ends and goals. It better polarizes tolerance, forcing us to respect each other, because we cannot discount each other's beliefs by appealing to a central coersive power forcing compliance, creating resentment and failing at changing hearts and minds - fails at improving the human.

The ultimate end is self governing. To eliminate the corruption and malice of human nature to the point that humans don't need government - in its ideal of course, which will likely never be reached inside of a trillion years. Just like we aim for zero crime, we should aim for zero government. When humans don't need laws to be decent to one another, I believe we will have maximized quality of life and ultimately happiness. Everyone does as they please, and they hurt no one. Beautiful.

All of that is why I really don't care about the unexpected side effects, short of total national chaos and destruction. We resembled this framework before, and we had side effects and foolishly let those lead us down a path of eliminating individual liberty incrementally over time. We fought off the greatest army on earth - twice - and built a superpower of the world in about 150 years or so. We know what to expect. What we don't know, is how in the world we suddenly decided that those side effects were worse than freedom.

Saying "cut spending" is all well and good' date=' but pretty meaningless on its own. Of course you want to to spend less. But cut spending where? Apparently not social security, medicare, or the military, so where? "Waste?" That's just as vague.

 

This is why I agree that the Tea Party is not actually saying anything. "Smaller government," without elaboration, is not a position.[/quote']

 

Tea partiers are probably talking about the health care bill. I'm talking about all those you just listed, including the health care bill.

*facepalm* yay, someone else making the argument that if we just cut spending we can lower taxes and the deficit simultaneously!

*facepalm* yay, someone else pretending as if they don't know what libertarians stand for. And double yay, bascule still conveniently ignores the smaller government detail again, to protect his crumbling argument.

Yes, bascule, we can cut taxes, cut spending and SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT DOWN to constitutional size, which of course, is another dynamic of cutting spending dramatically. As long as you insist on centralized, bureaucratic micro and macro management of the population you'll need to rob them of all of their property to balance your books.

Your philosophy won't allow such individual accountability, so it appears impossible to you. That's fair. But it's not my philosophy and thus I am not bound by it.

And the Laffer Curve rears its ugly head yet again. Sorry, this is the very argument that created our national debt. Reagan made it. George H.W. Bush made it. George Bush made it. These three guys basically bankrupted our country. This approach has been tried. The result is the overwhelming majority of our present national debt.

Maybe someone should introduce you to Hauser's Law. Empirical evidence kicks ass.

You want to increase revenue? Increase the GDP. You want to increase the GDP? Lower freaking taxes. Not eliminate, but lower. Thoughtfully.

As for Regan and company, I find it curious. I've always heard that it was the spending. I guess it just depends on which ideologue you're talking to and what they're currently promoting or ridiculing.

The republicans have never shrunk government. Ever. They grow government as much as the taxocrats, err, democrats do. With Reagan I'm a bit more forgiving. I appreciate waging economic war instead of bloody war.

ParanoiA, I understand this argument but you are stuck on arguing about the abstract merits of a strategy that we all get - what we don't see is any tangible implementation plan for how to apply that strategy. The idea of "smaller government reduces deficit" is perfectly fine, but who has a strategy to do this in a manner that won't backfire and bite us?

We just see things 180 degrees different. You say you "get" the strategy, but it's not been tried. Parts of it are tried, here and there, but every administration and legislature grows the government and its power and responsibility. Your idea of backfire and bite us, probably is my idea of a homecoming. When government actually gets smaller, then we may just have something to track.

To me, the american people have made a grave mistake, generations ago. We were warned by our framers, and my second sig spells it out, but we've taken on these moral roles at the federal level while eroding the sovereignty of the states, further centralizing a collective government that offends the rights of the individual. We're seeing that more and more - personal choice being "judged' and then taxed or some such nudge by the citizenry to dissuade behavior through law.

So for me, I feel more compelled to argue personal choice to people and challenge their assumptions and impulses to judge each other's behaviors, from homophobia to hating the rich. We rationalize so much rotten treatment.

That's the only strategy I can get my hands around for such an ominous, impossible doom. In my opinion, of course.

Give me a beak. You think this is a message which deserves respect? Go frak yourself...

What a classless post. You'll get no respect from me, ever.

Love those pics. Especially the little girl, that one really makes a terrific point.

The problem is that the solutions to these problems are mutually exclusive. It's like complaining that our country's proverbial house is on fire' date=' but the fire department is using too much water. Tax cuts will make the deficit worse. These are not problems we can effectively work on at the same time.

 

The issue is that their "platform", if you can call it that, is very much internally inconsistent, not "nuanced".[/quote']

 

Nope. They're not mutually exclusive at all. I think I know why you missed it though, you just completely dropped and ignored the smaller government nuance. Probably because it ruins your "mutually exclusive" argument.

 

Even if they weren't demanding a smaller government and eviction from the private sector, the right tax cuts in the right places increase revenue, and the right spending cuts in the right places decrease spending. You just have get a little deeper than specious surface level conflicts. Funny how these silly tea partiers get that...

 

I'm in complete agreement with their nuance. Of course, we'd disagree on details and overall philosophy, grossly. But smaller government, cutting spending and taxes? Yes to all of that, just to get started.

Isn't that what you get from "normal" folk though? Most people aren't all geeky about politics like we are, or bound by some thought out, consistent philosophical code. So you would expect exactly this kind of "non focused" message - diversity in "enough is enough".

I don't think this is a good reason to discount them, or decide that they're too stupid to be important enough to listen to at all, or that their concerns are rubbish.

And interestingly too...isn't this an example of "nuance"? Wasn't that considered an asset when Obama was running for president - that he had nuanced positions? But it ain't cool for tea partiers?

They want a deflated government and they want massive reductions in spending, lower taxes - that's the nuance we get from them - a complete withdraw of what we're doing right now. They may not be consistent person to person on any detail, but I doubt they'd be out there holding rallies and protesting if that general philosophy was realized in some form.

I'm so yesterday...

I'm currently into Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots. I only play the Conquer the World campaign. I really wanted a modern graphic version of Risk, that provided some level of strategic battle control and this is as close as I've found. I do enjoy the battles, and the control, once I have an army built.

Although, I really wish I didn't have to do the tedious nation building for each battle. It's kind of stupid. I go to all this trouble to build an army and conquer some territory - then, next battle, they're gone. I'm back to having virtually no army, and having to build another one. I don't get that. Ruins the strategy when maneuvering forces on the map.

I didn't. Sorry. I probably would have though, if that means anything.

By the way Gilded, that is still my favorite avatar. I wish I had the full sized pic.

Excellent post, Pangloss. Totally agree.

All that said - I am definitely interested in moving towards talking about what we find the Tea Party does want in terms of policy. I just wanted to clarify that I find their lack of a coherent platform as the main reason they have such a bad image by default.

They're conservatives. They want conservative policy. I don't know why anyone is scratching their heads about this. Their platform is modern conservatism. Small government and a balanced budget are the logical ends of their complaints about government expansion of power and out of control deficit spending. They're freaking the hell out. And so are a lot of us.

Hypocrites? Well of course. They're conservatives. No need to wrestle with the logic of how they could oppose government intrusion economically, while they simultaneously support government intrusion socially. That's just the right wing of the federalist party for you.

There is that small percentage of libertarian leaning folk, but they are outnumbered and I'm not sure how many of them find a camera.

The "Tea Party" is more about "enough is enough" than it is about ideological consistency. The only consistent "message" to be found really is that they're sick of all the BS, and the numbers we're throwing around willy nilly are way too big to be throwing around willy nilly. Conservatives getting nervous.

Good, then I expect they'd like to see the Controlled Substances Act overturned.

Not a chance. About 30% might believe that - based on the 28% polled that endorsed Ron Paul. This is nothing new with conservatives.

Good link Severian. I like Single Transferable and Preferential. I have no experience with anything other than FPTP. I'll be watching this thread. I'm sure Skeptic will have some input and should be interesting.

I suggest: spending with the primary purpose of bringing money into a particular locality, for the benefit of only its residents, or especially a special interest subset of residents.

Of course that violates the general welfare clause too. Even by the supreme court's extremely liberal view of general welfare it still requires it to be "general" and not local. I'm sure they've found a way to rationalize it as "general" somehow, as it is left to the discretion of congress to qualify legislation as general welfare in first place.

Merged post follows:

I'll add to that money spent by an administrator so as not to appear to need less money/to protect his budget.

Yes. Excellent addition. My school district actually asks the residents here - all of us, no matter our financial situation - to apply for lunch assistance for our kids. The more approved lunch assistance we have, the more money the district gets in other areas too, according to their little flyer.

Go ahead and look up the Blue Springs school district in Missouri. We don't need the money, trust me. We have excellent schools with plenty of technology and they tax the hell out of us for it. We even have a brand new fancy building full of adults (only) to handle the handful of schools in our district. And that's still not enough?

It's essentially immoral for us to claim we need "lunch assistance" thereby steering funds away from other school districts that really, really need it. Disgusts the hell out of me. It's pork. For sure.

The latter reason indicates part of the problem with thinking that eliminating earmarks will solve our budgetary woes. A lot of those earmarks are just specific allocations of monies that would already have been spent. The problem with earmarks isn't so much a budgetary issue as it is a wasted effort issue.

Exactly. Ron Paul got in trouble for this, because he wants to eliminate ear marks yet feels he's ripping his constituency off if he doesn't participate in them while it's standard practice - he knows that refusing to ear mark anything doesn't reduce revenue or the tax burden in his district, rather it just ensures his district's money goes to someone else. One must do ear marks to keep money in the area - at least in theory, that is until the whole method is eliminated.

Perhaps a serious discussion here of what is meant by pork would be appropriate, granted that you provided a legitimate source with a definition. Some people would say that social security (one of FDR's pet projects) is pork as it will benefit only a small segment of the US population (those currently over the age of 50 or so). Social security is not at all insignificant...

The first question I have is...do we have a better result now that we have social security? What kind of problems did we have before that, and has that improved enough to justify the program? And we must be careful not to confuse the benefits of social security with the benefits of pensions, 401K's and other retirement programs that have evolved and improved with time.

The fact my grandmother lived off of her pension, and social security essentially paid for groceries only, I'm not so convinced those SS taxes couldn't have been put to better use in a private retirement account.

I agree with you about his political persecution (if that's the right word) but I always thought that was an issue questioning his competency and decisiveness, not his character or intentions. I could be entirely wrong - I don't know much about him in detail.

 

No, I don't think you're wrong at all. I've never heard anyone really attack his character either, other than through his position maybe on Israel and the palestinians.

I just brought it up because it's an example of how a man can be measured with some balance between his political personality and his personal actions and contributions to the world.

That said, if he was known for the kind of statements and rhetoric that Rush is (political leanings aside) do you think his character would still be above dispute, regardless of how many houses he helped build? It may confuse people or seem paradoxical, but I think it would be disputed.

I'm not sure. Political leanings can't be put aside to answer that question, because they have a lot to do with it.

Take the pluralized environment we currently live in. Right now it's trendy to promote bipartisanship and cooperation. If you don't compliment that trend, as a political commentator, then you're divisive, hateful, objectionist...blah blah blah - and thus your character can be "disputed", such as Rush.

But if Rush got on the radio and talked about how we all need to get along and work together and compromise to solve America's tough issues and problems, and offered nothing more than "pretty logic" then his character would never be in question. He would be a "swell guy". Yet, that kind of Rush does nothing for the world, in terms of his commentary. Just fluff and snow.

Rush contributes socially, more than politically, in my opinion. This is where I find value in him. One of my favorites is his refusal to cave in to the "victim advocate". And he's been assailed so many times for this. It's a chickenshit technique to trot victims out in the political arena, taking a particular side, and then acting all shocked and offended when Rush takes them on for being "wrong". As if these victims can't be expected to be taken to task for their position - like we're all supposed to just shut up and let them talk without countering them - or if we do, we have to walk on eggshells beginning every sentence with some spill about how sorry we are that they're a victim.

Rush takes the heat for that. Globally. And I thank him. I appreciate that someone out there is willing to stand up to these traditional, offensive political techniques.

I don't agree with how Rush is characterized generally (like hateful), and I challenge some of the supposed negatives, like "divisive", as being negative. Rush is wrong on so much of what he believes, that appeals to false charges aren't really necessary. Just like Obama is plenty wrong without making believe he's a muslim terrorist without a birth certificate. We just don't need that.

I would add that money bags come from the leveraging of the worker. People are fond of saying that companies don't pay taxes, people do. Well, money bags don't print money, they receive it from the value added work of others.

 

So if the wealthy are not taxed appropriately, they are obligated to give to charity, no need to thank them. Obviously, some will do more than others and some may go beyond the norm. This can be recognized, but should not be confused with real sacrifice, IMO.

Well we can argue about the classical arrangement of business owner/worker and who is doing for who, but what seems to miss the point is this constant appraisal of the giver. Why do we care if they've "sacrificed" or not? Why does that matter...at all?

I'm bothered by this focused attention on the donor and concern for their motivations - when it's the social need they're augmenting that deserves all of our attention. It's odd how this "sacrifice" jab just seems so necessary to include.

I erred a bit for not mentioning that other donations have impressed me: thomas jefferson donating his library to establish the Library of Congress; the Mennonites when they build houses for strangers as gifts, anonymous donations, etc.

And Jimmy Carter who actually swings a hammer (or at least did at one time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. That man is repeatedly persecuted for his politics and his presidency, but there's no disputing his character.

In the interest of clarity, I wanted to add that I think it's important for people to consider the roles that are played and needed. We need money bags out there, just like we need hands-on workers. It takes people that care, but only have their hands as well as people that care, with deep pockets.

Each of those roles has their own associated motivations and while it's universally despised to exploit giving for vanity, it's also an exercise in resentment that completely ignores service of the social need when that becomes an objection.

Very relevant. Their parents should have an excellent looking tax return for 2010 after such a donation to the public good.

And if your son, after all of this volunteer activity, then went on to call his teacher a heartless bitch who deserves to have her tires slashed, or her family a bunch of inbred disgusting nothings, you're suggesting his volunteer activities somehow negate that or make it less worthy of castigation?

Of course not. If someone says they are a better person because of my son's treatment of a teacher, then I would point to his volunteer activities, among other things, to serve as counter evidence to that judgement.

You said "And yes, I think that makes me better than people who are laughing at this suffering or using it to reinforce their message like Pat Robertson does."

So, I'm saying that it doesn't. Emotionally, I get your point. Logically, I do not.

I'm not impressed by donations' date=' and never been (except perhaps somewhat by those who can't afford much to give, yet offer a substantial percentage compared against their weekly measly paychecks).

 

To insinuate that someone is less effective for caring yet not donating is somewhat lacking in perception. [/quote']

 

Well I am absolutely impressed by donation because it's a net loss for the donor, and directs more funds to a social need. Tax deduction does not shift the burden of the donation directly to the taxpayers. The donation still is money and resources above and beyond what otherwise would have been secured.

 

And donation is initiated by will, so waste, corruption and other deficiancies must be kept in check enough to maintain at-will funding. This creates a bit of a free market approach to aid. And the more the public rewards rich figures in public life, the more they will do this. If recognizing their good deed to feed their vanity is all it takes to get hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to a good cause, then that's a cheap trade off well worth it.

 

So I've never donated except as insignificant handouts. It's not my style to donate and I'm just not inclined to, as my time and energy is spent on helping improve the world in a manner that works best for me. Right now I'm volunteering over 1,000 miles away from home -- and I'm not very loaded with money or time. Yet here's some reality to chew on: I'm no better for doing so than people who donate instead of taking direct action, or no better than people who care yet have rarely or never volunteered/donated.

 

Not true. Donating time is just as important. We have churches in my neighborhood that provide plenty of money and food for the local "homeless pantry" here. But someone still needs to drive the trunks, unload them, sort through it all, set up to receive the homless and needy in our area and put together boxes of this stuff and distribute it. Money doesn't do that. People do. People like my wife and kids.

 

We don't have money to donate. But we do have two teenagers that use this kind of volunteer work to get out of grounding, or to earn some time out of a punishment. (Instead of punishing them with volunteer work, I flip it around...seems to work, for now anyway)

 

Not the purest of reasons to help, but it does a service for our local community by providing labor that really can't be secured any other way.

 

If you're doing something, then you're helping. My point was sitting around "caring" doesn't do anything. I just wanted to put some perspective on how someone is being judged. I'm not impressed with intentions. I'm impressed with results. When someone cares very deeply about something, yet actually does nothing to that end, then I question the character of that same person to judge someone else who actually is doing something about it.

 

Any claim that someone is helping more by donating is a crock of shit. First off, we don't know what anyone here is doing in their lives, and second, it's a personal issue -- and so to boast like that about one's donating to a cause(s) is very much like attention-seeking.

 

It's the best kind of attention seeking. "Looky at me everybody, I'm helping someone - aren't I wonderful". Instead of "Looky at me, I have shiny gadgets." Or "looky at me express my individuality, my pants are saggy and I got my hat on sideways, yo", Or, "looky at me I'm pwning this dude!!11"

 

Of all the ridiculous vanity in our culture - this is the one that offends you so much? Disingenuous charity? It doesn't even reach my radar.

 

Now I'll take the opportunity to let everyone know also that some of what iNow has posted both in research and thoughts helped in my quest to seek/establish remarkable and practical methods for improving the world. And not just by iNow' date=' but others here as well.

 

Inspiration can be a strong vehicle too.

 

And so yes, caring is often enough -- and don't forget we know nothing about members on these forums. Also, if people wanna take action, it's no one's business except theirs when or if to do so.

 

Sometimes a good motivator come along to get us up from our asses, but they don't boast about money donated or how much they've accomplished. Perhaps it's the very reason they're a *good* motivator. [/quote']

 

So perhaps he should have answered my question about "what does that do", with something about inspiring others to take action. Sitting around and giving a crap doesn't do anything. That was my point, and still is.

 

Rush did good in donating. So do many others who are ideologically opposed from you. They do good things for our countrymen and they deserve some credit for it. To rationalize around that is desparate to see your "enemy" as "evil".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My point' date=' however, is that good works don't somehow negate the negative attributes, comments, and behaviors of a human being... This thread was about the negative behaviors, comments, and attributes of Rush Limbaugh... specifically, his comments about the volcano eruption and his suggestion that Clinton has opened the flood gates for violence by calling for civility in political discourse.

 

All of the donations in the world don't negate the negative aspect of those behaviors. Donations are a total red herring.[/quote']

 

Well they speak to his character, which you attacked. I just figured if you're going to judge him, perhaps you could judge all of him. From what I can tell, he's done more good in the world than I have, and probably more than you have, so I'm not sure you've judged him correctly.

 

But that's cool. Carry on how you wish.

Investment.

 

Rush could just keep his donation anonymous (or not so visibly *show off* the dollar figure)' date=' but that wouldn't lure people's hearts, would it? So he invests some $$ to attract more listeners and/or fans, who'd be sympathetic to his advertised "generosity".[/quote']

 

Exactly. Works good doesn't it? It caused hundreds of thousands of dollars to flood into the coffers of good causes that effect the real lives and deaths of your countrymen. Cast all the value judgments you want, I'll take the results. And maybe balance the possible negative motives I could pull out of a good gesture, with the positive ones rarely considered.

 

Wanna see him make a real gift? Let's see him not claim it on tax deductions. Because what's really happening is the rest of taxpayers are picking up his unpaid obligations.

 

For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations' date=' it's actually the same result either way

 

* A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously.

* Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need.

 

[/quote']

 

All charitable donations are a net loss, even at a 100% tax deduction.

 

Charitable donations are deducted from your taxable income before taxes are figured - because it's income you don't have, it has been spent entirely on a "social need". Keeping that money instead, would result in more income since it is *not* spent, only taxed for a portion. How is it an "unpaid obligation" to not figure his tax bill on income forwarded to a social need?

 

And you're forgetting the charitable donations either go to a need the public is not funding, or augment a need they are funding, thus still serving social need. Surely you're not going to argue that fighting blood cancer is not a social need.

 

So, to your point, it's an increase in funds directed to a social need than otherwise would have been directed to it. If Rush keeps that 2.1 Million dollars from the auctioned Harry Reid letter, he pays a certain percentage in taxes, X. X is a fraction of that amount, and only a fraction of that subsequent amount will even go to social need.

 

If Rush donates that 2.1 million dollars, then *all* of that 2.1 Million goes to social need.

 

The obvious distinction here is that an increase in charitable donations is an increase in social need funding and decrease in funding the rest of government - since the total tax burden is reduced yet social funding increased. The only burden being shifted is that we don't loot the rich for money directed to a good cause, which means the cost of the remaining machinations of government - apart from social need - will shift back to the rest of us. Just like EIC, dependency deductions, itemized deductions...etc, all of these things shift the burden of the tax bill.

So a lot of folks, for example Rush Limbaugh and Stephen Colbert, have given to charity, based at least in part on things like fund-raising and auctions.

 

I have two questions:

1) How exactly does the tax-deductible aspect work? It can't all be deduced directly from the taxes, can it?

2) Who exactly gets to deduce this from their taxes? For example, if someone bids for an item knowing that the funds go to charity, and probably over-paying for it for that reason, do they get to count that as tax-deductible? Likewise, can the host, knowing that they got more money for an item than its real value since it is going toward charity, count all that money as tax deductible?

Charity is tax deductible in that it is deducted from your taxable income, meaning before taxes are calculated. So it's not subtracted directly from the taxes, rather it shrinks your taxes by shrinking the number used to figure your taxes.

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/fordonors/tp/taxdeductionsforcharity.htm

I have no earthly idea on the other counts. I suspect a nervous accountant turning in either of those deductions.

Obama was in turn playing off a quote from House Minority Leader John Boehner, who likened the passage of the healthcare bill to Armageddon.

 

So I guess Rush is saying that John Boehner is right, and that the passage of this bill actually has caused Armageddon.

Yeah I suppose so. Of course, I couldn't disagree more, that nail was driven a long time ago, minus armageddon.

It's not that I don't see this fellas. I guess my point is that it's a matter of taste. I think it was in incredibly bad taste to make a joke out of peoples deaths... to make a joke out of the destruction of peoples homes and villages to score a cheap laugh among an audience that already dislikes Obama.

 

 

I guess I'm just sensitive to the suffering of my fellow man' date=' and I already have a distaste for Mr.Limbaugh, and those two coupled together caused me to get a little nauseous when I read that he'd said such a thing.

 

I'm sensitive to the fact that we just had massive suffering in Haiti due to earthquake, or tsunamis years ago, or Katrina, or the starvation and lack of water in Africa, or the abuse women put up with in middle eastern nations and elsewhere, and how these things are getting worse as the climate is changing...

 

When I think of these things and these people, I'm not thinking, "Aha! I can use this to score a political point against president bush or sarah palin and to get people who like me to laugh." No. I'm thinking, "This situation is really sad. I feel so very fortunate that me and my family are safe and are not suffering like they are. [i']I can only imagine if that were me down there. We need to find a way to help these people." And yes, I think that makes me better than people who are laughing at this suffering or using it to reinforce their message like Pat Robertson does.[/i]

 

Does that make me an elitist? If so, I must say that I don't think that's such a bad thing, and that I proudly walk forward with such a label applied to me, but I suppose YMMV.

I understand your sentiment. Now, what does it do?

As I said yesterday, Rush donated $400,000 dollars to help people with blood cancer, and turns his show into a fund raiser once a year for this effort. Not to mention his donations and participation in the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to children of marines or law enforcement officers that died in the line of duty. (That's where the 2.1 million dollars went from the Harry Reid letter that he auctioned off on ebay).

That's what he does. Now what do you do?

Rush makes the essential point that results count, and that merely giving a shit and caring is substance free rationale that doesn't help a single person.

While I give you credit for caring, what is the result of it? So, if we're measuring people...shouldn't I stick with results and actions over vocalized intents and emotions?

Of course, none of that excuses the tasteless jab. Although, I have come to expect it. Sometimes it serves a useful purpose. I fail to see any useful purpose in this case, at all.

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied.

Oh I didn't even catch that first part when I listened. Yeah, that's exactly what that is. Typical Rush stuff. He's playing off Obama's quote. The Daily Show would easily run the same thing if Bush had said that warrantless wiretaps hadn't caused the earth to open up, there's no armageddon out there, the birds are still chirping - we'd probably first see footage of Bush making that speech, then they'd switch to the volcano footage while Stewart contorts his face in "confusion" of the apparent conflict of his words and reality.

And it would be kind of funny. But not when you take yourself too seriously, of course.

Out of CONTEXT, sure it is, iNow made a statement expecting to please his admirers...on the forum.

Don't let it bother you. It's not much different from your parents shaking their heads about your music choices. The last time I had to explain the method or motivations behind an entertainer like this was when I had to convince my mom and dad that Metallica and Iron Maiden are not "satanic occult" bands and that the media doesn't understand metal.

I don't know what to say. "Doctor of Democracy" - "America's Truth Detector" - 'All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie" and then topped with "and an all around good guy" - if you guys don't see the comedic tone of all that then nothing I say is going to shed any light on it. These are all the same slogans you hear on the show daily, usually stated by an announcer where the comedic value is a bit more obvious. (Do you not hear the proverbial boxing announcer in that intro? )

I am genuinely surprised though. He always says that people don't "get" him and what he's doing, but I always thought that was just the usual marginalization of the opponent "they don't understand us" logic. But you guys are making me believe that maybe it's true.

All of this cartoonish hubris is manufactured and again, is all about poking at "the elitists". It's conservative fun and it's liberating to listeners to hear a proud, boastful conservative that "outsmarts" the "elitists". If you're not familiar with it, I guess it all looks like serious commentary.

It may help to remember that Rush comes from years of rock radio working as a DJ before he got into commentary and considers himself a radio personality first, and political figure second. It's part of his speech about "they don't understand what I/we do here" and why liberals can't get a successful counter show on AM radio without government subsidy.

Rush is very similar to John Stewart actually, in that he mixes humor with his commentary. John is far more dedicated to comedy though, and Rush a bit more to his political philosophy, but he uses comedy, satire, shtick, heavy on the pretenses and tongue-in-cheek jabs at anything left. It's part of the unashamed, proud, intelligent conservative radio personality bit.

He loves being his audience's super hero for their beliefs.