The proposed budget by the Obama admin is at least as convoluted as the newly enacted stimulus. And again, what’s actually in it keeps seeping out at a rate slower than Congress acts… in other words, we’re likely to find this law before any one entity or media can actually pour thru all the BS and pork.
And one of those issues is the redefinition of “charity”, Obama style.
By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things – from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care – they will have to find ways to pay for it.
From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike.
“I work for the American people, and I’m determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don’t need to pay for what we do,” Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget.
~~~[below INRE reduction in charitable deductions specifically]
Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it’s impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear – less philanthropic giving.
“This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they’ve behaved in the past,” he said. “We’ve already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving.”
Obama’s desperately looking for money. He’s counting on raising $179.8 billion over 10 years by limiting the deductions allowable to 28%… or for every dollar donated, the higher income (or wealthy, as Obama sees them) can deduct 28 cents. This targets couples making $250,000+ or individuals making $200,000+.
This reduces the estimated amount of deductions allowed by approximately 20% – added revenue for Obama to put in the nation’s coffers for health care.
Pardon me, but who does Obama think donates the most in funds to charitable organizations? Take away their financial incentive to donate, and the result will be predictable… less donations. It becomes a vicious circle – less donations, less private and non profits filling a need… which the government then steps in to fill the need.
Suzanne Perry at The Chronicle of Philanthropy had some feedback from some of the nonprofits and charities worried about this move.
“During the current economic downturn, which has forced nonprofits to do more with less, any proposal which would result in a decrease in private giving will be a disaster for America’s charities, and for those who depend upon them,” said United Jewish Communities, an umbrella group for Jewish social-service charities.
~~~Independent Sector, a coalition of charities and foundations, and the Council on Foundations were among the nonprofit groups that lined up to express concern that the proposal would prompt donors to pull back.
~~~The top executives at Independent Sector and the Council on Foundations are the latest voices in the chorus of advocates who say President Obama’s tax plan would hamper giving to nonprofit groups and foundations.
“We are opposed to proposals which will significantly depress incentives for charitable giving,” said Steve Gunderson, president and chief executive of the Council on Foundations, an organization that represents grant makers. “In these hard economic times, we need to make sure tax and regulatory policy encourage growth in philanthropy.”
Independent Sector, a coalition of major charities and foundations, said in a statement that the plan would encourage some donors to “cap their gifts.”
“This could be a problem for many struggling nonprofits vital to our communities that are already facing a very difficult fund raising environment,” the organization said.
For the not-quite-as-wealthy, this may not have as much of an impact. But for those in the 33-35% tax bracket… not so.
To illustrate, Mr. Sharpe offers the example of a wealthy donor in the top tax bracket who makes a $100,000 gift. The donor currently would save $35,000 in taxes, or 35 percent of the gift. Under President Obama’s proposal, that same donor would save only $28,000, or 28 percent — a difference of $7,000.
Mr. Sharpe says the proposal would unfairly penalize the most generous taxpayers since wealthy people who give nothing to charity would not face such a tax increase.
Here’s a kicker… Obama, aka Mr. Education… could also be causing severe problems for colleges and universities and academic medical centers.
“It seems like unusual public policy to try, as the president announced to the Congress this week, to return the United States to world leadership in access to higher education and then make it more difficult for extraordinary donors to contribute great gifts to colleges and universities,” Mr. Flessner says.
“Likewise, it seems like unusual public policy to penalize the great medical centers that contribute so much to scientific breakthroughs by making it more difficult for donors to make the six-, seven-, eight-, and nine-figure gifts,” he adds.
Eric Kessler, advisor for Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors, disagrees, saying he believes the most wealthy donors were unlikely to change their donation stripes overnight. But he does have concern for the mid-range donors ($1000 range) for whom deductions play a large part in their decisions to contribute. (or… watch PBS donations hit the toilet?)
And a Chicago lawyer worries about fraud and scams.
Michael W. Peregrine, a lawyer in Chicago who advises nonprofit groups, says charities are now facing a “triple play” that could cut into their donations — the bad economy, the proposed charitable-deduction limits, and proposals by President Obama to end tax cuts for wealthy people that were introduced by President Bush.
He says he worries that charities that are hurting for donations will become more vulnerable to fund-raising scams. “What is certain is that the perception that this will reduce charitable donations in the short term is going to draw out the fraudsters,” he says.
I guess he hasn’t looked around his ‘hood lately… they are already crawling out of the woodwork in Chicago.
If this isn’t a deterrent to contribute, it sure isn’t incentive either. But perhaps the most disconcerting is the Obama administration attitude towards reducing these charitable deductions.
According to Obama’s Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, the POTUS feels he’s already made that money up by giving government money to the charities in his budget…
“Contained in the recovery act, there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty,” he said.
So there you have it. Instead of “charity” coming from a sense of generousity and humanity, Obama’s idea is to give less incentive for individual or institutional giving, and instead have the lost charitable revenues made up ($100 mil, at least…) by government deciding what charities to donate on everone’s behalf.
This, in itself, is so insulting as to be unacceptable. When I donate, *I* choose the charity of my choice and the cause that interests me. I do not want government making that choice for me.
This is meeting some resistance by both parties. Perhaps it’s thrown in there as a swap meet giveaway. But then it’s not necessarily chump change to lose approximately $18 billion annually in anticipated tax revenues for a fiscal budget, plus projected spending, that already doesn’t add up.
Perhaps Obama feels that taking the tax revenues in lieu of current deductions for his health care will result in a better kind of “charity”. But then, isn’t that for the donors to decide?
Are you sure the House passed the Budget bill? Maybe you’re thinking of the 2009 Appropriations bill? I think it’s highly likely that this proposal will be stripped from the bill… we’ll see.
Correct, Fit… thanks for the proof reading for me. All these danged spending bills are just running together… stimulus, budget, omnibus, appropriations, HASP, health care…
The Washington Times story is confusing. It talks about “penalizing” wealthy donors to charities; yet all that is being done is to put into place the same deductions for charity which existed at the end of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency, when wealthy donors got back 28 cents on the charitable donation dollar, as opposed to the currently-existing 35 cents. But, to listen to and read comments by conservatives, this is just another example of big government, wealth redistribution, — socialism.
It’s just like the so-called “tax increase.” Obama campaigned on a pledge to allow the Bush tax cuts to sunset, to return to the Clinton era tax levels (you may remember the good old days, when we actually had a balanced federal budget). Obama won the election and now, with all of these “socialistic” initiatives, he’s just keeping his campaign promises to the people who voted for him.
On another issue, we were talking a while back about the Obama versus Limbaugh dust up.
It looks as if the Democrats think it’s good politics to paint the GOP as basically going in lock step with the rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh. This is why they were all too happy to kill any reconsideration of “The Fairness Rule.” They believe (correctly, I feel) that the only people who pay attention to Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al are people who’d never vote for any Democrat, under any circumstances, and that the solid majority of the electorate views these people as being angry, disaffected, and out of touch — James Carvilles of the Right and maybe even Michael Moores of the Right. So tying the GOP to Limbaugh will make it more likely that GOP protests will fall on electoral deaf ears.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/labor-ad-ties-limbaugh-to-the-party-of-no/?hp
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I took very little from the WA Times story, Larry… save the most important piece at the end. How Obama feels removing the additional deduction allowance is made up by the govenment giving our cash to the charities they choose.
The majority of the quotes comes from the philanthropy world itself. And quite frankly, they hold a very different view than you. Since donations and raising money for charity is their business, I shall defer to their comments over your purported logic to defend Obama’s proposal.
And you may wish to recall that the end of the Reagan era was an improving economy.. not the POS that he inherited from Carter.
It doesn’t matter if this is a return to the “old days”. It is still a reduction in the allowable deductions in a time when the economy is not exactly ticking along so well. While that on it’s own has an offensive odor, what’s more offensive is his attitude that government “charity” makes up for that. i.e “we’re going to collect the taxes instead of giving you a deduction, and tell ya what… we’ll donate *for* you”.
Well ain’t that a hoot to hear from you? You did, every chance you got, state unequivocally that Obama really wasn’t a socialist and would “govern from the center”. Since you are one of those who voted for Obama, I guess this makes you:
1: a gullible fool,
2: an Obama voter who genuinely likes increasing socialism in the US, or
3: one who deliberately aided spreading a disinformation campaign lie to influence the McCain disgruntled. You know, one of those who targeted and demeaned those of us who saw Obama’s policies as socialist? The same policies he’s implementing now?
Which one would that be, Larry?
Mata, I consider Obama’s policies to date to represent moderate, mainstream electoral values.
Even before Obama’s speech to Congress, he had a 25% approval rating among Republicans. This increased to 45% after his speech and Jindal’s speech. He now has a 68% national approval rating. Granted, new Presidents typically have high approval ratings, but no new President has had such a tumultuous 1st month in office. Of course, hard core, dyed in the wool Republicans are opposed to many of his policies. There are core disagreements. Republicans like to cut taxes and borrow money to pay for the tax cuts and, thus, pass along the taxes that they wouldn’t pay down to my children, who will have to pay for that which the GOP refused to pay. Democrats like to have government programs and borrow money to pay for these programs and, thus, pass along the cost of these programs down to my children, who will have to pay for them.
I don’t like either system, as I’ve explained, again and again. But, between the two, I prefer the Democratic system, for two reasons. Number one, much less debt actually ends up getting passed down to our children. Democrats have always reduced the debt/GDP ratio, while Reagan and Bush 43 massively increased this ratio. Number two, a whole lot of the money spent by Democrats actually goes to benefit the children who will eventually pay those taxes, with things such as health care, education, infrastructure, a less polluted planet, better health care from medical discoveries arising from NIH-sponsored research, etc. etc.
David Brooks specifically called the Democratic stimulus package “reasonable and moderate.” Now, I know that you don’t consider Brooks to be a true red conservative, but he is hardly a socialist.
The thee most shopworn, overused words on Floppingaces.net are these:
1. tinfoil
2. kool-aid
3. socialist
Particularly the last word. You have abused it beyond all recognition.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@MataHarley:
Does Larry really have to limit himself to only one of the three options you listed?
I think two of them are actually perfect descriptors.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Have you actually looked up word #3 to see what it means?
You should.
Aye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_countries
and:
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
and:
There is nothing in any of Obama’s proposed legislation to date which has any semblance of “socialism” contained therein.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
To an extent, I like this as I’d like any reduction in “itemized deductions”. I’ve always felt that itemized deductions constituted government intrusion into realms it does not belong (kind of like marriage – but we’ll leave that for another rant). Honestly, I’d much prefer a simple tax code where people
1) Pay taxes on their income, then
2) Choose, of their own volition, what to do with the rest: save some, invest some, spend some on themselves, give some to churches, give some to charities of their choice, etc.
The problem with the government getting involved in #2 (via itemized deductions) is that a fiscally responsible governement winds up forcing all citizens to pay money to charities not of their choice. Worse, as gifts to churches are deductible, this government winds up forcing all citizens to “tithe” to all churches. I’ll sidestep the church-state-separation discussion, and just leave it at: a government which forces its citizens to tithe to churches that they do not belong to would be acting despicably.
Allow me to demonstrate how the net effect of “itemized deductions” is “forced tithing”, beginning with the following assumptions:
1) “Bob” and I both have an income of $100,000.
2) Bob is a religious man and gives everything he can afford to give to his church. After careful evaluation of his budget, he decides he can afford to live off of a net $70,000 a year, and will give the rest to his church.
3) There is a fiscally responsible government that taxes what it needs, and from Bob and I, it needs $40,000.
Let’s see what story the numbers tell:
Stage 1: Before taxes:
Me $100,000
Bob $100,000
Church 0
Government 0
Stage 2: The government needs $40,000 from Bob and I, and taxes accordingly:
Me 80,000
Bob 80,000
Church 0
Government 40,000
Stage 3: Bob gives to his church what he can afford (he needs $70,000 to live on).
Me 80,000
Bob 70,000
Church 10,000
Government 40,000
[aside] In my opinion, Stage 3 is is where the equation should come “Full Stop”. Short, sweet, and everyone doing with their hard-earned money what they choose. But alas… [/aside]
Stage 4: After itemizing his deductions though, Bob gets some money back:
Me 80,000
Bob 72,000
Church 10,000
Government 38,000
Stage 5: Uh-oh: the fiscally responsible gov’t . has a deficit to deal with…. so taxes are raised to 21.1% to meet the original government spending needs (which have not changed):
Me 78900
Bob 71100
Church 10,000
Government 40000
Stage 6: Bob, realizing he still has $1100 he doesn’t need, gives it to the church as well:
Me 78,900
Bob 70,000
Church 11,100
Government 40,000
And so, at the net end of the equation (comparing Stage 6 to Stage 3), Bob is not impacted, the Government is not impacted, and I wind up “tithing” $1100 to Bob’s church.
I’m curious – with all of the many things we’ll never see eye-to-eye on, are there any fiscally conservative / small-government types on this site who see itemized deductions in the same (or a similar) negative light?
Would that be the “moderate conservative” David Brooks who only today said:
As I said, Larry… if this is your idea of a conservative, it is you who is out of touch with conservative beliefs of fiscal responsibility and limited government intrusion and control over the citizens’ lives. No genuine conservative advocates universal (aka socialized) health care in any form.
That we have so few elected officials that actually believe this is what you rely upon as your measure for “mainstream electoral values”.
And no one laments the caving of elected officials with an R after their name to increased government and control more than I. Considering the largest talk radio audiences belong to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity (ick) and Michael Savage, that “conservative America” can not be so non existant as you like to think. Consider also that Fox News has the largest audience. Again, conservative America is not non existant. We are… quite simply… under represented by shallow, corrupt pols who place personal gain and acquiescence above holding true to the conservative beliefs.
I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are chosing what you feel is the lesser of two evil packages. But then, this makes you part of the problem… a lazy citizen who doesn’t like what he sees, but goes along for the ride. One would think you also would be demanding a return to less intrusion and control.
But what you do is worse. You take the lesser of the two evils of governance, then you lend it support with praise. It is the Obama gushing you have done that make your comments decry what you state is your actual belief system.
You may believe I abused the word socialist “beyond all recognition”. But then, I have some illustrious company in defining these actions as such – in harmony with other respected media voices… Charles Krauthammer, Cliff Kincaid, Christopher Hitchens, as well as sundry pundits in the economic world such as FT, WSJ, Bloomberg. Even more defining is the rousing endorsements that Obama receives from the American communist parties and the DSA. Generally they run their own candidates, but were happy as clams to rally around Obama instead. Now why would that be?
If you wish to alter the meaning of socialism… or are so hypersensitive to calling a spade a spade, must hear it as Euro-socialism… then you must also be one of those “living Constitution” types. So don’t talk to me about “mainstream electorate”. This country is founded on having dissent and division. To eliminate that is to become part of homogenous and gullible nation, ripe for a despot. We should never strive to be Stepford Nation.
Just because “the herd” has been steadily programmed in our schools to “social justice” curriculum for decades does not make that belief compatible with the foundation of our country’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. I will die a conservative who holds with keeping true to the country envisioned by our founders and framers. Don’t like it? Guess you’ll have to wait until I kick the bucket. Then, this socialist utopia you are laying the groundwork for today is all yours to enjoy.
Kevin… hate to point out the obvious, but churches are not the only charity. Pick your own, and do the same. It can be the arts, medical facilities (I’m sure Larry’s facility is worthy of considering… seriously!), educational facilities, aid organizations like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etal.
Instead you whine about “Bob” and his church when you could be doing the same with another charity of your choice. The point is, can the charity make wiser use of your donation for a worthy cause than the feds can with your taxes? (i.e. eliminate the federal govt middle man…)
Fact: GW Bush was MORE popular than Obama based on the same time, first month of office.
Larry forget Limbaugh. I admit to never having listened to him for more than 10 minutes (regardless I still respect his success), and there are many like me. We know he’s out there, a few mintues can be entertaining at best, but he doesn’t speak for me.
I made the prediction 6 months ago on line that Glenn Beck would be the new “go to” guy. His ratings are off the charts, both on radio and on Fox. Even more so, he now has the Republicans mad at him for calling them out by name on stupid earmarks, something O’Reilly, Hannity, or even Rush would never have the guts to do.
Beck is popular because he speaks truth and he isn’t afraid of being “unpopular.” He fully admits the only pony he has in the race is his kids. He has been out in front of everyone else in the media on calling things the way they have shaken out. He’s waking up all in America who think (or at least thought), they had no voice.
And as for “socialism” Larry, I agree. It’s no longer strong enough. We have now progressed to Marxism, and if we don’t wake up, “Dear Leader Obama” will end where socialism always does eventually, communism.
In the meantime, you would be wise to realize that America elected a Marxist!
PDill: The George W Bush first month in office was a cakewalk. There was nothing major going on. He had lot of time to settle into place.
Obama has just been through perhaps the most tumultuous and controversial first month in Presidential history of my lifetime, save possibly for Johnson’s taking over after Kennedy’s death. Obama has endured unprecedented first month criticism and even invective.
But he is where he is. With 45% GOP support (which was even 25%, prior to the speech). That’s about as good as anyone could expect.
This doesn’t make him “correct,” but it does make him an incredibly skilled politician. More than that, it makes him a real leader.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Exhibit A
- LW/HB
I acknowledged that the people here don’t consider Brooks to be a true conservative, in their own mold, but he’s hardly a liberal, much less a “socialist.” He’s a pretty mainstream guy — meaning he’s part of the center right electorate who supported John McCain, supported the Iraq War, but who thinks Limbaugh is a just as much of a shrill extremist as is James Carville.
You spend too much time preaching to your own choir. Stuff you write here won’t begin to convince the people whom you’ll need to carry the day for your political views. You should go to some sort of a centrist blog and make your points in ways which will change the thinking of the reachable portion of the electorate who decide elections. People like that listen to David Brooks; they don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.
- larry weisenthal/huntington beach
One of the biggest problems with government and our entitlement-happy society is borne out by Obama’s own words:
“And that means cutting what we don’t need to pay for what we do”
Government always seems to confuse “needs” and “wants”. I need food to live, but I want filet mignon (and usually settle for chipped beef on toast.)
Maybe we should ask President Obama to define the word “need”, and then use that definition to explain the rationale behind the largest spending plan in all of history (in dollars AND as a function of the debt/GDP ratio).
I’m sick and tired of doing without the things I “want” in irder that the government can redefine them as things that other people “need” and for which I and my children get stuck with the bill.
Jeff V
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
How about this one:
Sound familiar?
It should.
Here’s another:
Sound familiar?
How about this one:
How about this one:
Of course, those of us paying attention know that Obama was a member of the New Party which is….wait for it…..SOCIALIST.
Why would he suddenly not be socialist?
Why would he suddenly not be a believer in socialist policies?
Nothing in Obama’s plans are socialist you say, eh?
How about nationalized health care Larry?
How about the “car czar” who will basically dictate to the auto manufacturers how they are going to do business?
Those are two prime examples.
How about soaking the “rich”, actually more like sucking the life out of the “rich”, in order to support the remainder of society. In reality, Obama’s plans are to punish the producers in order to provide for the non-producers.
Just spread the wealth around.
Yeah, that’s socialist.
There is nothing at all in any of Obama’s proposals to “nationalize” health care, unless you consider Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit to be “nationalized” health care.
The “car czar” (actually Summers and Geithner) aren’t going to “dictate,” but they are going to be looking over shoulders to make certain that taxpayer money isn’t being flushed down the toilet. The US government has a huge stake in GM and Chrysler. This entitles the US Government to a seat on their Board of Directors, figuratively speaking. Ford didn’t accept any bailout money. So no US government supervision required. Virtually all moderate voters understand and accept this. Virtually all moderate voters are pissed off that the Bush administration gave $350 billion to Wall Street with no adult supervision.
So neither of your two prime examples has anything at all to do with socialism!
As far as “soaking the rich,” please. Que up the violins. We’ll be going back to tax rates which existed in the most prosperous period in more than the past half century. Somehow, the rich were able to prosper in the 90s. For that matter, the rich even prospered in the Eisenhower era, when marginal tax rates were 90%, as opposed to the 39.5% level where they are going back.
A progressive tax system is not “socialism,” much less “Marxism,” as maintained by PDill.
As I said, you guys have trivialized the word “socialism” beyond all recognition.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Yeah. Nothing major. Only half the country calling him “selected, not elected”. Half the country thinking he and the evil GOP “stole” the election. And the mass media feeding the ignorant angry frenzy. Which led to President Bush not being able to get his Cabinet and Administration properly in order until weeks later. Not to mention the recession that he inherited from Bill Clinton and the Fannie/Freddie mess that his Administration started warning about in 2001.
But, yeah, other than that, President Bush had a cakewalk upon his election and inauguration.
That’s laughable Larry.
Clearly you need to do some reading on what was in the stimulus plan as well as what is in the budget that was just sent to Congress.
You’re currently operating on an information deficit.
Would that be the same Geithner who couldn’t use TurboTax? That guy is going to look over the shoulders of GM and Chrysler to see that money isn’t being wasted? What qualifies those two yahoos to tell the automakers how to run their businesses? That’s right. Nothing.
Of course you realize that CONGRESS wrote and passed the legislation. The Bush administration signed it into law and implemented it as written. Nice try though.
Really Larry?
Mr. Marx would disagree:
It’s always fun to talk taxes with someone whose actions don’t match their words.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
And then of course on January 29th, 2001, the Bush Administration had this to wake up to from the mass media:
But yeah, you’re right, dealing with the cries of “selected, not elected” and “Bush stole the election” and knowing he has to clean up Clinton’s mess left in Iraq in addition to a recession sounds like a complete cakewalk to me.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Yeah, amazing huh? Larry opines that people were so pissed off at that legislation, yet DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS wrote the legislation, and the American public then went on to give those same DEMOCRATS even more control in Congress to write more such legislation they apparently despised so much.
Either Larry is making stuff up or the American people are complete morons. Frankly, I’m not really sure which is the case, and I would honestly lean towards the latter.
Oh, good grief. A progressive tax system is “socialism.” whatever.
I’m a doctor. I know socialized medicine when I see it. Socialized medicine is like when I worked for the Public Health Service and then for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Socialized medicine is not when I cash a check from Medicare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122286874792094117.html
There was absolutely nothing in Bush’s rescue plan, passed by Congress, and signed into law by Bush, which told Paulson to give all the money to Wall Street, without requiring any accounting of how the money would be spent, including the payout of executive bonuses and the acquisition of distressed financial institutions by other distressed institutions.
Michael in Michigan (#19) makes some good points. Touche’
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
To Michael and Aye:
I responded to your points in what should have been #24, but it went to spam.
– Larry
To Michael: (#23).
Mudville Gazette?
What “booby traps?”
Clinton’s Iraq policy worked brilliantly Cleansed Iraq of its WMD programs and contained Saddam at no loss of American life and at minimal cost to the treasury.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Yes, I linked to Greyhawk at the military blog Mudville Gazette which was quoting the Washington Post.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Hey, that’s what Mr. Marx said.
You’ll have to argue with him if you don’t agree.
Yeah, like I said, you need to read the stimulus plan and the new budget that landed on the Congressional steps yesterday.
You say there is nothing in “Obama’s proposed legislation to date which has any semblance of “socialism” contained therein.”
Information. Deficit.
Larry, etal… as I pointed out in a previous comment Obama… ever on the quest to “create jobs”… expanded the “car czar” to a task force of multiple people. And yes, Geithner and Summers.. two of the “terrible trio”… will be jointly overseeing them. None of the task force have been appointed as yet.
But, for your information, their power is more than “looking over the shoulder” of any auto manufacturer who takes auto bailout funds.
Per a NYTs article by Steven Davidoff (a supporter of controls, of course explaining the tasks of the car czar/now task force agency:
This language empowers this new “task force” with veto power over financial deals, plus a say in their “product mix” of vehicles. In other words, they can dictate what style of (read… “green”) cars these companies will produce, and the market mix of that production. And, oh yes, even dictate what they feel is a “competitve” price.
INRE socialized medicine… you are speaking too soon. We haven’t seen Obama’s “over haul” yet. But we know he wants to nationalize health care, as he’s repeated often.
Additionally, many banking institutions are nationalized (witness CitiGroup) with majority government shares with voting and veto power. Congress has already decided price caps for executive salary… normally a private contract between private enterprise and their executives. But of course, this government power doesn’t constitute government control?
Then there’s Obama’s threat in his psuedo SOTU address days ago:
Evidently, the Obama admin is also going into the personnel business too.
Then again, Geithner’s not a newcomer to advocating global bank controls going back to last summer in his Federal Reserve position. This stuff is on the agenda, based on the players and the quest.
Naw… no nationalizing going on here….
Thank you Mata.
I was working on expanded info related to this particular strand of “czar”.
Now I don’t have to.
Regarding socialized medicine, I know you’re aware of the stuff in the stimulus bill but have you seen the morsels tucked into the budget yet?
No problem, Aye… all this stuff lives in my voluminous bookmark archives. Just have to pick out the right ones from that library from years and years! groan… Amazing how so much stuff starts interlinking.
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t it a done deal that we will all be going into the “electronic national medical database?”
If true, sure it could be a help for anyone of us in a real emergency situation, but I’ll take my chances! Once we are “all one”, we will also be treated (or not) based on our “worth.” Just try getting cancer treatment or a knee replacement if you are over 60.
As for the handicapped, it won’t be good. Once we slide further down the slippery slope, don’t be surprised if abortions will be made mandatory for a variety of reasons, as will euthanasia. I suspect much of the opposition to Bush’s “conscience act” relates to this, otherwise, it makes little sense.
From Aye, first quoting me:
Aye retorts:
Fine, who do you think said this?
Adam Smith, often cited as the father of the progressive income tax. Also usually cited as the godfather of capitalism.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-article-1-ss3.htm
You guys trivialize the word “socialism” beyond all meaning. It’s the same way that the Left throws around the word “fascism” as a pejorative.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
To Mata:
Regarding the “auto czar” thing:
I note that you didn’t use a bold font for this part of your quote:
Basically, it’s exactly what I said. If the companies don’t want government supervision, they don’t have to ask for or accept any government money. Geithner and Summers are analogous to powerful members of a Board of Directors, as opposed to being part of the management team. This is both reasonable and responsible and I’m dead certain that a very large majority of American voters would approve of this, as a condition for the government bailout.
Regarding “socialized medicine.” Kindly provide a citation for Obama’s wish to socialize medicine. Obama wishes to provide universal health insurance coverage. His health plans are along the lines of Massachusetts, and not along the lines of Canada.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
As for Bank Regulation/Nationalization:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/once-radical-nationalization-attracts-gop-support-2009-02-15.html
Imagine that: Republicans in favor of bank nationalization, while Democrats are opposed.
Who’d a thunk it?
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
“Oh, good grief. A progressive tax system is “socialism.” whatever.”
Does that mean ever Republican and Democrat President who has presided over a system of US progressive taxes are socialists? I guess that makes Reagan a socialist.
So I guess you could have a flat tax but why stop there? If everyone is paying for services etc then why shouldn’t an CEO who earns say $14 million a year pay a penny more for the same services as a cleaner on minimum wage? In fact, as he likely to send his kids to private school, not use public subsized transport etc – then he should pay less. Maybe scrap any pooled resources. Scrap libraries. If people want books then buy them. Scrap US postal service. Use fed-ex. Scrap public schools. If you want education then why should everyone (include those without kids) have to pay for it? Scrap the police. Pay for your own security. Lets make everything pay as you go and see how better things will be.
Kinda like anarchy with a credit card;)
That will show those damn commies…
Larry #33.
To assume “technical” control would be to seize ownership and assume the CEO mantle. And I suggest that is what it would take for you to recognize the action as pure Marxist/Communist because of your guidelines.
My argument is that when an entity can dictate the product line, the mix of that product line, and the price… that alone gives you *control*. The only difference is the CEO name plate on the desk and on the door. So, IMHO, you are arguing “what the meaning of “is”…. is” here. Negative control over production, marketing and pricing – as well as dictating salary limits – is almost just as powerful.
When the bank loans you cash on your home, you are still vested in the title, and can improve the property as you see fit. This is as it should be for the auto bailout. I don’t trust the government to be adept at clipping my fingernails, let along deciding marketing, production and pricing for the auto industries. The only track record they have to rest on is intrusive and convoluted legislation that often conflicts, and extraordinarily inefficient bureaucratic management.
INRE Obama and nationalized healthcare. You can be sure than Obama will not be calling it nationalized or socialized… no more than he intends to achieve the Fairness Doctrine by calling it the Fairness Doctrine.
That reality noted, let’s look at the same thing he’s been saying since early 2008.
But of course Obama will not put an immediate halt to private insurance plans held by those who either pay for them, or have them provided by employers. But it’s that second follow up detail in the article – the cost – that will morph what starts out as subsidies to the few, to an encompassing program for most or all.
The US health care costs are unnaturally high for sundry reasons, but includes litigation and risk management. With a budget in place, Obama’s EHR (electronic health records) and Comparative Effectiveness Research council will be the database for decision making on how to manage that budget, and for whom.
As the taxes and demands on business creep up to cover the massive spending plans for Obama’s America, less employers will be ablel to provide the private plans. Indeed, why should they when the government is offering subsidies? Additionally, insurance companies will add to the problems when they increasingly turn away those ripe with claims risk, as they will have the subsidized govt alternative.
Because of the costs increasing for private, and the underbudgeted government medical, the whole thing will morph into a socialized plan, like Canada, if it wants to survive.
It’s a little early for you to mention the MA “near universal” health care plan that then Gov. Romney put into place (another reason, atop the wind farm hypocrisy, why I never supported him) First of all, they only decided to do this mid 2006, and it wasn’t to be fully implemented for three years.
Romney’s reasoning had logic… it was too expensive to care for people without insurance. But even as the very leftist rag, The Nation, points out last March, these hybrid health reforms of subsidies or health tax credits don’t work.
This leaves the only feasible answer as an either/or choice.
Either: have the government concentrate on removing the obstacles to affordable medicine via costs of drugs, equipment and controlling the court docket overload of frivolous lawsuits and allow the free market to provide competitive plans to less expensive health care…
Or: put the entire system under government control, as in VA.
Without taming health care inflation, any universal system is unsustainable. But it you can tame that inflation, you can also have private competitive plans for a more affordable rate.
So let’s just say that Obama’s working his way to socialized health care by planting the seeds of a reform that hasn’t worked anywhere… and is even more unlikely to work with the amount of boomers that will hit the system en masse putting it into overload. (ie the injuries from Middle East conflicts hitting our VA system which was not prepared)
i.e. he and the Dems stay true to their typical PR rhetoric of calling a rose by any name *but* a rose.
Lastly, on your “nationalization of banks” comments. You are, again, mistakening me for a partisan. I am equally disdainful of both parties, and perhaps only slightly more disgusted with the Dems. This is because they stand for everything I don’t. The GOP *should* stand for what I believe in, but… as your comments by the elected elite shows… they haven’t got a conservative fiscal bone in their body. So yes… sends chills down my spine to hear any and all of Congress speaking most of the time.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Nice try on the Adam Smith quote.
Unfortunately, you missed the mark.
Smith, in that passage was simply pointing out that taxation on house rents would fall disproportionately onto the rich because the owned finer homes and more of them than the non-rich.
He wasn’t advocating for or against that particular distribution.
Also, you say that Smith is often “cited as the father of the progressive income tax.
Actually, Smith called income taxes “absurd and destructive.”
Larry said:
From that conservative bastion, the New York Times:
Now, a brief reminder of the definitions as laid out above:
Obama’s plan to pay for healthcare?
Yeah, it’s socialism.
Hi Mata,
Thanks for the response.
Mata: Kevin… hate to point out the obvious, but churches are not the only charity.
Kevin: Actually, Bob’s church contributions are not charity, period. Depending on the congregation, some small fraction of it may go towards soup-kitchens or other community out-reach programs; but Bob is primarily paying church leaders for the service of spiritual guidance, a place he can go to receive that guidance (and have fellowship with those of similar beliefs), and advertisement of said services to the world around (as encouraged by his religion). In short, most of his contribution is not qualitiatively different than, say, what my sister-in-law pays psychics for palm reading, tarot reading, astrological charts, and a whole host of other kooky things. [sidenote: if you think there is a qualitative difference between a pastor's salary and a psychic's salarly, I'd love to hear it]
Mata: Pick your own, and do the same. It can be the arts, medical facilities (I’m sure Larry’s facility is worthy of considering… seriously!), educational facilities, aid organizations like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etal.
Kevin: My charitable contributions, whatever they may be, is a red herring that distracts from, rather than addresses, my point. That point is that the government is enforcing the following: “If Bob gives money to his church, we will raised Kevin’s taxes and give the excess to Bob’s church as well”.
Mata: Instead you whine about “Bob” and his church when you could be doing the same with another charity of your choice.
Kevin: Again, my charitable contributions, whatever they may be, is a red herring that distracts from, rather than addresses, my point. That point is that the government is enforcing the following: “If Bob gives money to his church, we will raised Kevin’s taxes and give the excess to Bob’s church as well”.
Mata: The point is, can the charity make wiser use of your donation for a worthy cause than the feds can with your taxes? (i.e. eliminate the federal govt middle man…)
Kevin: Your point (not mine, see above) might make sense, if only the charitable portion of Bob’s gift (or the protion that directly aligned with and theoretically offset existing government services), was deductible. But even in that context, the itemized-deduction approach leaves a vast federal middle-man role in place: who decides what is charitable and what is mere payment for personal services?
But here’s my deeper objection: Why do we even want the federal government entangled in our charity choices in the first place? Why not just keep the fed “small”, concerned with things federal governments do well with: law-enforcement, national security, interstate infrastructure, and that kind of thing? What is the problem with *that* type of government charging sufficient taxes to cover *just* those expenses? Where do things go wrong if, after we’ve all paid our taxes for the things a federal government should do, Bob can pay for his spiritual services, my S-I-L for hers, and I (with no desire for spiritual services) for actual charities like United Way?
David Brooks rides again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1
At the risk of piling on I want to post this as an addendum to #17 and #20 and #37 above.
Here again is one of the definitions of socialism:
Here’s what the tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim “1040″ Geithner said today:
Taking money from one group and giving it to another in the interest of “social justice”….
Sound familiar?
Anyone believe that this is “not” socialism?
Yeah…..me neither.
h/t – Gateway Pundit
ick