Not so. The upper two percent, wealthy Americans, in the 1980's reinvested twenty-six percent of their wealth into the economic mix. Since GW Bush was in office, in his past two terms, the wealthy sat on their hands and only contributed eight percent back into the economy. That's an eighteen percent decrease.

Looking for a link on that .

Reinvestment ;or using their money to make the country a better place comes in many forms . Some create jobs ;some are patrons of the arts ;museums ;universities scholarship funds etc ;some have Foundations that contribute (see Gates ) . I hike almost every week in parkland that was donated from people who were called "robberbarons" .
And of course I have never had a job from a poor person.

I'd like to see a link to Bobby's reinvestment statistics myself.

Get this, according to Rasmussen, "Forty-four percent (44%) voters also think a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress."

And of those random folks, I bet a bigger percentage pay their taxes than Obama administration nominees do.

Rachel Maddow. And if I find the transcript I'll post it. I have no doubt that the figures are in the ballpark with reinvestments very important during this currently poor economic era.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. William J. H. Boetcker, 1916

I have little doubt in his day that William J. H. Boetcker would not disenfranchise sizable donors that could help the clergy efforts. Nor is the good book void of social causes for the distressed.

It is not so good with money as it is bad without it. ~Yiddish proverb~

True enough and there is also a huge difference in charity given by ones free will and of that confiscated by the State. I see no virtue in the later .

I do. When it's done to help the truly needy and L-rd knows we have our share.

When it's forcibly taken from you to give to another it's no longer charity.

That you don't accept the teachings of the Torah was expected.

Again with the attacks on my faith, you've really sunk to new lows. By all means though, please explain how the Torah teaches that theft is really charity.

This isn't a matter of religion . Studies show that liberals are much less charitable than conservatives, in part because liberals see taxes as a substitute for charity.
Amazon.com: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters: Arthur C. Brooks: Books

My point exactly tom, I was just waiting for Bobby's Torah lesson to make it. Heck, even that evil Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are more generous beyond measure than the current officeholders.

Substituting taxes for charity will endanger millions around the world. As the government takes more of our money to pad their entitlement programs at home, the strain on those of us who willingly, cheerfully and lovingly give to support projects such as World Vision grows. World Vision makes the most of their funds as opposed to the wasteful federal management of entitlement programs, so who would you rather manage what you contribute to the needy? Logic was never the left's strong point, it's all about them and feeling good about themselves instead of actually helping in a meaningful, truly satisfying way.

The only problem I have with voluntary contributions to charities only is that the big, well organized marketing savy charitable organizations will attract dollars; especially from corporations who are attracted to having their brand associated with a highly visible organization.

If not for the help of the public through their tax dollars there are thousands of worthy causes that wouldn't receive enough funds based on voluntary contributions to exist; thereby killing the hope of those they are trying to serve.

I mean poor you if you have a very rare disease which isn't profitable for someone to try and find a treatment or cure for, or voluntary funding simply can't support the cost of a single expert to do work on this disease.

The point is of course, while not ideal, voluntary funding will let way too many people fall through the cracks of treatment, care or cure for their malady.

Not true, Tex. As I pointed out in another post, nearly all of our city's outreach to the homeless comes from a number of private organizations that exist solely on private contributions. We have no government shelters or feeding centers. It works, and taking our dollars away so the fed can handle it takes away not only our ability to fund these groups but much of our incentive to do so.

I don't think any of us expect government to get out the business of helping those who need help, but a "stimulus" such as this only makes more dependent on government and that is a huge mistake and a grave injustice in my opinion. I have no problem with tax dollars going to feed the hungry or furnish healthcare for those who can't otherwise manage it, but I have a huge problem with tax dollars funding Planned Parenthood for example. It makes me sick to my stomach to think some of my money is funding even one unnecessary abortion.

Your Catholic church would say it is a matter of their religious ideology. Personally with a few exceptions, our latest economic crises being one because I see the need of a larger stimulus package, I'm usually in line with the social conservatives views.




Never said it was. That's what you get for going on a tangent. The conversation I was having with Tom referred originally to the Presbyterian clergy and his personal philosophy, which In my opinion, I agree with it to an extent, but was bit narrow to apply to a general situation. True the lazy non-worker should do without, however the Torah teaches that the wealthier land owners could harvest their crops for profit, then what was left in the fields (seconds slightly imperfect and culled) was to be open to the poorer public for free.

Technically you claimed "I don't accept the teachings of the Torah," which I'm not Jewish so that pretty much explains why I didn't base my comment on charity on the Torah. That's your book.

Believe it or not I am entirely familiar with that teaching and for the record, I believe is an excellent principle so you really should refrain from your attempts to educate the public on what I do and do not believe.

However, my book shows us "a more excellent way," giving from a willing heart out of love and compassion and not by compulsion of any law, spiritual or otherwise. Your law is great, but it isn't government theft and I am much more effective in giving to the needs of others of my own accord than the feds will ever be.

Technically I said, that "was expected."


Actually I have much better things to do. In fact I need to get back to work.

Your book added more laws, borrowed some ideology, and the theme of compassion from the Tanakh. Unless you live on your own island, you are governed. Most of the public desires a government that is tempered, balanced, and to be of good service for the well being of all it's law abiding citizens/legal residents.

PS. I'm headed out to eat at the "Joyful House" Chinese restaurant with my wife, and perhaps I'll check back in on my next vacation. Everybody have a good day, including you, Stevie.

That's odd, because after 40 plus years of studying the bible I don't know of anywhere that it increases the number of laws from the OT. In fact, it boiled all of your laws down to this, love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

And I expect to be governed, just as I expect that governance to be "tempered, balanced, and to be of good service for it's people." This stimulus is none of that.

Enjoy yourself...