Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,234
- 701
- 126
I really don't know or care. The way the "conservatives" have been with my money, I don't see how he could be worse (or better). I don't think he'll get a say anyway...he doesn't sign the bills and would (if elected) be out of Congress anyway.
Again, it's his money to spend/donate as he pleases.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,530
- 3
- 0
Or how large yours was. A grand a month is a lot to be giving to charity. I guess you feel that's it's important that others know how charitable you are.
BTW do you have to maintain two different households and pay for your kids to go to college like he does?
data that shows government spends the money less effective than charities?
proof and argument that shows how the government spends it's money is better than a charity doing nothing but feeding the poor?
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,530
- 3
- 0
Ok lets not even talk about your contributions. It's been reported that he has one of the more modest incomes for a long sitting Senator and it's also been reposted that he has to shell out for two households, one in the DC area and one in his home state. On top of that he has to pay for his kids to go to school. $300,000 grand doesn't go as far as you think with those kind of expenses, hell I'm surprised he was able to donate $995. In fact isn't that amount you can claim before it throws up a red flag with the IRS? Hmmm maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that, the next thing you know there'll be a thread about him being a tax cheat.
Dems seem to think that Biden's relatively modest income as compared with his Congressional colleagues will win him empathy with middle class voters. But the reality is most people don't give a sh*t whether their politicians are dirt poor or filthy rich. Class warfare rarely works as an issue because nearly everyone hopes to be rich someday. It comes down to issues, prior voting history, and perception of character. Sorry to restate the obvious.
Regardless of whether or not you feel the government and not charites should provide for its citizens, the government cannot afford to. The government will spend around $400 billion more than it takes in this year. Even a removal of Iraq war costs and a siginifacant cut in the defense department budget would not close that gap.
As for Senator Biden, I think a person earling $300,000 a year should donate more than $1,000. I make a third that much and donate three times that amount and I feel guilty that I am not giving enough!
As for Senator Biden, I think a person earling $300,000 a year should donate more than $1,000. I make a third that much and donate three times that amount and I feel guilty that I am not giving enough!
I trained my monkey to type YASPT whenever her name gets mentioned, so you can get some sleep now.
Yes, it is. Those women are typically poor, and uneducated, and in desperate situations.
Undermine my rationalization more, and I'll see you in personal issues forum mister.
So Biden can't afford it but we're supposed to. No thanks.
When liberals talk about unwinnable quagmires, they must be talking about this war on poverty.
It's not only about 'efficiency'.
For one thing, the government is a hell of a lot more efficient at a lot of what it does than people who fall for corporatist 'cut its budget so we get more money' propaganda think.
For another, the government has a unique ability to reliable raise funds for its programs, and private charities just cannot replace much of what it does.
Private charities are great - as one piece of the solution only.
Taxes come out of his pocket, too.
I'm a lot more willing to pay a fair share of a government program to do good than I am to be one of a few who donate and get a lot less done.
I'd happily pay $100 more in taxes and actually get something done compared to donating money for a small effect.
Governments are uniquely positioned to get a lot of public programs done.
You can't judge the issue by Republican government, who gut the place and steal the silverware, you need to look at FDR (public works, social security), JFK (man on the moon, Medicare), LBJ (poverty rate reduced by one-third in a cut that has continued ever since his changes), etc.
It's bad religion we don't like, the kind that preaches lies and hate, and we're hardly going to embrace evil to win elections, that's all you.
No, liberals win their poverty wars; FDR lowered elder poverty from 90% to 10% with social security. LBJ cut the poverty rate by a third and it's stayed down.
The facts show that the economy does better overall, and is more fairly distributed with its increases, under democrats than Republicans, by a large amount.
The Republican party's real agenda - skip the nonsense fed to the voters - is to represent the interests of the most wealthy, which means less for the rest. And they do well at that.
So tens of trillions of dollars to maintain the same poverty raid among americans ages 18-64, and all while losing the wars in Vietnam and Korea. Great!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter