Please admit Obama is being irresponsible by advocating this change in policy when he has absolutely no idea if it will be beneficial or not.

No, because that would entail some nebulous definition of “beneficial.” If he claimed the deduction cap would not hurt charitable contributions, and make a big deal about it, then he’d be doing the same thing Goldberg is doing. But he did no such thing.

Please admit Obama is being irresponsible by advocating this change in policy when he has absolutely no idea if it will be beneficial or not.

thanks in advance!

Please admit you are being irresponsible by advocating this change in policy when you have absolutely no idea if it will be beneficial or not.

I did not advocate a change in this policy. In fact, if you read a little more closely, I agreed with Doug on this one.

He made the public announcement here.

Thanks for the link to the politico article. It sounds promising. I certainly hope that he cracks down on teacher unions, but as I’ve come to learn quickly from Obama, talk is cheap. My own observation of a lack of detail on WhiteHouse.gov about a plan to get rid of bad teachers and such, is coupled with this statement in the article itself:

The White House didn’t specify how the president would like to see poor-performing teachers removed from the classroom.

Perhaps I’m jumping the gun, but if we’re going to be spending billions of new dollars, ought we not to have a comprehensive and transparent plan that explains it? That being the crux of the argument:

N Chung: But if you demand more accountability from teachers, then, then those things are necessary.

That is the hinge of your argument to justify deficit spending on education, but it is just a ball of words right now from the President.

And yet, we’re constantly reminded by him and his secretary of education that we must act.

I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high. We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children’s teachers and to the schools where they teach.

Lets cut the horse crap and hear what is is he plans to do. Perhaps time will prove your point out.

On an aside, I hope everyone is aghast at how he now want to lengthen the school year.

We can no longer afford an academic calendar designed when America was a nation of farmers who needed their children at home plowing the land at the end of each day.

Well, if anyone knows what we need in the educational system, it’s Obama.

Which one is greater? Don’t know.

Please admit you are being irresponsible by advocating this change in policy when you have absolutely no idea if it will be beneficial or not.

Respectfully submitted this 31st of March 2009.

Travis

Obama’s complete BS assertion that cutting the deduction for charitable contributions won’t hurt non-profits.

I think it is pretty obvious to any thinking person that cutting the deduction will lead to less giving.

Maybe so, but Obama’s counterargument was the hiking the estate tax will increase charitable living.

Here is a study by Martin Feldstein on the effects on charitable giving of hiking deductions.

Here is a CBO study on the negative impact on charitable giving of eliminating the estate tax.

Which one is greater? Don’t know.

Not a whiff of discussion on WhiteHouse.gov about “accountability from teachers.” Instead a lot of talk about hiring more and more teachers. But these ones we’re told, will be better.

He made the public announcement here.

Doesn’t it sort of seem like maxing out all your credit cards to send a child to college, hoping their degree will in time be able to pay back all the debt and accrued interest?

I don’t know, why don’t you ask Ronald Reagan? But anyway, as long as GDP grows 3% a year like it normally does, and the deficit is under 3% of GDP we’re fine.

Obama is proposing the deepest cuts in discretionary spending in history. That said, I think he should, a la Bill Clinton, put off the social programs until the bills are paid.

While I agree with you, is this the same Doug who believes that charitable giving should be independent of the tax code? I know it’s not the same thing, but still.

I don’t see the faintest contradiction to what we were talking about there…but I could be missing something.

In that comment I said:

John Edwards’ actions have no effect whatsoever on my personal desire (and obligation!) to help the less fortunate.

I stand by that. It has become even more clear in the past year what a complete schmuck Edwards is.

In the current blog post, I say:

Obama’s complete BS assertion that cutting the deduction for charitable contributions won’t hurt non-profits.

I think it is pretty obvious to any thinking person that cutting the deduction will lead to less giving.

As an aside, there are a lot of non-profits that have nothing to do with poverty.