I have often found the best barometer of the economy to be what the charitable organizations are reporting.
But who cares about the losers, right?
I mean, that's the whole point of you bringing it up is so that you can stick your head in the air like all good Lib-Pharisees do, and crow about your superior character of "caring"
Then, the hard work done, go smoke a joint, raise youre conciousness a little more, and care some more.....
maybe put on some Neil Young?...
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 2:29:50 PM
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 5:31:43 PM
... is me telling you to move at least 50% of your investments into cash ASAP. Hold them there until after the beginning of the new year.
The next best indicator is having a provider insisting on being paid in euros.
Really, BK...you can do better than that. You are starting to sound like microwaved Limbauger.
Come to think of it...maybe you can't do better than that.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 8:39:38 PM
Perhaps a touch off topic, but there was a recent book that had very detailed statistics on charitable giving in the United States. The results were quite interesting. Some summary facts:
1. (Self-described) Conservatives give more (per capita, as a percentage of income) than (self-described) liberals.
2. Poor working people give more (same provisos) than more affluent people.
3. Religious people give significantly more than secularists.
It is easy of course to imagine explanations for these results. I share them with you as a non-religious affluent libertarian who does not personally give large charitable donations. (Though I personally know many even more affluent libertarians who give large sums...)
I don't recall any mention (I didn't read the book, merely several synopses/reviews of the book) of charitable giving being a barometer of the economy, though I do recall that private giving increases in good economic times and especially goes up after tax cuts. One would have every theoretical expectation that private charitable giving would go up after welfare cuts (or even professed welfare cuts, that is, decreases in the anticipated levels of increase), as people generally prefer to give money when/where it will help, and many think "Why bother if the government is already handling it." This seems confirmed by what happened in the 1990s, as Clinton got people off the welfare roles and private charitable giving increased significantly
Now there is a neat rewrite of history.
I think I get it. Clinton is a Democrat, so he couldn't have got anybody off welfare, because they don't believe in that.
So this must be disinformation-propaganda
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774474.html
Who do you suppose the socialist who wrote it is?
Exposing the bullshit propaganda of tools like RightwingUnderground is pathetically easy. If they weren't brain dead the right wing would kill themselves out of embarassment.
it's a proggy/lib/pharisee thang...
It did and it was. The point was that Clinton was not responsible for it. It was the Republicans that forced Clinton into it.
-- Modified on 11/24/2007 6:31:47 PM
ROFLMFAO
That's the best you can do? Holy shit, I am dying here picturing you reading my post and spitting impotently while you struggle to type the only word you can form.
Calm down, maybe you can actually put a point together.
Idiot.
you're too much of an... well you know, to realize that.