20,200 jobs lost in NJ in Sept, 9,400 in private sector. Thank you Chris Christie

[Trajan]

New Jersey's employment picture took a turn for the worse in September with a loss of 20,200 jobs, 9,400 of them in the private sector, the NJ Department of Labor said in its monthly jobs report.

No wonder CON$ love this guy!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

sooo 10800 were from the 'public sector'?I am of course saddened anytime anyone loses their job in this economy , but, its about time they took one for team.

 

[Revere]

Was New Jersey "recovering" when it was up to its eyeballs in debt?

 

[Trajan]

Troll alert...

Again, the CON$ can't argue against the fact that Christie's policies are killing jobs so they stoop to personal attacks.
Thank you!

They can't accept the simple fact that government austerity, budget balancing, etc., whatever else it might be,

it's not a job creator. It's a job killer, because the government spending you're trying to eliminate is effectively funding dozens/hundreds/thousands of jobs.

If you want to make an argument for shrinking government and balancing the budget, fine, but don't insult our intelligence by claiming that it's some sort of economic stimulus.

Admit that it is what it is. PAIN.

THEN make your argument as to why the pain is worth it.

who said a public sector employee losing their job was not painful?

because the public sector job force has become imbalanced, like cali. they have hired ahead of pop growth and spent on lavish benes that come with those jobs way ahead of inflation etc......it sux, but there it is. Why is a public sector job sacrosanct and a private sector job just well, another statistic?

Supporting those public sector jobs as they stand now in many places drains the gov. coffers which are, especially in NJ and Calis case, then rebalanced on the backs of the private sector whom create the wealth that drives the tax base.

 

[Trajan]

They can't accept the simple fact that government austerity, budget balancing, etc., whatever else it might be,

it's not a job creator. It's a job killer, because the government spending you're trying to eliminate is effectively funding dozens/hundreds/thousands of jobs.

If you want to make an argument for shrinking government and balancing the budget, fine, but don't insult our intelligence by claiming that it's some sort of economic stimulus.

Admit that it is what it is. PAIN.

THEN make your argument as to why the pain is worth it.

Bingo!

Not a conservative here will debate/discuss my points seriously here. And I've tried before.

really? I think we have had acrimony free and logical exchanges...am I wrong?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bingo!

Not a conservative here will debate/discuss my points seriously here. And I've tried before.

really? I think we have had acrimony free and logical exchanges...am I wrong?

Yes we have indeed. But on this?

I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter on this balance the budget cut the deficit pay down the debt theme -

which is, I contend, ALL about sacrifice, pain, and deprivation, that necessarily must make things worse, very much worse,

before it has any chance of making things better, if it even can.

 

[Avatar4321]

9,400 of the lost jobs were PRIVATE sector jobs. But CON$ don't care how many private sector jobs are lost just so long as Christie busts the unions!

You sound just like Pelosi saying losing your job isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Thank you for again showing that, CON$ are just like Libs ....
Only MORE so!

If jobs don't produce value, then why have them? They are a drag on the resources of our community and economy.

Should we have kept the horse and buggy people in business just to keep the jobs or should we have closed up and let them move to something that produces value for society?

I choose the latter. Inefficiency creates corruption just as much as dishonesty does. I certainly understand that there are individuals that will struggle for a bit until they find or create a new job, but we either go through the pain now or we let our governments go bankrupt and go through a hell of a lot of pain later.

Your lack of faith is disturbing.

 

[JFK_USA]

Republicans are in no mood to help create jobs. Why? President Obama would get the praise, thats not cool. So of course, get people mad and its all Obama's fault. People are stupid and will believe what they see on TV, vote him out and magically jobs appear!

It's a classic tactic. Unfortunately, Republicans are more concerned with power than the greater good of the American people.

 

[Sallow]

I'm no Christie fan..but it's not entirely his fault.

 

[Oddball]

New Jersey's employment picture took a turn for the worse in September with a loss of 20,200 jobs, 9,400 of them in the private sector, the NJ Department of Labor said in its monthly jobs report.

No wonder CON$ love this guy!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

No linky, ¢omrade?

 

[Trajan]

Not a conservative here will debate/discuss my points seriously here. And I've tried before.

really? I think we have had acrimony free and logical exchanges...am I wrong?

Yes we have indeed. But on this?

I'm just trying to get to the heart of the matter on this balance the budget cut the deficit pay down the debt theme -

which is, I contend, ALL about sacrifice, pain, and deprivation, that necessarily must make things worse, very much worse,

before it has any chance of making things better, if it even can.

maybe.

the hard truth is yes it will.

we have over promised, there is no way around it. we have spent out every credit card we have and now have to live on what we make.

and let me say this 'public sector' talk, there is NO 'public' sector, that lends them a veneer of equality I object to, they are consumers, that is in private sector talk they don't produce wealth or specie of any type.

The private sector is the wealth generation sector, this is where wealth is created that pays people so they pay taxes and consume........we have to many taking and not producing, the producers have been taxed to keep the consumers in the 'public sector' employed.

The consumers may have to find other work, we simply cannot afford them anymore, it really is as simple as that. They can take some pay cuts and add more to their funds to lower the gov.s obligations. I don't see an issue with this, the private sector has made their sacrifices, we created a benchmark that we cannot sustain....the pain thats coming is going to have to start being equally apportioned amybe, we employ these folks an ancillaries, they have forgotten that.

 

[edthecynic]

I must let you in on a little secret, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...

it's not the Rushie quotes that makes me love your posts....its the 'Con$' thing...

it's because I spend the day diving through piles of hundreds, tossing twenties over my head to make a money-shower, and gloating about you in that cardboard box over there in Hooverville...

Tell me, does that make me a bad person?

No it doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a Bullshit Artist.

I love how CON$ pretend they are the achievers and Libs are the slackers when the fact is that Lib Families on the average are more financially successful than CON$. Rather than working harder to earn as much money as the "Limousine Liberals" that CON$ are so jealous of, CON$ simply declare themselves rolling in money while they sit on their lazy asses.

Now, see that EdEatsTheSpinach, you just loved that...but took it entirely too seriously.

But you bring up a good point, — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

1. Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.” Byron York 9/15/08 NR

2. According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter



You guys just stingy, self-centered Scrooges?

What's the dillio?

And CON$ervative charity isn't quite so charitable, especially the "religious" Right. CON$ like to start a "ministry" and then donate their house to the ministry they head getting a tax deduction for the "appraised" value of the house even if the house will never sell for that amount. They then set it up that the head of the ministry lives in the just "donated" house. Now all their living expenses like heat, electricity, up keep, etc. are tax deductions. When they die the next of kin becomes "head of the ministry" and lives in the house without paying any inheritance taxes.

Charitable trust funds and foundations are not very charitable either.

Billionaire Wealth Giveaways – Generosity or Tax Avoidance?

Avoid Capital Gains Tax
One of the biggest advantage of a charitable trust is tax exemption on profits in the the sale of property that has gone up in value. If you sold some appreciated property, you would have to pay capital gains tax on the gain in value. Charities are exempt. Most assets donated to charitable trusts are sold for cash with no federal tax due on the proceeds. The tax-free profits from asset sales are invested to create a trust income.

Receive a Tax Free Income For Life
When you set up a charitable remainder trust, you will typically allowed under IRS guidelines to be paid a tax free income of around 6% of total trust assets each year. If the trust asset investments yields a 6% return, and you are allowed to receive a 6% income each year, the value of the trust never diminishes. Therefore, you, the trust founder can receive an income which is tax-free for the life of the trust – in other words, forever.

Total Tax Savings
So let’s see what the total value of setting up a charitable trust could be for a billionaire in real numbers over 20 years. Donated to the trust is $1 billion in stock originally purchased for $250 million.

Capital Gains Tax savings: Capital Gains: $750 million. 15% of $750 million = $112.5 million dollars .
IRS estimates the trust will earn $250 million dollars in income over the life of the trust. Value of tax write off: $1billion – $250 = $750 million. $750 million x 37% income tax rate = $277.5 million in taxes saved over 5 years.
$1 billion invested gains 3% in value per year. Trust states that founder given an income of 3% of the value of the charitable trust = $30 million per year tax free. 20 years of income: $600 million. Tax savings: $600 million * 37% income tax rate = $222 million.
Estate tax paid at the death of the founder: $0. Savings of approx 55% of $1 billion dollars = $550 million.
Total: $112.5 million + $277.5 + + $222 million + $550 million = $940 million in tax savings over 20 years PLUS you still have the $1 billion dollars in the trust at the time of your death.

Charitable trusts are a pretty smart investment, don’t you think?

 

[MikeK]

But Obama's lost jobs in the past 2 years are Bush's fault, right??

Right! It's called residual effect and it's not difficult to understand.

Bush destroyed this Nation's economy. When he came to Office there was a projected surplus and a manageable Deficit. When he left the Office to Obama the economy was in the worst condition it's been in since the Great Depression, the Deficit was greater than it's ever been and we won't have seen the end of the Bush effect for several more years, if ever.

Consider this analogy: You go on a long vacation and during your absence a family of raccoons find their way into and occupy your house. Do you think you could recover from the damage in a few days?

The only question you should be asking is whether Bush did all the damage with deliberate intent to bankrupt and thus weaken the middle class to empower his "base" of "haves and have-nots or if his ignorance, apathy and incompetence enabled the looting of our Treasury along with many other egregious crimes.

George W. Bush, along with his entire criminal gang, deserves to be imprisoned.

 

[uscitizen]

But Obama's lost jobs in the past 2 years are Bush's fault, right??

Right! It's called residual effect and it's not difficult to understand.

Bush destroyed this Nation's economy. When he came to Office there was a projected surplus and a manageable Deficit. When he left the Office to Obama the economy was in the worst condition it's been in since the Great Depression, the Deficit was greater than it's ever been and we won't have seen the end of the Bush effect for several more years, if ever.

Consider this analogy: You go on a long vacation and during your absence a family of raccoons find their way into and occupy your house. Do you think you could recover from the damage in a few days?

The only question you should be asking is whether Bush did all the damage with deliberate intent to bankrupt and thus weaken the middle class to empower his "base" of "haves and have-nots or if his ignorance, apathy and incompetence enabled the looting of our Treasury along with many other egregious crimes.

George W. Bush, along with his entire criminal gang, deserves to be imprisoned.

Hey now! I am going to call PETA on your ass for comparing racoons to republicans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No it doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a Bullshit Artist.

I love how CON$ pretend they are the achievers and Libs are the slackers when the fact is that Lib Families on the average are more financially successful than CON$. Rather than working harder to earn as much money as the "Limousine Liberals" that CON$ are so jealous of, CON$ simply declare themselves rolling in money while they sit on their lazy asses.

Now, see that EdEatsTheSpinach, you just loved that...but took it entirely too seriously.

But you bring up a good point, — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

1. Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.” Byron York 9/15/08 NR

2. According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter



You guys just stingy, self-centered Scrooges?

What's the dillio?

And CON$ervative charity isn't quite so charitable, especially the "religious" Right. CON$ like to start a "ministry" and then donate their house to the ministry they head getting a tax deduction for the "appraised" value of the house even if the house will never sell for that amount. They then set it up that the head of the ministry lives in the just "donated" house. Now all their living expenses like heat, electricity, up keep, etc. are tax deductions. When they die the next of kin becomes "head of the ministry" and lives in the house without paying any inheritance taxes.

Charitable trust funds and foundations are not very charitable either.

Billionaire Wealth Giveaways – Generosity or Tax Avoidance?

Avoid Capital Gains Tax
One of the biggest advantage of a charitable trust is tax exemption on profits in the the sale of property that has gone up in value. If you sold some appreciated property, you would have to pay capital gains tax on the gain in value. Charities are exempt. Most assets donated to charitable trusts are sold for cash with no federal tax due on the proceeds. The tax-free profits from asset sales are invested to create a trust income.

Receive a Tax Free Income For Life
When you set up a charitable remainder trust, you will typically allowed under IRS guidelines to be paid a tax free income of around 6% of total trust assets each year. If the trust asset investments yields a 6% return, and you are allowed to receive a 6% income each year, the value of the trust never diminishes. Therefore, you, the trust founder can receive an income which is tax-free for the life of the trust – in other words, forever.

Total Tax Savings
So let’s see what the total value of setting up a charitable trust could be for a billionaire in real numbers over 20 years. Donated to the trust is $1 billion in stock originally purchased for $250 million.

Capital Gains Tax savings: Capital Gains: $750 million. 15% of $750 million = $112.5 million dollars .
IRS estimates the trust will earn $250 million dollars in income over the life of the trust. Value of tax write off: $1billion – $250 = $750 million. $750 million x 37% income tax rate = $277.5 million in taxes saved over 5 years.
$1 billion invested gains 3% in value per year. Trust states that founder given an income of 3% of the value of the charitable trust = $30 million per year tax free. 20 years of income: $600 million. Tax savings: $600 million * 37% income tax rate = $222 million.
Estate tax paid at the death of the founder: $0. Savings of approx 55% of $1 billion dollars = $550 million.
Total: $112.5 million + $277.5 + + $222 million + $550 million = $940 million in tax savings over 20 years PLUS you still have the $1 billion dollars in the trust at the time of your death.

Charitable trusts are a pretty smart investment, don’t you think?

BedsINTheClinic, this one of the weakest of deflections, but I can understand why you libs are sensitive to the facts about charity...seeing that you guys talk a good story, but don't walk the walk.


1. "To begin with, charitable giving in America has never been the exclusive province of wealthy people. Throughout our history, Americans from all walks of life have given generously for charitable causes. Indeed, the most generous Americans today—the group that gives the most to charity as a proportion of their income—are the working poor.

2. Today, Americans voluntarily give over $30 billion a year to support higher education, and—thanks in part to philanthropy—America has the best colleges and universities in the world. Even our great flagship state universities depend on private contributions for much of their excellence.

3. Private charitable giving is also at the heart and soul of public discourse in our democracy. It makes possible our great think tanks, whether left, right or center. Name a great issue of public debate today: climate change, the role of government in health care, school choice, stem cell research, same-sex marriage. On all these issues, private philanthropy enriches debate by enabling organizations with diverse viewpoints to articulate and spread their message.

4. We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

 

[Oddball]

Still no linky to back up the assertions of the caterwauling OP.

Move along...Nothing to see here.

 

[DiamondDave]

But Obama's lost jobs in the past 2 years are Bush's fault, right??

Right! It's called residual effect and it's not difficult to understand.

Bush destroyed this Nation's economy. When he came to Office there was a projected surplus and a manageable Deficit. When he left the Office to Obama the economy was in the worst condition it's been in since the Great Depression, the Deficit was greater than it's ever been and we won't have seen the end of the Bush effect for several more years, if ever.

Consider this analogy: You go on a long vacation and during your absence a family of raccoons find their way into and occupy your house. Do you think you could recover from the damage in a few days?

The only question you should be asking is whether Bush did all the damage with deliberate intent to bankrupt and thus weaken the middle class to empower his "base" of "haves and have-nots or if his ignorance, apathy and incompetence enabled the looting of our Treasury along with many other egregious crimes.

George W. Bush, along with his entire criminal gang, deserves to be imprisoned.

 

[edthecynic]

New Jersey's employment picture took a turn for the worse in September with a loss of 20,200 jobs, 9,400 of them in the private sector, the NJ Department of Labor said in its monthly jobs report.

No wonder CON$ love this guy!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

No linky, ¢omrade?

NJ jobs report the worst in 18 months - NorthJersey.com

New Jersey lost 20,200 jobs in September, including 9,400 in the private sector, wiping out three consecutive months of private-sector gains and dimming hopes that an economic recovery is under way in the state.

The total loss, outlined in the monthly jobs report from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development Wednesday, was the biggest since March 2009.

The state has lost 62,400 jobs since June 2009, the official end of the recession, including 35,400 private-sector jobs.

 

[Trajan]

New Jersey's employment picture took a turn for the worse in September with a loss of 20,200 jobs, 9,400 of them in the private sector, the NJ Department of Labor said in its monthly jobs report.

No wonder CON$ love this guy!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH:* Joe the Plumber.* Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

No linky, ¢omrade?

NJ jobs report the worst in 18 months - NorthJersey.com

New Jersey lost 20,200 jobs in September, including 9,400 in the private sector, wiping out three consecutive months of private-sector gains and dimming hopes that an economic recovery is under way in the state.

The total loss, outlined in the monthly jobs report from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development Wednesday, was the biggest since March 2009.

The state has lost 62,400 jobs since June 2009, the official end of the recession, including 35,400 private-sector jobs.

yes very interesting isn't it.......so, hows that stimulus going for you?

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, HeadsInTheSeptic,
Christie was elected in November of '09, wasn't he?

This thread would be EVEN better if you could have accused him of axing jobs prior to his election!!!

Wow, would we Con$ have loved him even more.

An aside, glad to see you have a few different Rush quotes,...did it take much of your time away from pork rinds and Donkey Kong?

If I blamed the economy on Christie before he was elected that would make me a CON$ervative! And the 20,200 lost jobs were for the month of Sept 2010.

BTW, I've been using those two quotes of your MessiahRushie since Nov 2008.

Here's another LimpTard quote that suits your post to a tee blaming Obama for the failed Bush economy from the time Obama was nominated!

March 2, 2009
RUSH: Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago. Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.

RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

I must let you in on a little secret, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...

it's not the Rushie quotes that makes me love your posts....its the 'Con$' thing...

it's because I spend the day diving through piles of hundreds, tossing twenties over my head to make a money-shower, and gloating about you in that cardboard box over there in Hooverville...

Tell me, does that make me a bad person?

No it doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you a Bullshit Artist.

I love how CON$ pretend they are the achievers and Libs are the slackers when the fact is that Lib Families on the average are more financially successful than CON$. Rather than working harder to earn as much money as the "Limousine Liberals" that CON$ are so jealous of, CON$ simply declare themselves rolling in money while they sit on their lazy asses.

Now, see that EdEatsTheSpinach, you just loved that...but took it entirely too seriously.

But you bring up a good point, — Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

1. Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.” Byron York 9/15/08 NR

2. According to their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

No wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his charitable contributions.

Liberals have no intention of actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.

As the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians." Ann Coulter



You guys just stingy, self-centered Scrooges?

What's the dillio?

And CON$ervative charity isn't quite so charitable, especially the "religious" Right. CON$ like to start a "ministry" and then donate their house to the ministry they head getting a tax deduction for the "appraised" value of the house even if the house will never sell for that amount. They then set it up that the head of the ministry lives in the just "donated" house. Now all their living expenses like heat, electricity, up keep, etc. are tax deductions. When they die the next of kin becomes "head of the ministry" and lives in the house without paying any inheritance taxes.

Charitable trust funds and foundations are not very charitable either.

Billionaire Wealth Giveaways – Generosity or Tax Avoidance?

Avoid Capital Gains Tax
One of the biggest advantage of a charitable trust is tax exemption on profits in the the sale of property that has gone up in value. If you sold some appreciated property, you would have to pay capital gains tax on the gain in value. Charities are exempt. Most assets donated to charitable trusts are sold for cash with no federal tax due on the proceeds. The tax-free profits from asset sales are invested to create a trust income.

Receive a Tax Free Income For Life
When you set up a charitable remainder trust, you will typically allowed under IRS guidelines to be paid a tax free income of around 6% of total trust assets each year. If the trust asset investments yields a 6% return, and you are allowed to receive a 6% income each year, the value of the trust never diminishes. Therefore, you, the trust founder can receive an income which is tax-free for the life of the trust – in other words, forever.

Total Tax Savings
So let’s see what the total value of setting up a charitable trust could be for a billionaire in real numbers over 20 years. Donated to the trust is $1 billion in stock originally purchased for $250 million.

Capital Gains Tax savings: Capital Gains: $750 million. 15% of $750 million = $112.5 million dollars .
IRS estimates the trust will earn $250 million dollars in income over the life of the trust. Value of tax write off: $1billion – $250 = $750 million. $750 million x 37% income tax rate = $277.5 million in taxes saved over 5 years.
$1 billion invested gains 3% in value per year. Trust states that founder given an income of 3% of the value of the charitable trust = $30 million per year tax free. 20 years of income: $600 million. Tax savings: $600 million * 37% income tax rate = $222 million.
Estate tax paid at the death of the founder: $0. Savings of approx 55% of $1 billion dollars = $550 million.
Total: $112.5 million + $277.5 + + $222 million + $550 million = $940 million in tax savings over 20 years PLUS you still have the $1 billion dollars in the trust at the time of your death.

Charitable trusts are a pretty smart investment, don’t you think?

BedsINTheClinic, this one of the weakest of deflections, but I can understand why you libs are sensitive to the facts about charity...seeing that you guys talk a good story, but don't walk the walk.

The deflection is all yours.

First you try to deflect from Christie's job losses by bragging about how rich you pretend to be, when I burst your delusional bubble you deflect to charity. When I expose the lack of charity in charitable donations, you deflect by accusing me of deflection as in the first quote in my sig. What can be concluded from your actions is you are neither rich nor charitable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I blamed the economy on Christie before he was elected that would make me a CON$ervative! And the 20,200 lost jobs were for the month of Sept 2010.

BTW, I've been using those two quotes of your MessiahRushie since Nov 2008.

Here's another LimpTard quote that suits your post to a tee blaming Obama for the failed Bush economy from the time Obama was nominated!

March 2, 2009
RUSH: Well, here's some truth for you. President Obama campaigned for two years. His policies were announced that long ago. He won the Democrat nomination last August, six months ago. Every smart money guy, every smart money woman on Wall Street and around the world knew Obama was a shoe-in to be president six months ago.

RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

I must let you in on a little secret, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...

it's not the Rushie quotes that makes me love your posts....its the 'Con$' thing...

it's because I spend the day diving through piles of hundreds, tossing twenties over my head to make a money-shower, and gloating about you in that cardboard box over there in Hooverville...

Tell me, does that make me a bad person?

And CON$ervative charity isn't quite so charitable, especially the "religious" Right. CON$ like to start a "ministry" and then donate their house to the ministry they head getting a tax deduction for the "appraised" value of the house even if the house will never sell for that amount. They then set it up that the head of the ministry lives in the just "donated" house. Now all their living expenses like heat, electricity, up keep, etc. are tax deductions. When they die the next of kin becomes "head of the ministry" and lives in the house without paying any inheritance taxes.

Charitable trust funds and foundations are not very charitable either.

Billionaire Wealth Giveaways – Generosity or Tax Avoidance?

Avoid Capital Gains Tax
One of the biggest advantage of a charitable trust is tax exemption on profits in the the sale of property that has gone up in value. If you sold some appreciated property, you would have to pay capital gains tax on the gain in value. Charities are exempt. Most assets donated to charitable trusts are sold for cash with no federal tax due on the proceeds. The tax-free profits from asset sales are invested to create a trust income.

Receive a Tax Free Income For Life
When you set up a charitable remainder trust, you will typically allowed under IRS guidelines to be paid a tax free income of around 6% of total trust assets each year. If the trust asset investments yields a 6% return, and you are allowed to receive a 6% income each year, the value of the trust never diminishes. Therefore, you, the trust founder can receive an income which is tax-free for the life of the trust – in other words, forever.

Total Tax Savings
So let’s see what the total value of setting up a charitable trust could be for a billionaire in real numbers over 20 years. Donated to the trust is $1 billion in stock originally purchased for $250 million.

Capital Gains Tax savings: Capital Gains: $750 million. 15% of $750 million = $112.5 million dollars .
IRS estimates the trust will earn $250 million dollars in income over the life of the trust. Value of tax write off: $1billion – $250 = $750 million. $750 million x 37% income tax rate = $277.5 million in taxes saved over 5 years.
$1 billion invested gains 3% in value per year. Trust states that founder given an income of 3% of the value of the charitable trust = $30 million per year tax free. 20 years of income: $600 million. Tax savings: $600 million * 37% income tax rate = $222 million.
Estate tax paid at the death of the founder: $0. Savings of approx 55% of $1 billion dollars = $550 million.
Total: $112.5 million + $277.5 + + $222 million + $550 million = $940 million in tax savings over 20 years PLUS you still have the $1 billion dollars in the trust at the time of your death.

Charitable trusts are a pretty smart investment, don’t you think?

BedsINTheClinic, this one of the weakest of deflections, but I can understand why you libs are sensitive to the facts about charity...seeing that you guys talk a good story, but don't walk the walk.

The deflection is all yours.

First you try to deflect from Christie's job losses by bragging about how rich you pretend to be, when I burst your delusional bubble you deflect to charity. When I expose the lack of charity in charitable donations, you deflect by accusing me of deflection as in the first quote in my sig. What can be concluded from your actions is you are neither rich nor charitable.

Ya' caught me Meds, ...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4yT0KAMyo[/ame]