Hey, there! Log in / Register

He won't be spending his stimulus check

Gene Koo explains why he'll be giving his to charity:

... From the point of view of our national economy, donating our stimulus checks to charity will produce the same multiplier effects as buying a plasma-screen television. But it will mean something quite different to our own spiritual well-being. It's not about denying ourselves by resisting temptation, but expanding ourselves by giving generously to others. Indeed, as the proverbs suggest, it's not wealth that leads us to give, but giving that makes us realize we are wealthy. ...


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

for Gene Koo

up
Voting closed 0

But wouldn't his "spiritual well-being" have been
even better served with an anonymous donation?

up
Voting closed 0

If he gives several hundred dollars to charity, it doesn't matter whether he does it with his name attached or not. It matters that he gave the money to the charity. It spends the same and will do the same amount of good.

What irks me is the tax deduction he'll get. Those of us who didn't get this stupid "rebate," but are paying for it, should get the deductions.

up
Voting closed 0

I think it is safe to say, given the size of the deficit the Bush administration is running, no one is paying for this rebate. The Bush folks are doing the GOP's typical bang-up job on being fiscally responsible. Besides, getting a tax deduction by giving a tax rebate to charity should warm the two sizes too small heart of every conservative: tax deductions mean less tax revenue. Starve the beast and all that nonsense!

up
Voting closed 0

Will be my three-year-old.

This is yet another fake tax break. If they borrow money to lower taxes or give a rebate, it's not a tax cut but just a postponement. Bushies love to pass the buck.

And anybody making so much money they won't see any rebate is doing fine already. Just go have a refreshing dive in your Scrooge McDuck pool.

My three-year-old will pay for the tax postponments that filled that up too.

up
Voting closed 0

... and I resent it.

IMHO what we've seen in the past few decades has been inter-generational warfare, and I suspect that my non-generation (between X and Y) will be the first to pay the price.

The Bush tax cuts were as much about generation as they were about class.

The thing about tax policy is that it's futile to fight it alone. Just as cutting the gas tax for the summer will mean very little to most consumers, my failure to cash my check won't make the slightest difference to the government. Tax policy is exactly that -- a POLICY. It only works when it's universal.

So maybe I am advancing the conservative agenda that wants to replace government with private charity. I interpret my action as a protest.

And, btw, speaking of acting together, there's a few of us crazy enough to do this. You can join.

up
Voting closed 0

I should also add that the "spiritual well-being" part is my personal motivation for doing this. I think that the bigger policy argument, as I've linked to in the post, is that the U.S. has been engaging in artificially-inflated consumption for the last 8 years or so, thanks to the real estate bubble.

What this means is that the fundamentals of our economy can't support this level of consumption -- there's no money in our homes left to borrow. (As I write, "You can't have your house and mortgage it, too"). If a large part of our economy depended on that artificially-inflated consumption, then we are screwed: we are facing a possibility of serious deflation, deflation that might be slowed by some real economic growth (in productivity, maybe) but not by consumption.

Given this economic backdrop, it would be wise for Americans to continue believing that our level of consumption is "normal." It's not, and it's not just spiritually but also financially unhealthy. Like most habits, consumerism is best quit cold-turkey. Don't spend the money you don't really have. Pay off debts, save it, invest it, give it to charity.

up
Voting closed 0

Calvin: "Getting loads of loot is a very spiritual experience for me."
Hobbes: "I'm surprised other religions haven't picked up on that."

up
Voting closed 0

I'm spending mine in FRANCE. muahahaha. it's really my money anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

I am lucky enough to be in the financial position and desire to soon purchase a new high-definition television. I enjoy my home entertainment center and how it enables me to entertain guests with music, movies, and most importantly to me, sporting events. I have slowly built up a very good quality audio system but my television is still only about 30" and CRT technology. With my current salary and decent tax return, I am finally in a position to purchase a good-sized HD set. Prices on HD technology have fallen since the winter holiday season as well. The $600 only greases that wheel even further.

GW Bush has pretty much accomplished doing everything wrong and we are all the worst for it. I do not want to help him accomplish anything right at this point and yet, if I go buy a television now, I play right into his intentions for this money. I am torn between doing what I want and potentially playing even a bit role in "helping the economy" by spending the gifted $600 on a high-priced consumer good (I would have preferred the government just keep the damn money and use it wisely, although that is its own pipe dream).

The one thing I won't be doing, however, is donating it.

up
Voting closed 0

one way or another. Stop beating up on yourself and just buy the TV. You'll then have it in time to watch the Obama inauguration in full HD.

up
Voting closed 0

Now there's a real reason not to buy the tv.

up
Voting closed 0

I would have preferred the government just keep the damn money

Send it back.
Consider it a rehearsal for what's probably coming.

up
Voting closed 0

McCain will want that and your firstborn and secondborn children too!

Of course this is in addition to all your money to pay for filling the pockets of his war contractor buddies the 100 year occupation of Iraq.

up
Voting closed 0

100 year occupation of Iraq

Way to distort his remarks - or were you just swallowing the DNC talking points?

By that logic, we're currently "occupying" Japan and South Korea.

up
Voting closed 0

if you want regurgitated talking points.

In other words, it's only "funny" when you start it, but never funny when it gets fed back to you?

up
Voting closed 0

...just to decide what exactly "victory" entails.

up
Voting closed 0

... in another 6 months. Then we can talk about how it will be another 6 months until we need another six months ...

up
Voting closed 0

...Japan and North Korea eventually stopped fighting back and slaughtering our troops. How are those bases in Vietnam working out?

April was the bloodiest month for US soldiers in Iraq since September. The surge isn't working. Wake me up when there are no more insurgents hurling IEDs and suicide bombing our troop into death, dismemberment and 1,000 veteran suicide attempts each month with 18 succeeding per day.

When all that stops and we can be sure that our "bases" in Iraq won't piss off the Islamic radicals to the point where they continually attack the base, and we're also sure that it won't encourage further terrorist attacks on US citizens and soil, then we can discuss the possibility of a 100-year presence in Iraq.

As of today, 100 years in Iraq means 100 years of 30, 40 casualties per month and 100 years of spending $2Billion/week (40% on private contractors like Blackwater, KBR and Haliburton, ) - there's no end in sight.

Besides, McCain himself was against staying in Iraq for 100 years before he was for it. You don't think McCain flip-flopped for reasons of political expediency like he did on the Bush tax cuts and torture, do you? That wouldn't happen because McCain's a "Maverick".

up
Voting closed 0

...

up
Voting closed 0

Yep, as Colbert said the other night: "Mmm, I could sure go for 81 pounds of rice."

up
Voting closed 0

When carbo loading didn't involve a pickup truck.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm going to buy Nestle's Crunch Bars. They contain rice, which is currently a hot commodity, and also milk, which is not quite as hot as it was before the rice thing, but still overpriced. That way, I can stock up on two things at once!

The chocolate is a bonus.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Have you seen what's going on with cocoa prices lately?

up
Voting closed 0

Milk, flour, eggs... the combination of agroinflation and a bad storm will make for the biggest french toast alert evah.

up
Voting closed 0

The "stimulus check" is simply some money of mine I've been lucky enough to get back. If it shows up (I never count on any money till I see it), I'm simply depositing it, not spending it or giving it away.

up
Voting closed 0

How "UnAmerican" of you! God forbid you SAVE it!

up
Voting closed 0

I'm keeping half and donating half. The half I'm donating goes in equal parts to Obama and the DNC. Oh god, what if this country is stupid enough to elect McCain? Seriously, we re-elected Bush even after we knew he was completely incompetent.

I'm using the other half to heating oil next winter because oil producing nations and big oil aren't rich enough and I don't want to freeze to death.

up
Voting closed 0

We will use it to defray the expense of attending my mother's memorial service/rememberance party on the west coast in July. It won't cover the complete cost of 4 people round trip, but it will make a dent.

Otherwise, it would go into the livingroom remodel - including paint, new entertainment center (they tend to collapse after being disassembled 11 times) and the bigasse TV.

At least Mr. Koo (as the NY Times would say) is being honest about his own feel good over giving the money away. I like that a lot more than people who refuse to admit that they do these sorts of things primarily for themselves.

up
Voting closed 0