Hulver's site || Comments || The baddest dude at the Whole Foods.

ITYM by sasquatchan (4.00 / 2) #8 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST

100% free range organic chicken salad made with vegan soy mayo, on 100% whole wheat fococcia-naan flax seed bread.

Dirty hippie.

Make anything of the book calling Austin a liebral bunch of non-charity giving folks ? Seems the book's 2 years old, but George Will is flogging liebrals with it in his column from the Wash Post today.

I'll have to take a look by blixco (4.00 / 1) #10 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:49:36 PM EST

but we're pretty high on the heap of giving, money and time wise. Goddamn hipster yuppie hippies.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

article calls Austin by sasquatchan (4.00 / 2) #15 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:19:21 PM EST

48th out of the largest 50 cities in the US for charitable giving.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html

(reg maybe required)

[ Parent ]

Huh. That's a surprise. by blixco (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST

It really is.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

What percent of Austin is students? by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #20 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:49:01 PM EST

When I was in college, most of my charity was donating alcohol to sober coeds.

[ Parent ]

: Oh, I dunno. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST

There are probably 70,000 students for 850,000 residents. Heck, there's not even a Slacker(tm) mentality here anymore. It has been overrun by Californians, profiteers, and the usual mixture of bad politicians and thug cops.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

George Will by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #23 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:05:15 PM EST

a voice of moral authority.

His whole argument has already been debunked.

I don't have access to Globe back issues, but it was (yet another) study from, I think, Brandeis or Babson. If you level the playing field w/r/t taxes and net income retention (red states get far more federal money back from than they contribute in taxes, and the opposite is true for blue states, so the blue states are, in effect, subsidizing the so-called red state charity), there isn't a lot of difference.
--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

riiight by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #29 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:07:32 PM EST

so that some congressional rep gets fed monies to re-pave the highway, that counts against the local resident's charitable contributions, because it's imputed income to the local resident because otherwise the local resident would have paid it in state taxes ?

That's a stretch, man. Book is by Arthur C. Brooks, at Syracuse. Did you RTFA ?

I posted the link to rile blix in the spirit of his own self-deprecation, not argue the truth of the point.

[ Parent ]

NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND by gzt (4.00 / 1) #30 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:10:31 PM EST

Red State = Bad
Blue State = Good.

Duh. Do we have to re-educate you?

[ Parent ]

That's not what I said at all by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #33 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:15:08 PM EST

I'm sorry you don't understand.
--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

read, comprehend, post by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #37 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:19:08 PM EST

you said:

red states get far more federal money back from than they contribute in taxes, and the opposite is true for blue states, so the blue states are, in effect, subsidizing the so-called red state charity

How is anything I replied to showing a grave misunderstanding of that ? You said the taxes coming back to a state "subsidize" the charitable giving. I said that's a stretch, and pointed to one way fed money comes back to the state, and tried to find any relation to how that causes joe six-pack to give more money to charity, and I still don't see what you said as holding any water.

Either restate your case, or illustrate it in better terms.

[ Parent ]

: Remove the parenthetical by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #38 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:26:57 PM EST

maybe that will help.
It's just an old chestnut they pull out every tax season. The dust it off, put someone else's name on it, and spew it again. It's been debunked over and over. You can find it yourself.
--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

Meh. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #36 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:12:50 PM EST

We do our part. People knock Austin for a lot of legitimate reasons. Thing is, we don't brag. We're just naturally this cool, despite the negative points, the politicians, and the goddamn Californians.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

free range organic chicken -> tempeh . . . nt by chuckles (4.00 / 1) #32 Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST

"[S]avings does not have to keep up with inflation in order to be useful. If you don't understand why ... you don't understand the purpose of savings."
-lm
[ Parent ]