Meh what works for one does not work for another. Many of Obamas policies would work from a European perspective.

Could you equivocate on why people who need foodstamps wouldn't get helped by charities? I worked at a food bank for 3 years solid, and never saw one of the thousands of people that came, be turned away.

Biggest reason is of course location, there are far more grocery stores in most areas than food banks, pantries and chartity food distributers.

In addition food banks are poor determiners of what a person needs nutritionally, food banks primarily obtain surplus and donated food and distribute them to food pnatries soup kitchens and other food distribution charities, these are intended to supplement the inaddequacies in the food stamp program, but overall the best person to determine their own needs is the person who consumes, this is why food stamps should go to individals and families, not food banks and charities

It doesn't take away from how generous it is if you write it off on your taxes. Plus you don't get all the money you donate off of your taxes. If you donate $1000, you don't get $1000 off your taxes. I don't know how much you do get, but its not the full amount.

A tax deduction is when you reduce your gross taxable income by a certain amount to determine what you owe in taxes. For a concrete example, if you have a 25% tax rate and you get a $1,000 deduction it would work out to being a tax savings of $250. In contrast, a tax credit is when you reduce the amount of tax you pay by a certain amount; a $1,000 tax credit means you pay $1,000 less in taxes.

From what I understand, I don't think it is possible for someone to be in a net positive position from giving money to charity which (basically) eliminates the argument that people give money to charity for selfish reasons.

This doesn't mean that there aren't "loopholes" in the system ... but most of those I have ever heard about involved getting a tax receipt for a good or service that was donated rather than money; and this works primarily because it is difficult to determine what this good or service is truely valued at, and a tax receipt can easily over-estimate the value of it. Even these are not too much of a problem though because there are few things that can be donated that are over-valued enough to impact a person's taxes in a meaningful way, and enough audits are done that enough people are caught who try that most people are afraid to try.

The reality is that the problem isn't that poor people are poor, or that rich people are rich. The real problem is how this comes about. Some say capitalism justifies this outcome, but to them I will also say capitalism has no morality clause. Within a true capitalist system any action that benefits you at the expense of another is totally justified. Up to and including, murder, raiding, pirating, and the enslavement of others.

The reality is that economics is more then facts and figures. Economics is nothing more then the very real exemplification of the human condition, and the psychology that underpins society. All economics are emotion. From the greed that leads the wealthy to hoard wealth for their own benefit at the expense of others. To the very real revolutions that arise when the meek revolt against unfair circumstance. The perception of fairness is all that matters. It may be what you can get away with at the time, but eventually and it may take years, decades, or centuries. You will pay back the dividend when your throat is slashed as you sleep.

The problem is the rich have gotten so through shiftless practices. Not as a by product of fair exchange. We know this because we know the top man at a company can bring home ten thousand times more then the guy at the bottom. Do we actually believe that the guy at the top worked ten thousand times harder, or is worth ten thousand guys at the bottom. No we know he is getting that money, because he has manipulated the situation to his utmost advantage at the cruel expense of others.

There is no equality in this exchange, and it is human nature hardwired into us to object to such an injustice. That is why throughout history we have bloody revolutions. That too is part of how capitalism functions. It must from time to time thoroughly fail so that it can be rebuilt stronger then it was before. Remove the entrenched so that real enterprise can be rewarded once again. Old money must be savaged to make room for new money, and so that the wealth can be set free once again.

For those saying this is all melodramatic. What do you think casting off colonial yokes has been all about through the centuries. What do you think the roots of a country like the United States really are. When political maneuvering is ineffective then the only meaningful recourse is violence. So for those crying about the unfairness of high taxation I say this. Just be thankful we try not to behave as we have in the past.

Then again if the wealthy had been more even handed all along they wouldn't have to be griping right now. We all grew up in the same world. We all know about sharing. Hell Chimpanzees rebuke unfair distribution. Once again it isn't the numbers it is the perception, and human beings get awfully misanthropic so do not expect any pity. Take the ebb and flow of social justice.

Dodice, that seems like an opinion based more on propaganda and guilt than on facts ...

A Capitalist Democracy is the only political and economic system where the distribution of wealth is based on achievement rather than arbitrary reasons; in Communism, Socialism and Fascism the distribution of wealth is based on political connections, and with Feudalism or in a Monarchy the distribution of wealth is based on a birth-right. On top of that, because the masses have the political power in a Capitalist Democracy there is a focus on eliminating corruption and exploitation which is why there is far less chance of a revolution or a bloody coup in a Capitalist Democracy than in other political and economic systems.

Certainly, capitalism doesn't reward the person who works the "Hardest"; it rewards the people who have developed a skill which is in high demand and limited supply. The janitor, warehouse worker, file clerk and receptionist all make less money than a CFO because almost everyone has the skills and knowledge to be a janitor, warehouse worker, file clerk and receptionist while there are only a few people with the education and experience needed to be a CFO. Between scholarships and student loans there is very little reason why people can not achieve a better education and/or build the skills needed to live a comfortable lifestyle except for personal choice; and claiming it is (somehow) the fault of the system that people do not achieve this is very dishonest.

Donations lower your taxable income, you can use it to reduce what income bracket you are in

Counting what you pay in taxes and what you give to charity will always be higher then what you would of been taxed before you gave to charity.

Making that point moot.

You aren't taxed a flat rate on what you make.  Everyone is taked the same for the first 8 grand they make... etc.

It does not matter what tax bracket you are in.

Let's say you make 200K, and your tax bracket (starting at 190K) is 39%, but from 100 to 190 mine is 35%.

You would pay 35% from 100 to 190, and then 39% for the next 10k.

Giving 15K to charity, and thus dropping your taxable income to 185K, has no impact on what that 185K will be taxed at (35%).