but apparently, it’s perfectly fine to redistribute it accordin to the neocon rightist political agenda.
Ah ha! Now that I recognize as an opinion. Fortunately for me, it is objectively and measurably false.
No, it’s actually quite true. Constrained optimization is the name of the game. Maximizing short term ROI for example can yield severe negative externalities. Fortunately, we as a society have institutions and regulations to compel agents to internalize the costs of these externalities. Social welfare might not be all that important to you, but thankfully for the rest of us, your view is not in the majority. Even more thankfully, green funds are starting to become very popular and reasonably well managed, so that individuals can balance their desire for return along with their desire to reduce negative exernalities by investing green.
You don’t even know what you don’t know.
:dubious:
Are you telling us that Carol Stream is actually Donald Rumsfeld in drag?
:eek:
Right. We should leave the task of throwing around ignorant assumptions on economics to the professionals.
Tris
You’ll get better results if you send it directly to the address below:
Ha ha! You wish! Hard aport and hoist the Jolly Roger! 
They’ve a cutoff because they’re afraid those above it wouldn’t spend the money but would instead invest it wisely? A situation arising from fiscal irresponsibility is to combatted by keeping it out of the hands of the fiscally responsible?
Fucking brilliant.
The part I like was when Carol Stream called him a fool, despite being specifically told by Jesus not to call people fools. Stupid bitch.
Good thing Jesus didn’t say anything about calling people stupid bitches.
Invest it wisely? In a declining market? Not so much. The “fiscally responsible” would buy more public debt. This solves a weakness in demand not at all.
Apparently you are not familiar with the new Christianity now widely practiced in America (and by some self-professed Chrisitians on the SDMB). I call it Christianity Lite, because they claim they no longer have to abide by any of Jesus’s commandments, all they have to do is be a nice person and love nice people.
So are you calling me a Christian now? Don’t make me spin-off a new pit thread Fear! 
I’ll go one better: Everybody is a Christian! We got yer Jewish Christians, your Muslim Christians, your Buddhist Christians, even atheist Christians. If you are nice, and love nice people, I baptize you a Christian. Please send the $10 deposit on your eternal soul to PayPal.
I don’t have to love Carol Stream, do I?
Maeglin, I know you’re not suggesting there aren’t prudent ways to allocate the money now, even aside from the narrow option of buying public debt (which, for the record, I’m not interested in doing).
Why the cutoff though? Why are those who’ve paid the most, both in actual dollars and in the federal tax rate, disallowed from sharing in this distribution? I’d image there’s a fair number on this board who make too much to share in any of the programs popularized by the Democratic party, yet don’t make near enough to hire tax attorneys or own corporations and, thus, benefit from the most egregious Republical policies. We’re still consumers and usually quite heavy ones at that. We still have transportation, housing, food and entertainment needs and obligations and the dollars we spend will go just as far to pump up this economy.
As far as what the number of additional recipients that would create is, the percentage of the pie allocated for that contingent, it’s gotta be pretty small. Hell, downsize it significantly. Make it $100. But a kick in the teeth to those who met their obligation and more makes no sense, either financial or common.
My vote is to either distribute it more evenhandedly or implement some really significant benefits for the truly economically disadvantaged. But throwing cash at some to spend on whatever luxury items they want, with public money, and to the exclusion of others is a bit annoying.
No! That’s the beauty of Christianity Lite! You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do! Just be nice to nice people, and who can argue with that? 
No no no. Fear said you have to “love nice people”.
Well, hell’s bells, call me a christian then!
Wow, I’m starting to feel morally superior to everyone else already!
I beg your pardon. Those monies go to P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118-1417.
Because only the Church of the SubGenius has Jesus Himself for its business manager! 
As another answer, consider the “socially responsible” investment funds. (Quotes to respect your sensibilities.) Since they limit investment options, they can’t maximize financial returns as well as more general funds. Whatever your opinion of these, people invest and do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons not involved in maximizing returns. Unless you include psychic returns, but then we can get into all sorts of trouble valuing them.
I thought we had already established that “maximizing returns” includes things other than money alone. It’s like buying war bonds back during WWII - maybe you could get a better ROI on something else, but part of the “return” was the feeling that you were battling Tojo and Hitler and bringing our boys home and so forth.
You could consider the difference between what you get from a regular fund and a “socially responsible” fund as a charitable donation. Same with buying carbon credits from Algore - it’s done more to make the person feel better than to make real money.
Regards,
Shodan