26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered

By A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/26/2014 - 3:37pm |

The American Jewish community’s network of charity organizations is a font of Jewish power, a source of communal pride and a huge mystery.

URL:

http://forward.com/articles/194978/-billion-bucks-the-jewish-charity-industry-unco/?p=all

Add new comment
3736 reads

Comments

In the coming weeks, the Forward will publish a series of articles reporting the results of its investigation. The Forward can now describe a Jewish apparatus that, despite extensive rhetoric about the importance of Jewish education, still dedicates the largest share of its donor dollars to Israel-related causes. It’s an apparatus that benefits massively from the U.S. federal government and many state and local governments, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants, billions in tax-deductible donations and billions more in program fees paid for with government funds. And it’s an apparatus that requires vast resources to support itself, spending $2.3 billion a year on management and fundraising — and $93 million on galas alone.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/26/2014 - 3:42pm

I'm definitely out of the loop on issues dealing with Israel, but wouldn't there be some overlap between "Jewish education" and "Israel-related causes"? Is there some extra meaning to these phrases that I'm not getting? E.g., does "Israel-related" imply more than just "Israel-related"? I'm a fact-oriented sort of person, and I feel there are a lot of missing facts, although possibly it's simply because they're assuming their audience can fill in the missing facts. Combine this with the contradictory plots (that Peter pointed out below), and it only gets muddier.

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 1:14pm

The Daily Jewish Forward seems to have a targeted audience. They are speaking to an intended audience of American Jews as opposed to Jews everywhere or non-Jews anywhere. Following is some of their editorial opinion referring to the same subject.

"... but wouldn't there be some overlap between "Jewish education" and "Israel-related causes"?

They, The DJF, seem to think so as this editorial suggests. They wonder out loud why more of the Jewish donations do not go to the education of American Jews but so much goes to Israel and then some comes back to The U.S. for Israeli directed educational programs. It is very possible, very likely, that there is significance that, as an outsider, I don't pick up on and vice versa.

http://forward.com/articles/194999/a-new-relationship-between-israel-and...?

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 2:59pm

The high proportion going to Israel-related groups, Sasson said, is “further evidence… that American Jews are deeply interested in Israel even as they take a variety of different positions with regard to contentious political issues.

Excerpt from the article with my bold.

And how would this be different from like, Ukrainian-American organizations and charities raising money and lobbying for Ukraine right now?

One thing I do think it is unlike is, say, a rich French-born Iranian-Americans interested in supporting pro-Western movements in the Ukraine. Since Ukraine could not remotely be considered Omidyar's "homeland," unlike Jewish-Americans and Israel, or Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine.

P.S. I want to take advantage of the topic and do a shout out for this particular Jewish-American charity established in 1914. It has the most excellent services for the visually handicapped in this country, bar none, mho. I really wouldn't give a damn how much of their income goes to Israel, if any, because their work with for the visually handicapped is so extremely important.

by artappraiser on Wed, 03/26/2014 - 6:54pm

Just so you know, and utterly o/t When someone posts every day multiple times and then is gone for like, a week, it is courteous to let people know that you are gonna be gone, and they shouldn't worry.

Not that anyone worried. Of course not.

by jollyroger on Wed, 03/26/2014 - 10:07pm

It is sweet of you to say.

Sorry, I didn't know the shit was going to hit the fan (and it really really did.) Squeezing in a few minutes for the news habit was urgently necessary at the time I commented for mental health purposes. And your reply an extra added booster.

See y'all more often again as things calm down. If they do calm down,that is--fingers crossed.

Meantime, it's nice to see the rest of y'all still here, so what you are talking about is mutual.

by artappraiser on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 12:56am

Dammit! Was hoping you won a cruise in the church raffle and were surrounded by wheels of brie and roulette. Hope all ok in time.

by jollyroger on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 1:08am

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 1:40am

The way you frame your response seems to suggest that the investigative report was not worth publishing, that it is less than newsworthy. Maybe so. People donate to charities helping their ancestral countries all the time.

The following is the first paragraph from Wikipedia describing The Jewish Daily Forward which published the article. They identify themselves today as "Progressive".

"The Jewish Daily Forward (Yiddish: פֿאָרווערטס; Forverts), colloquially called The Forward, is a Jewish-American national newspaper published in New York City. The publication began in 1897 as a Yiddish-language daily issued by dissidents from the Socialist Labor Party of Daniel DeLeon. As a nonprofit publication loosely affiliated with the Socialist Party of America, Forverts achieved massive circulation and considerable political influence during the first three decades of the 20th Century. The organization today publishes two newspapers, weekly in English (The Forward) and biweekly in Yiddish (Yiddish Forward) or (Forverts) and websites updated daily in both languages."

They obviously thought the article had information that was newsworthy. Maybe just for general information. They promise a follow up article soon.

"NEXT WEEK: Government subsidizes the Jewish charity network heavily. We examine the network’s reliance on government aid through grants, charitable tax deductions and program fees."

The bit you quoted from the article would seem to indicate that they are not so polemic as to only present one sided information and opinion. The figures they presented were given as information without a hard spin to denigrate anybody or pump up one or another side of some issue that they claimed was earth-shaking in importance. At least that I could see. Maybe they thought the huge amount of money involved, most of it apparently donated tax free but opaquely, was significant. I was interested to see the strikingly high percentage of the total that came out of New York.

One thing I do think it is unlike is, say, a rich French-born Iranian-Americans interested in supporting pro-Western movements in the Ukraine. Since Ukraine could not remotely be considered Omidyar's "homeland," unlike Jewish-Americans and Israel, or Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine.

I agree, that is different. Omidyar's money went to do the same work as did NED, for instance. It was intended to "promote democracy" which meant promoting a change in the existing government. Some people who don't like some of the methods employed with that money, who are often suspicious of the ultimate motive as opposed to what is asserted, and who don't know off-hand of a case where anyone can brag about the results of such previous out-reaches since the Marshall Plan, call that 'meddling'. I doubt much of the money sent to Israel was intended to influence Israelis to try to change the form of their government.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/26/2014 - 10:25pm

The only real issue I see in all this is should money for Israel be tax-exempt for US taxpayers - i.e. are these organizations somehow registered similarly to say the International Red Cross or Doctors without Borders - and is there any accountability in these donations (e.g. most tax-exempt charities have restrictions on % of administration overhead)?

Whether Jewish donors favor Israeli causes over say education isn't much interest to me, may interest others.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 4:10am

LULU...

I find it a bit difficult to read and understand your posts because I think you're not saying what you mean, but sort of dancing around it, hoping, perhaps, that your links will do your talking for you.

I was interested to see the strikingly high percentage of the total that came out of New York.

You didn't know there were a LOT of Jews--and quite a few rich Jews--living in NY??? C'mon. You think Jolly came from nothing???

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 9:11am

I'm dancing? I find it hard to respond to that accusation since you do not reveal what you think I really mean, what I am being deceitful about, what you think I am dancing around. And, you refer to my posts [plural], not just this one.
Most of my blogging interest is in the foreign affairs of my country. In that vein I have posted quite a few highly opinionated pieces which do not fit the standard output of the msn but my intention when posting articles which take a position is always to only present ones that do analogy, that show the dots and then link them together to form a coherent picture. In those instances I do not make any secret of what I, personally, believe to be the case or at least the most likely case. So yes, I often let better writers who also have credibility, IMO, speak to issues for me when I generally agree with their conclusions. I have said more than once before that I believe that journalism that tries to prove a point is very valuable when done honestly. There are other occasional variations in what and why I post articles beside the following.
This post is not of an accusatory nature but merely a posting of asserted facts revealed by research. In this particular case I see the author as studying three main points and just presenting his findings without judgment. How much money is moving, [an enormous amount], where it comes from, and where it is going. I found the magnitude, the geographical concentration of the origin of the great majority, and the final dispersion of that money all interesting. And, as I said, I do not see the article making accusations of wrongdoing and neither am I doing so although, as Peracleas said, the tax implications may be worth paying attention to.

You didn't know there were a LOT of Jews--and quite a few rich Jews--living in NY??? C'mon. You think Jolly came from nothing???

There is a lot and then there is a LOT. Even after Jolly took his billions to San Francisco to invest in the high life, we are talking about a LOT of money coming out of New York. But hey, good on him, Jolly I mean, It's just money until you spend it.

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 12:49pm

Well, it's just that the last few times I've read your posts, I've come away scratching my head wondering: "What does LULU find interesting about this?" You clearly do, but you don't say.

For example, I don't understanding why you find it "interesting" that so much of the action in Jewish giving comes from New York. Frankly, if it didn't come from NY that would be interesting or noteworthy, no? There may be more Jews in New York than in Israel--the state is that lousy with them.

Anyway, the author seems to speak in dark tones about the "power" and "mystery" of this "opaque" web of Jewish giving. But is the Jewish community hiding things, covering things up, or is it that no one has tried to dig into it?

Here's what I found interesting: After all the numbers and dark tones, the article ends with this:

What we can say is that the Jewish organizations make up a tiny fraction of the total not-for-profit sphere. All told, the groups that filed Form 990s and Form 990-EZs in 2012 reported receiving $365 billion in contributions, gifts, grants and dues after duplicate filings were excluded. Jewish groups reported getting $7.5 billion — roughly 2% of the total.

Which, fittingly, is roughly the Jewish percentage of the U.S. population.

I mean, if there's a problem with the tax-exempt status of much non-profit giving and thus the implication of the government in sectarian causes, the Jewish piece of it would seem to be small potatoes. There's a whole 98% of it that Jews aren't involved in. Those billions of Jewish dollars seem pretty impressive until the end when the writer puts them into perspective.

Not to invoke the old "Johnnie does it, too"gambit, but if government is deeply implicated in ALL giving in America, then it would be ODD--"interesting"--if the Jewish piece of it did NOT follow that same pattern. No?

And thus far, the interactive pie charts don't clarify things much for me. I can't make heads nor tails of them. They want to say that Israel is the recipient of most of the money, but the pie chart doesn't always seem to support that conclusion. It would be nice if they explained things, especially as they purport to want to do that.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 03/30/2014 - 9:51pm

"I mean, if there's a problem with the tax-exempt status of much non-profit giving and thus the implication of the government in sectarian causes, the Jewish piece of it would seem to be small potatoes. There's a whole 98% of it that Jews aren't involved in. Those billions of Jewish dollars seem pretty impressive until the end when the writer puts them into perspective."

One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt. These 2 countries
receive one-third of the total aid, the majority of which pays for armaments. Yet, neither is a "developing" country.

That percentage is U.S. government aid as U.S. foreign aid is is usually characterized as being big bucks that are very significant to the recipients, especially the top few. U.S. aid to Israel in 2010 [Latest figures in this chart] is said to be a bit over three billion dollars. http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm#top-recipien... That figure makes the figures from The forward look like fairly big potatoes. I found that interesting. I find the flowing dynamics of the world situation and its big players interesting. I found interesting in the book I just read how it is shown scientifically that there are many more deer in the country than there were at the time Columbus first got here and why they are managed to keep their numbers so high. Can't really explain or justify, if that is your concern, that interest either to anyone who thinks that it is weird why I do.
The tax implications also seem significant and noting them in this case is not suggesting that they are different or less significant in other cases. I do not like exemptions for religion in any case.
When I ran across the link to the article at Juan Cole's "Informed Comment" I did not see that he expressed either praise or commendation for it but apparently he thought his readers would be interested in it. He was right about at least one.
Along with your perception of dark implications you show a couple times where the article puts the figures and analysis in fair perspective. Maybe the following two articles in the series will give you something substantive to chew on.

I appreciate that you gave the first article a thorough read as indicated by your comments about the substance of it and I do not object to your personal questions but I also do not see the point of them.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 12:43am

His response is a bit peculiar -

a) "why worry about $7 billion or so - just a drop in the bucket (apparently The Forward thought it enough to worry about - sure, it's not the Koch Brothers, but it's a tidy sum of cash each year - and if it's not properly tax exempt, it's a good amount of mis-reported cash that could fund US government operations - and as they note, the amount that goes through synagogues is much much larger - and undocumented).

b) "Anyway, the author seems to speak in dark tones about the "power" and "mystery" of this "opaque" web of Jewish giving. But is the Jewish community hiding things, covering things up, or is it that no one has tried to dig into it?"

I assume b) is to spin the Forward article as anti-semitic and beholden to tomes about Jewish conspiracies. But of course almost all articles about hidden financial funnels carry this same tone - go read "Deep Capture" blog for a stellar example pegging Russian Mafia, Michael Milken, et al.

c) not sure what to make about comments re: New York - I can see being a bit amazed that NY assets are 4x greater than the next runner up, California. Me I don't particularly care and never thought about it, but not sure why Peter's picking on your interest in this detail. Sure, New Yorkers might find this obvious, but again, the Jewish Forward seemed to think much of this remarkable or in need of publication, so why pick on Lulu for essentially just passing on a straight-forward investigative article?

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 2:33am

Ah, 2% IS a drop in the bucket compared to 98%...or "drop in the bucket" doesn't mean anything.

If the amount that goes through synagogues is undocumented, how do they know it's "much, much larger"? Isn't that kind of a basic question that's gone begging?

Just because the Forward prints something doesn't mean we have to leave our heads at home and accept it uncritically.

I picked on the detail about New York because it seemed to me--perhaps I'm wrong-- that LULU said this detail was particularly "interesting" to him.

When I was a kid, I used to think that "Schwartz" was an exotic name. Interesting. Then I opened the New York phone book one day, and I saw that "the Schwartz was with me."

All articles about hidden funnels of money do take this tone, but when applied to Jews, they carry the weight of very damaging stereotypes. Given that, I think a writer needs to go to extra lengths to put things into perspective.

If I'm writing a profile of a black person and I call him "lazy," then it's incumbent upon me to make clear that I'm not just passing on a stereotype. That I'm talking about this guy and not just hitching my wagon to an old trope. And in fact, I need to show that the guy really is lazy. This would be true if I were talking about a white guy, but it's tru-er when writing about a black guy.

If I say that Scalia has a chin like Il Duce, I may be telling the truth, but I'm also putting a little extra "English" on my description. Same thing if I describe an Italian by way of a Mafia metaphor.

All stereotypes are damaging and inaccurate. However, when a group has been persecuted because of certain stereotypes, they become a little hotter to handle. They do place an extra burden on the writer.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 3:36pm

Your points are valid, except I don't get your Scalia reference. Are Italians stereotyped to have certain types of chins?

Of course, this leads to the possibility that at least some comments which can be interpreted as "lazy stereotyping" might just be a case of simple ignorance. This came up for me a while back regarding the Rothschild name. In my mind, the Rothschild name has symbolized immense wealth, as in "the Rothschilds", but evidently it also has some sort of history in anti-Semitism that I'm still not clear on. Since learning that it can be a sore point I've been mindful not to say use them as an exemplar, but I find it difficult to "unlearn" that association.

Edit to add: this is a definite segue and is not intended to be on-topic whatsoever.

by Verified Atheist on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 3:49pm

Not chins. But I'd be comparing him to Mussolini based on their chins. Is it fair to suggest that Scalia is a fascist because he's Italian and has a similar chin to Mussolini's? The Mafia example is probably more easily grasped. Lots of Italians complain that people assume they have relations in the Mafia.

The assumers might even think it's "cool" given the popularity of the Sopranos and Corelones. But Italians have been discriminated against based on this association. And people are assuming that just because you're of Italian heritage, you have criminals in your family.

Yes, I'm aware of the issue of ignorance, too. And it's in the language, too. To say that someone is pharasaic is to call someone "hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory." But this is largely a NT view of the Pharisees who, in fact, brought an enlightened view to Jewish life at that time.

"The Pharisees are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah, or Written Law, was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud."

IOW, they held that God's word, far from being the sole province of the priestly caste, was open to interpretation--and needed to be interpreted by humans in light of human experience and the problems humans encountered in their daily lives. You could say they brought Moses' law down to earth, down to the people.

Edit to add: So orthodox Jews believe that the Torah, the five books of Moses, were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But they ALSO believe that the entire Talmud was given in the same way and at the same time--not just the law, but what the laws meant and how they should be applied from that day forward to the evolving human condition were handed down by God.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 4:33pm

"Ah, 2% IS a drop in the bucket compared to 98%...or "drop in the bucket" doesn't mean anything." - uh, sorry, bud - not sure where you buy your buckets, but drop in the bucket could include GOP bitching about the cost of the National Endowment of the Arts at $160 million in a budget that's $800 billion - that's 0.02% by my reckoning, and $7 billion is a helluva lot of chump change.

"If the amount that goes through synagogues is undocumented, how do they know it's "much, much larger"? Isn't that kind of a basic question that's gone begging?" - no, it's not - there can be relative understanding of how much bigger contributions are to churches and synagogues without having exact measures. I've seen what you'd guess would be a poor black church raise $5k in 15 minutes with a bit of pressing the congregation, and many people structure their charitable giving around their house of worship.

"Just because the Forward prints something doesn't mean we have to leave our heads at home and accept it uncritically." - sure, but typically Jewish magazines aren't promulgating stories of the Elders of Zion and other mysteries

"I picked on the detail about New York because it seemed to me--perhaps I'm wrong-- that LULU said this detail was particularly "interesting" to him." - yes, maybe he just got off a bus from Kansas, or he thinks 5:1 is a big ratio he was surprised at. Texas is wealthy, but if I learned Texas provided more Tea Party funding than all the other states together, I might let out a "wow".

"All articles about hidden funnels of money do take this tone, but when applied to Jews, they carry the weight of very damaging stereotypes. Given that, I think a writer needs to go to extra lengths to put things into perspective." Give it a break - he's a Yid writing for a Jewish magazine with such anti-Semitic articles as "who are America's most inspiring rabbis" - you're going to have to find your Crowley Illuminati daemonology elsewhere.

"All stereotypes are damaging and inaccurate." Oh bullshit - are Chinese suffering through being thought of as hard-working, honest and good in math? Do Jews suffer from being thought of us excellent classical musicians and leading scientific minds? I'm sure those stereotypes of French having lots of extra-marital affairs, drinking a lot of wine and retiring at 55 are just horrendously unfair and ruinous to their puritan self-image - perhaps Strauss-Kahn, Jacques Chirac and Francois Hollande can call a special UN session to condemn it.

by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 4:29pm

PP: "Ah, 2% IS a drop in the bucket compared to 98%...or "drop in the bucket" doesn't mean anything." - uh, sorry, bud - not sure where you buy your buckets, but drop in the bucket could include GOP bitching about the cost of the National Endowment of the Arts at $160 million in a budget that's $800 billion - that's 0.02% by my reckoning, and $7 billion is a helluva lot of chump change.

PS: By definition 2% is a drop in the bucket, a rounding error, compared to 98% of ANY amount. That's why we use percentages: So we can compare. By itself, $7 billion isn't a large or a small amount of money. It all depends on the context. Compared to another pile of money representing 98% of the total, it's small.

PP: "If the amount that goes through synagogues is undocumented, how do they know it's "much, much larger"? Isn't that kind of a basic question that's gone begging?" - no, it's not - there can be relative understanding of how much bigger contributions are to churches and synagogues without having exact measures. I've seen what you'd guess would be a poor black church raise $5k in 15 minutes with a bit of pressing the congregation, and many people structure their charitable giving around their house of worship.

PS: What does "relative understanding" mean? You could maybe try to extrapolate based on figures you know--though the Forward doesn't provide this basis that I saw--but you need a bit more to substantiate the claim that there's "much more" than $7 billion at stake. What is "much more"? Twice as much again?

PP: "Just because the Forward prints something doesn't mean we have to leave our heads at home and accept it uncritically." - sure, but typically Jewish magazines aren't promulgating stories of the Elders of Zion and other mysteries

PS: I'm talking about what appears to be their fuzzy math.

PP: "I picked on the detail about New York because it seemed to me--perhaps I'm wrong-- that LULU said this detail was particularly "interesting" to him." - yes, maybe he just got off a bus from Kansas, or he thinks 5:1 is a big ratio he was surprised at. Texas is wealthy, but if I learned Texas provided more Tea Party funding than all the other states together, I might let out a "wow".

PS: To be honest, I would not. LULU may have come from Kansas, but he's well known for his interest in Israel and other facets of Jewish life, like Hillel. It's hard to believe that the concentration of Jews in NY would have escaped him, but anything is possible. Best not to overestimate people.

PP: "All articles about hidden funnels of money do take this tone, but when applied to Jews, they carry the weight of very damaging stereotypes. Given that, I think a writer needs to go to extra lengths to put things into perspective." Give it a break - he's a Yid writing for a Jewish magazine with such anti-Semitic articles as "who are America's most inspiring rabbis" - you're going to have to find your Crowley Illuminati daemonology elsewhere.

PS: Sorry, no can do. One's ethnic or racial affiliation is no guarantee of sagacity, fairness or wisdom in one's thinking, partisanship, or writing. Blacks owned slaves; that didn't make it okay.

PP: "All stereotypes are damaging and inaccurate." Oh bullshit - are Chinese suffering through being thought of as hard-working, honest and good in math? Do Jews suffer from being thought of us excellent classical musicians and leading scientific minds? I'm sure those stereotypes of French having lots of extra-marital affairs, drinking a lot of wine and retiring at 55 are just horrendously unfair and ruinous to their puritan self-image - perhaps Strauss-Kahn, Jacques Chirac and Francois Hollande can call a special UN session to condemn it.

PS: They're damaging to the quality of one's thinking and actions stemming there from. It isn't bullshit unless you think that promoting falsehoods is harmless. And they all have downsides that often aren't recognized. Of course, some stereotypes are more damaging than others--like the idea that Jews are a specially powerful source of hidden money, accumulated and moved about in ways unavailable to gentiles.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 9:45pm

"By definition 2% is a drop in the bucket" - again, I call bullshit. If you go in to any CFO in America and tell him/her "we're losing 2% of our revenue because we did X" they won't treat it as a rounding error - they'll scream bloody murder - for some companies 2% *is* there total profit. You're deluded and have some kind of axe to grind.

"relative understanding" - that means here are people who track churches and have a basic idea of magnitude even if they don't have it down to 2% drop-in-the-bucket accuracy.

"fuzzy math" - where have I heard that slur before? oh, the brainiac who brought us Iraq, the unsustainable tax cut act of 2001 and other wonders. Ignored.

"Best not to overestimate people." - funny, I'm now going through a bout of this myself.

"One's ethnic or racial affiliation is no guarantee of sagacity..." - okay, thanks, you just clarified the issue above - note: this is not "One": it's from what I'd guess is a well-respected fairly mainstream Jewish magazine that writes on Jewish issues. It's not a "guarantee" that THE WHOLE EDITORIAL BOARD won't write anything sinister or slurring about Jewish people, just like there's no guarantee the entire board of Caterpillar won't take a vow tomorrow to uphold Amish values and denounce modern technology.

"They're damaging to the quality of one's thinking" - physician, heal thyself.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 1:20am

PS: A drop in the bucket compared to 98%. If you come to the boss screaming about 2% losses, and I come screaming about 98% losses, which do you think he will think is worse? If I'm right, he's no longer the boss.

"relative understanding" - that means here are people who track churches and have a basic idea of magnitude even if they don't have it down to 2% drop-in-the-bucket accuracy.

PS: No, but "much more" requires some explaining and substantiation.

"fuzzy math" - where have I heard that slur before? oh, the brainiac who brought us Iraq, the unsustainable tax cut act of 2001 and other wonders. Ignored.

PS: Read the guy's methodology. He thinks it's the weakest link:

"The final database that I have used to write these stories has a number of inherent problems. The largest, which is discussed at length in my first story, is that religious groups aren’t required to file Form 990s. My database consequently misses thousands of Jewish organizations. I also have no way of knowing how many actual filers my search technique missed. Another issue arises from the fact that the IRS database included all filers in a given calendar year, while the groups were actually filing for fiscal years. That means that our database reflects a mix of fiscal years, many of which don’t overlap.

The grouping of organizations into broad categories, while done as carefully as possible, is necessarily a rough estimate, due to the complexity of some groups and to a lack of information about others.

And finally, many groups in the network likely make grants to each other. That means that some dollars are counted twice when we calculate figures like total revenue and total expenditures for the entire network. I have attempted to account for that in my analysis by discounting from the total revenue, in places, the amount that the communal grant-making groups in the network gave to other organizations within the United States.

PS: Doesn't mean that what they write is clear or well-thought-out.

It's not a "guarantee" that THE WHOLE EDITORIAL BOARD won't write anything sinister or slurring about Jewish people, just like there's no guarantee the entire board of Caterpillar won't take a vow tomorrow to uphold Amish values and denounce modern technology."

PS: Still not the point I addressed.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 6:32pm

That figure makes the figures from The forward look like fairly big potatoes.

No, it does not. You're comparing potatoes with tomatoes.

First of all, the TOTAL amount of U.S. foreign to everyone in the world is considered to be a relatively small amount. Bill Gates could probably give that amount by his lonesome. So could Warren Buffett.

So, you could say that Jews donate more than twice the amount the U.S. gives to Israel. Wow. Or you could use the metric to show what a pittance the U.S. gives in foreign aid--which tends to be the consensus when folks talk about U.S. foreign (unless, maybe, if you're a right winger).

"The U.S. gives so little in foreign aid that Bill Gates could double that aid by himself." Now THAT is an interesting metric.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, they were talking there about total Jewish giving which, however you analyze it, is not ENTIRELY devoted to Israel. So there you would be comparing potatoes to cherry tomatoes.

Third, doesn't it make a little more sense to compare types of personal giving to other types of personal giving instead of comparing one type of personal giving to the giving by an entire country? When you do that, then Jewish big potatoes are as nothing compared to the Everest-size pumpkins non Jews give.

According to the Forward, at least.

If you're going to compare one group's personal giving against a country's giving, then why stop with the U.S.? You could compare the amount Jews give to the amount the U.S. and the EU give. Or anything.

Comparisons only work if there is a common denominator shared by both comparees. Jewish personal giving v non-Jewish personal giving. The common denominator is individuals giving to charitable causes under the same rules and laws.

Otherwise, I could say, "Karim Abdul Jabar is very tall," and you could respond, "No he's not. He's much shorter than a sequoia." Yes, but a sequoia is a tree. Lots of trees are taller than Karim, including the one I just planted in my front yard. You're not saying anything interesting about Karim or about trees when you say that Karim is shorter than a tree.

Or to parallel this example more closely: "Karim Abdul Jabar is so tall, he's taller than a tree. Here, put him next to my 150 year-old bonsai." Yes, a bonsai IS a tree, but it's an exceedingly small tree. Yes, Jews give more than the U.S. in foreign aid to Israel. But a) the U.S. doesn't give a lot of foreign aid, period, and b) you're comparing U.S. aid to Israel with Jewish giving to many different causes (even if it turns out that Israel commands most of the dollars).

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 2:57pm

Along with your perception of dark implications you show a couple times where the article puts the figures and analysis in fair perspective.

I find the article uses a bit of a bait and switch. They start with the dark and foreboding tones and end with a whimper.

It's sort of like opening with, "Willie Mays hit a remarkable 15 home runs in 1964," "what was his hitting secret?" going on and on about it, and then ending with, "Of course, there were at least ten other players who hit 40 home runs that same year."

Okay, but then why did you try to get me so worked up about Willie Mays and his secret? On the Interest-O-Meter don't those 40 home runs by ten other players weigh more heavily?

Why does Willie Mays stand out? Seems like whatever Willie's secret was quite a few other players knew it or had a much more powerful secret than his.

It doesn't say much to say something is "interesting" unless you make clear why and how it's interesting. I don't think this is a personal question.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 03/31/2014 - 3:12pm

Haaretz for some reason has decided that the article is worth carrying as a feature. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that they thought people would be interested in what it had to say. I very much doubt that they believe, or that their editorial position or personal philosophy is, that only Jews have any reason to pay attention to, or to be interested in, the subject.

Coincidentally, today NPR broadcast the first of a two part series largely paralleling the study except they safely only talked about Christian tax exempt charities that call themselves 'churches'. Again, though I may be way off base, I believe that whoever made the decision to finance and then broadcast this story thought that there would be an interested audience for it.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&...

Sorry, no transcript but one is usually available later.

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 9:03pm

safely

What do you mean by "safely"? I heard the broadcast, and I'm not sure I saw anything safe about it. Didn't they say the IRS had turned a blind eye to broadcast companies sporting as "churches."

And who do you think made the decision to "finance and then broadcast it," LULU?

Since earlier you said you were concerned about the use of public money for sectarian purposes on a tax-advantaged basis, I would have thought you'd be wetting your pants when you heard this story.

Maybe now we can get our hands on some of that 98% money that's being siphoned off by charlatans and "good businessmen" like Lamb.

The Forward's covering the Jews--Jews covering Jews--2% of the problem--and npr's covering the goyim--98% of the problem you say you're concerned about. The whole waterfront. Except the Muslims. So maybe we need an extra few percent to fit them in. If Aljazeera would step up to the plate and cover the Muslims cheating the public we'd have the whole ball of wax.

So it seems there's something like 30 religious broadcasters and 22 of them are passing themselves off as "churches." DayStar brings in about $250 million a year on which it pays no taxes and gives out only about 5% for charity. That's less than the Forward claims the Jews give out for Health and Social Services. Who knew?

So let's multiply 22 by $250 million--PP has already blessed this kind of math--we come to $5.5 billion. Christ! And that's just from broadcasting companies that are pretending to be churches. And as they noted...all hidden from view with the connivance of the IRS.

The Jews, by contrast, only came up with $7 billion using their whole, nationwide charitable infrastructure.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 9:28pm

What do I mean by "safely"? Since you are determined to make this personal and imply that there is something wrong with my finding the Jewish Forward article 'interesting' I will narrow my reply to only refer to you and say that I meant that it was 'safe' to assume that you, Peter Schwartz, would not have a knee-jerk reaction to the broadcast of the story since it was only about Christian organizations, and if I had posted a link to the NPR story about Christian organizations first I do not think you would have looked hard for reasons to question my motives and imply that they are 'dark'. You did not immediately suspect NPR of having 'dark' motives in its broadcast of this story, did you?

And who do you think made the decision to "finance and then broadcast it," LULU?

I think that that would obviously be the management and editorial board of NPR.

Since earlier you said you were concerned about the use of public money for sectarian purposes on a tax-advantaged basis, I would have thought you'd be wetting your pants when you heard this story.

Here is exactly what I said with some added emphasis. " The tax implications also seem significant and noting them in this case is not suggesting that they are different or less significant in other cases. I do not like exemptions for religion in any case".

And, I'm guessing I quit wetting my pants before you were born. When do you guess you will quit?

by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 10:31pm

LULU, the problem here for you is that I speak and read English.

When you said "safely," you weren't referring to me or my reactions. This is something you're adding on now.

When I asked you what you meant by "safely," I was asking you what you meant by that word since you used it. In what sense was it safe for them to broadcast this story?

This isn't a "personal" question--like what was it like growing up as a guy called LULU--I'm asking you to elucidate the meaning of what you wrote for public consumption.

(If there is a personal story behind your use of this word, then by all means share it if you want to.)

This is a common question that writers get asked all the time. I had a philosophy professor who frequently asked his students, to the point of self parody, "what do you mean by that?" in which "that" could be a sentence, a word, a phrase.

The same point applies to the question, "Why do you find that 'interesting'?" Or "What's interesting about that?" Or "what's safe about broadcasting that story?"

Your go-to answer on the first two--that you don't like government money being used for sectarian purposes--would seem a little weak inasmuch as you sniffed at the same question being posed by npr.

I could and am asking the same questions of the Forward writer and npr, even though their answers seem to be a bit more clearly stated than yours, hiding as they are behind the word "interesting."

Saying that a meaty, worthwhile article is "interesting" is about as interesting as someone describing the day as "pleasant." That description is only interesting in what it doesn't say. Someone who went around calling the day "pleasant" and his state of mind as "fine" would call attention to himself as someone who didn't want to say much about the day or his state of mind or what he was really thinking.

Anyway, you seem unwilling to answer even basic questions about what you write, and that makes you uninteresting in my book. At least on this thread.

So perhaps there's added sensitivity on that point on the part of those who've been accused falsely.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 8:29am

LULU, the problem here for you is that I speak and read English.

That is no problem to me unless you misread or 'read into' what I write.
One thing you could not let go of was why I found the FORWARD article interesting but would not make a great effort to explain that interest to your satisfaction. I did not/do not feel any obligation to try to satisfy you on that point. What I did instead was offer several respected individuals or news sources, out of very many that you can google, that also found it interesting and used that fact as a way to say that the article created legitimate interest in its subject among a wide variety of people and I am one of them. Exploring in depth why that is so is off-topic to the post in a way I chose not to follow.

I did already know that there were many Jews in NYC. I was a bit surprised that NY had 25% of all the Jews in the country though, and further surprised that they gave well over 25% of the donations that were studied. I would have expected that the average level of donations per capita would be more even across the country by affiliation rather than so much higher in one concentrated geographical location. It was interesting to find out the extent to which that supposition was wrong.

Your go-to answer on the first two--that you don't like government money being used for sectarian purposes--would seem a little weak inasmuch as you sniffed at the same question being posed by npr.

You completely misread my reference to the NPR program even though both were in English. I did not "sniff" at any question being posed by them. I think it was a worthwhile pursuit and might have linked to it even if the context created by the earlier Forward link had not existed. I pointed out that the closely parallel article was about Christians in the same way that The Forwards article was about Jews. That reference was to demonstrate, or at least assert, that NPR could probe Christian charities, which I strongly believe deserve the attention, and do so safe in the knowledge that their motives for doing so would not get attacked as being anti-Christian.

When you said "safely," you weren't referring to me or my reactions. This is something you're adding on now.

No, maybe I wasn't clear or maybe your reading comprehension is a bit clowded by an attitude. Since this exchange is between you and me and your pointed/loaded questions are about me, that example as explained in a follow-up was in fact meant to make a point by referring to you as an example. You didn't immediately suspect NPR of dark motives and expect them or anyone else who found the article interesting to explain, by which I think you mean justify, their interest in the subject, did you?
As to your opening paragraph, the difference lies in this: Christians haven't experienced a 1000-year-old of being persecuted (as in killed, deported, and otherwise excluded) on the false charge that they are controlling the world's money flows to oppress the majority culture and profit their own kind.

I think more than a few Christians have been vilified and many killed because they were Christians. The term WASP is still used to put a lot of blame on a distinct ethnic group with a common religion that is accused of being responsible for lots of bad stuff. I understand that the Jewish experience is more recent and of more important current relevance.

So perhaps there's added sensitivity on that point on the part of those who've been accused falsely.

So, being sensitive as you are, maybe you will tell me, have you personally, here or other places, 'been accused falsely'? Can you imagine that others have been also in some over-used meme and might not like it either? Do you think it is a point of Jewish privilege not shared by others to be offended when it happens?

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 1:13pm

I have explained the moniker, "A Guy Called LULU" a few times before. My first ever blog post was at TPMCAFE. I was interested [there's that word again] in Leo Strauss and posted something as Lulu Strauss and referred to Uncle Leo who thought this or that. After a short while I changed that and blogged and commented for quite a while as RJB. Then the few stages of the death of the Cafe began and there was a while when I could not get logged on in any way I could find except as Lulu Strauss. Later, after some understandable gender confusion and at a time when sock puppets were an issue, I was finally able to modify my ID but did not want to change what was then my known identity so now I am A Guy called LULU. There are no retroactive childhood influences that are traumatically related to the name LULU, but thanks for your concern.

by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 1:20pm

Hmmm, and there I thought you were riffing on "A Boy Named Sue" (or Lola?), or trying a takeoff with Lulupalooza. Or wait! I actually never gave it much thought. But I'm sure there's some Satanic twist we missed.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 3:56pm

PS: Yes, I understand that you don't want to talk about why you found the article interesting.

I did already know that there were many Jews in NYC. I was a bit surprised that NY had 25% of all the Jews in the country though, and further surprised that they gave well over 25% of the donations that were studied. I would have expected that the average level of donations per capita would be more even across the country by affiliation rather than so much higher in one concentrated geographical location. It was interesting to find out the extent to which that supposition was wrong.

PS: If you look at the interactive map, you'll see that the per capita contributions appear to be higher in Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma than they are in NY.

Your go-to answer on the first two--that you don't like government money being used for sectarian purposes--would seem a little weak inasmuch as you sniffed at the same question being posed by npr.

You completely misread my reference to the NPR program even though both were in English. I did not "sniff" at any question being posed by them. I think it was a worthwhile pursuit and might have linked to it even if the context created by the earlier Forward link had not existed. I pointed out that the closely parallel article was about Christians in the same way that The Forwards article was about Jews. That reference was to demonstrate, or at least assert, that NPR could probe Christian charities, which I strongly believe deserve the attention, and do so safe in the knowledge that their motives for doing so would not get attacked as being anti-Christian.

PS: How unsafe was it for the Forward and Haaretz and all the many other sources you mention to publish this study? Then there was the dark reference to "financing" the npr story. The public finances npr--what's your point?

When you said "safely," you weren't referring to me or my reactions. This is something you're adding on now.

No, maybe I wasn't clear or maybe your reading comprehension is a bit clowded by an attitude. Since this exchange is between you and me and your pointed/loaded questions are about me, that example as explained in a follow-up was in fact meant to make a point by referring to you as an example. You didn't immediately suspect NPR of dark motives and expect them or anyone else who found the article interesting to explain, by which I think you mean justify, their interest in the subject, did you?

PS: There's nothing loaded or personal about my questions, LULU. I just asked you why you found the article interesting.

As to your opening paragraph, the difference lies in this: Christians haven't experienced a 1000-year-old of being persecuted (as in killed, deported, and otherwise excluded) on the false charge that they are controlling the world's money flows to oppress the majority culture and profit their own kind.

I think more than a few Christians have been vilified and many killed because they were Christians. The term WASP is still used to put a lot of blame on a distinct ethnic group with a common religion that is accused of being responsible for lots of bad stuff. I understand that the Jewish experience is more recent and of more important current relevance.

PS: I think you may have the same confusion over the difference between 2% and 98% that Peracles has.

So perhaps there's added sensitivity on that point on the part of those who've been accused falsely.

So, being sensitive as you are, maybe you will tell me, have you personally, here or other places, 'been accused falsely'? Can you imagine that others have been also in some over-used meme and might not like it either? Do you think it is a point of Jewish privilege not shared by others to be offended when it happens?

PS: You've decided that I'm accusing you...that I'm taking this personally...when what I'm doing is asking you what you found interesting and important about this article.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 6:51pm

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Staggering-Reality-of-Jewish-Charity-Wealth

"The information revealed is simply staggering, even for those of us knowledgeable and aware of organized Jewish power dominating American politics, media, finance and culture."

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/03/forward-study-of-the-jewish-charity-industry/

"...when broken down to particular categories, they indicate that Jewish activist organizations are indeed well funded, especially when compared to the financial resources of organizations that oppose Jewish interests (probably well under $1 million for organizations explicitly dedicated to advancing the interests of White Americans)."

The bigotry isn't really dead. It's just dormant and seeps out around the fringes. Even though Jews control America's universities, this Macdonald character has managed to hang on to his tenured teaching position. Don't know how.

Other than these two references and the Haaretz reprint and a brief mention in Tablet, I didn't find a lot of comment on the study via Google.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 8:31pm

Well there's this post also on Dagblog! :) It is strange that this study is presented here. Also, apparently the study excludes synagogue revenues and expenses. But that's where kids get educated -- in Hebrew schools in synagogues. But this is real Hebe inside baseball kinda stuff, no???

Edited to Add -- I mean that's where us regular folks give most of our money for Jewish stuff, directly to our local shuls, no?

by Bruce Levine on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 10:40pm

apparently the study excludes synagogue revenues and expenses.

Makes total sense to me. I would not categorize Catholic church and parochial school revenues and expenditures as charitable giving. It's the cost of the religion born by its members. Charitable giving would be above and beyond that.

This gets confused, I think, by some religions' principles of tithing (or zakat,) where all giving, whether to the religion's infrastructure or to actual charity gets thrown into the one 10% bundle? Back when I was a kid, I remember our Catholic church experimenting with pushing tithing, because I remember my parents talking about it. And the wording was apropos of what we are talking about along the lines of: one should give 10% back to God. Not charity or your fellow man in need, but God. I guess that means God's representatives on earth, the clergy, would be deciding which fellow men needed part of God's intake, and which church roofs needed gilding more. (Sounds awful Mormony don't it? The Elders know best.)

by artappraiser on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 1:00am

Indeed, those elders (who are now younger than me more often than not)! Actually, my Rabbi did a thing on tithing a couple of years ago and really pushed it. You would think the dude was talking to a bunch of rich Jews in New York of something!

Anyway, I guess if we put our tithings together we could market something like Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:51am

If I'm reading the article correctly--which is hard because it leaves a lot of gaps in reasoning and proof-giving IMO--money given to synagogues is the darkest of the dark money because there is no IRS reporting and thus no public accounting for it.

The author opines that this unreported money is "much more" than the reported money. How he knows it's "much more," and how he knows how much of this dark, unreported money goes to Israel, is unclear to me.

PP finds it clear; I don't. Maybe it is "much more," and maybe it isn't. Maybe he means it's much more than the reported amount, or maybe he means that it simply adds much more to the reported amount (but isn't necessarily much more itself than the reported amount).

IOW, say, $10 billion is reported, but the unreported $3 billion adds to it and makes the real total much more than the reported total.

Since I don't belong to a shul, I don't know how the giving works. I'm sure part of it goes for ongoing expenses, e.g., rabbi's salary, building maintenance and expansion, staff, education, and special drives such as Soviet Jewry (way back when), Ethiopian Jews, and various "Israel-focused" purposes.

My point below is that "Israel-focused" is probably a meaningless category because it's too broad. It could mean anything from supporting a Hadassah hospital...funding "heritage" trips for kids to go to Israel...scholarships to attend the Technion...and on and on and on.

Here's what I mean...

Aside from the author's desire, a legitimate one IMO, to clarify and understand the Jewish charitable giving infrastructure, his findings lead him to conclude these things:

• Jewish funders make a big deal of all the good works--meaning health, social welfare, educational projects--they support with donors' money. But in fact, they give a smaller percentage of these funds to these causes and a much higher percentage to "Israel-focused" than donors think and are led to believe by the fundraisers. There's a sort of bait and switch going on.

• The author thinks this is wrong and the percentages should be reversed. The Forward thinks its readership probably agrees and is actually running an informal poll in which respondents are shown the current percentages (X% is given to this; Y% is given to that) and asked what they think the percentages should be. How should the Jewish community be allocating its funding dollars?

• This is his main point, IMO. Second, he asserts that these, in his view skewed, priorities are funded (made possible) by government grants and involvement. Without government assistance, the Jewish community couldn't muster all this dough. Government involvement would be more justified, in his view, if giving priorities focused on "good works" and not so "Israel focused." He doesn't say this, but I infer this given his principal thesis.

• Nevertheless, this much government assistance to folks with a highly sectarian agenda is probably not such a good idea. Tax-advantaged donations rob the Treasury of much-needed funds. He doesn't say this directly either, but I think it's probably a good inference.

• What makes government assistance even more problematic is the money that's spent on "fundraising infrastructure." Galas, gambling, salaries, huge staffs. One bit of irony here is his observation that Jewish "Israel-focused" fundraising is much more cost-efficient than Jewish "do good" fundraising, a point that's somewhat at odds with his subsidiary concerns about government funding. At least "Israel focused" fundraising gives donors a much better bang for their buck.

• Increasingly, what I find problematic is the lack of definitional clarity to the term "Israel focused." From my little bit of experience in this area, people give all kinds of "do good" money to Israel, or to specific projects inside Israel, including social service and educational projects. Does the author find this problematic; if so, why? Should American Jews be giving only, or primarily, to do good projects in the US or do good projects that don't involve Jews? Or what?

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 8:31am

I've never belonged to a synagogue that wasn't existing on an annual operating budget deficit. I can assure the writer of this piece (who probably really knows this cuz it ain't profound), those of us who have served on temple boards of directors would love to have the kind of surplus "dark" money laying around so that we could decide whether to buy a tank in Israel or a machberet for little Suzy Lou. Oy, I feel like I'm bearing my soiled laundry to the goyim! :) Next thing ya know they'll be demanding to see our tax returns!!!!

Wait, how did this piece get here? Am I in the wrong place????

Snicker.

Peter, the reason this was posted is obvious -- you know it, I know it, and we all know it. Whatever.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 8:45am

What's interesting is that when I did a brief Google search for this study, as LULU suggested, I came up with tons of Forward links, the one Haaretz link, and then a couple of anti-Semitic links from folks like MacDonald and the "Catholic" site. I didn't see Juan Cole's link.

I only went a page or three into the listings, but that's what I found. Then there were other studies, like this one, mixed in:

Jews Twice as Charitable in Wills

Study Says Far More Likely To Back Communal Groups

American Jews provide for charities in their wills nearly twice as often as people of other faiths, a new study shows.

Of course, a Jewish newspaper like the Forward would publish a study like this. Perhaps there should be a section on Dagblog devoted to What Jews Do With Their Money. Could work. Maybe under Satire. Or Satyr, so Jolly could participate.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:25am

I also think it's worth pointing out that while the Synagogues might not have to report anything to the IRS, anyone who wants to claim a tax exemption for money that they're giving to Synagogues has to report that giving to the IRS in order to make such a claim. That money ain't as dark as it is being made out to be. (Note, I'm not an accountant or lawyer, so if my understanding is wrong here, please correct me.)

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:16am

So far as I know, and I ain't no accountant or tax specialist, the money I pay to the synagogue is deductible as a charitable expense. Actually, I think what I get from my temple for tax purposes is a form that lists every payment from me, and breaks it down into deductible (e.g. Hebrew School, annual dues, contributions, etc.) and non-deductible payments (e.g. a dinner on Friday night after services). I think that's how it works for all religious organizations. States might have different rules.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:31am

Good point.

I guess, though, that personal returns are confidential, so perhaps the authors mean these sums are dark in that they couldn't get their hands on them?

Although, it seems to me that I see aggregated tax numbers in various contexts. For example, the total amount of tax deductions for real estate or other line items.

But yes, no one seems to be hiding anything, and I don't see the authors claiming that. But as soon as someone says that certain sums aren't "reported" or can't be accessed, the working assumption is the money is funding dubious activities and the funders want to keep everything hush-hush.

Kind of like LULU wanting to keep his thinking hush-hush.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:33am

See below.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:35am

I'm not asking about whether the Forward or npr or Haaretz felt their readers or listeners would be interested in these stories. They clearly thought there would be interest in them.

I'm asking YOU what YOU find interesting about them.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 04/01/2014 - 9:31pm

I personally find it interesting because at a time when we can't fund basic government services because we give tax cuts we can't afford and fund useless wars and unconstitutional mass surveillance, we also find it in our hearts not to collect taxes on spurious "charities" that aren't regulated or even itemized and might not be doing anything charitable at all.

A drop in a bucket here, a drop in a bucket there - sooner or later you have a real bucket.

Yes, write about both the 98% and the 2%. It all sucks.

by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 1:08am

These are all valid points, IMO.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 8:31am

That percentage is U.S. government aid as U.S. foreign aid is is usually characterized as being big bucks...

If you look into it, I think you'll find that the only people who think our foreign aid is "big bucks" are the people who don't much like foreign aid.

Folks in the know will tell you that it's a miniscule piece of our total budget.

That said, Israel, last I read, gets the biggest chunk of foreign of any country who receives it. Until recently, Egypt was in second place and for a connected reason.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 6:58pm

I agree that Israel is not a developing country.

But Egypt probably is.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 7:41pm

Perhaps lulu posted this because he is upset that Jews aren't giving enough to Hillel?

I do think that the tax-exempt status for non-profits is an incredibly important social issue.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 3:27pm

That's half of what the Forward writer is upset about: Hillel, hospitals, social service agencies. In his second article, he provides a link to his methodology, and there it becomes clear that a lot of donations DO go to charitable causes--far more than the 5% the phony churches pay out.

The other half is the tax-exempt status.

On the same day I heard the npr story about phony churches, there was also a story on food stamps as a major source of revenue for food and agriculture business.

The IRS is prevented by regulation or rule from revealing how much SNAP money is going to Wal*Mart and others. However, you can hear their executives on investor conference calls explaining good or bad business performance based, to some substantial degree, on the flow of SNAP money into their coffers. The recent cut in SNAP is having a major impact on them.

Worse perhaps, the IRS actually PITCHES businesses on the economic benefit they will gain by participating in the SNAP program.

This is taxpayer money that is lining the pockets of the Waltons, et al, but the taxpayer is prevented from getting a run down on how this money is spent.

Of course, it's complicated. It's in the public interest (I would say) for SNAP recipients to be able to buy food and other items from a wide range of conveniently located stores and not have to trek miles to use their SNAP benefits at just a few, poorly stocked, stores selling crap food.

And, in an economic downturn, there's nothing wrong with helping businesses so that they can hire more people, pay more taxes, and so on. But complexity raises its head again. As many have noted, many of these employees receive such low wages they themselves require SNAP cards to live. That's a bit like the government enabling-by-financing subsistence wages and improving WalMart's bottom line through public assistance. Maybe WalMart is the real Welfare Queen.

Overall, the article reminded me how thoroughly intertwined the public and private sectors are. It's one big pool of money that just gets divided up among the players from low to high.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 8:49am

The Forward’s investigation has uncovered a tax-exempt Jewish communal apparatus that operates on the scale of a Fortune 500 company and focuses the largest share of its donor dollars on Israel.

What's odd about this statement is that it appears right next to a pie chart that clearly shows the biggest chunk of money goes to health and social services. Then, the next pie chart makes this point.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 9:00am

Good catch. The first pie chart is interactive, meaning there's a drop down list that allows you to view different aspects. The closest I can come to the second pie chart is if I choose "Net assets", and although it's not that close it does show that the "Israel" component has slightly more than half the assets, and the "Health care and social service" component has around 5%. My knowledge of finance is limited, but my intuition says that the "Net assets" bit isn't as interesting as the "Expenses" bit, where the "Health care and social service" component is the biggest piece of the pie, and "Israel" comes in fourth. I think that the discrepancy might come from there being more pledged to "Israel" than they tend to expense, whereas the "Health care and social service" is running closer to the bone. This is hardly surprising to me, as the latter is probably more volatile. (Of course, I'm guilty of post hoc explanation there, and all of the biases it includes.)

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 03/27/2014 - 9:13am

Here are a couple of other oddities about this article.

• They are at pains to note that the greatest sums are given to "Israel-focused" organizations and not health, education and social welfare organizations. They seem to want to point out a certain dissembling by these charitable organizations claiming to be focused on health and welfare when, in fact, they are sending all their money to Israel. Whatever that means.

• However, they don't define what is included under "Israel focused." From what I've read, much money goes for health, education and social welfare in Israel. Is that money counted, or should it be counted, as "Israel focused"... or as "health and welfare" focused? Can it only be counted as the latter when the health and welfare take place in the U.S. or anywhere else but Israel?

Then there's this...from the section on Money In New York.

Most of the largest organizations in the network by any measure are located in New York City.

Yeshiva University spends the most in a year of any Jewish group, followed by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which distributes funds from the German government to Jewish individuals and charities. Other top spenders include Brandeis, the New York-based American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and Beth Abraham Health Services, a Bronx-based health care organization that is a network agency of UJA-Federation of New York.

So, after all this, the one organization that spends THE MOST is a New York university...followed by a group that does work with German reparations... followed by a university in Massachusetts...followed by a distribution committee of some nature...followed by a Bronx-based health care organization.

Doesn't really sound like all this money is "Israel-focused." Perhaps it is in some way. Maybe YU sends a lot of money to its Tel Aviv campus. But should that be counted as "Israel focused" or "education focused"? The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee sounds scary; don't know what it does except distribute money, I guess. But Beth Abraham would seem to do a lot health-related work.

Sloppy writing.

I suspect Juan Cole just picked up on the headline: Jews give 26 billion to Israel. He's not known for being concerned with the tax status of non-profit organizations.

by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 04/02/2014 - 7:36pm

He specifically states:

The 619 Israel-focused organizations include advocacy agencies, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee; groups that send money to Israel, like American Friends of The Hebrew University, and hybrids, like Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America.

And he notes "donor dollars" which he labels as $3.x billion, which helps to clarify to what he's referring to - not the whole pie.

by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 2:45am

But this sort of shows the meaninglessness of the term "Israel-focused" when it is contrasted with the category of "health, education and social welfare."

If the latter occurs in Israel, is it "Israel-focused" or is it "health-focused"? Can it only be the latter if it occurs outside of Israel? Only in the U.S.? Is Europe okay?

Plus, there's this: If you go to the Hadassah Web site as a donor, you have a long a la carte menu that allows you to "choose your impact," i.e., where your money goes.

Here's one entry, out of 20 or 30, for "trauma care":

"Hadassah Medical Organization is known worldwide for its expertise in responding to medical crises. Its ER and Trauma Unit have played critical roles in treating victims of terror incidents and mass casualty events, in Israel and abroad. It was the first Trauma Unit in Israel and is the only Level 1-A unit in the Greater Jerusalem Region. HMO physicians helped Japan create its first hospice; performed eye surgery on thousands of blind Kenyans, enabling them to see again; trained Thai medical personnel in bone marrow transplantation; participated in a pilot program of adult male circumcision in Swaziland, to help stem the spread of AIDS; set up field hospitals in Haiti after a devastating earthquake; helped plan, construct and open a hospital in Kinshasa, Congo, and more."

Of course, it's hard to know how much of my "trauma dollar" is going to go to help Japanese, Kenyans, Thais, Haitians, or Congolese...compared, say, to Israelis.

This paragraph might be a self-serving attempt to convince donors and outsiders that a donation to Hadassah isn't merely a parochial gift to fellow Jews or, worse, Israelis. And to make donors feel good about all the good they're doing.

It could also be a pack of lies or a pile of dissembling.

However, this paragraph does suggest that lumping all donations to Hadassah into a basket called "Israel-focused" gives at least a somewhat false impression that all this money is simply going to Israelis or Israel.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 10:45am

Not at all relevant to the discussion, and I realize that we're talking about Israel where they're less likely to make the connection, but naming a medical organization "HMO"…

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 11:30am

There are ironies everywhere you look these days.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 1:16pm

On "Dark" Money. I have no doubt that there are folks who are very adept at sending ooodles of squillions of dollars to extremist of extreme expansionist settlers in the West Bank. That is something that would be an interesting component -- a component -- of a much broader social discussion about the misuse of the US Tax Code while bridges crumble.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 9:43am

Peter, after you had asked multiple times and I had given a couple short answers but mainly said that I chose not to follow your urge to discuss why I found the article ‘interesting’, I explained that it was a diversion from the topic of the article itself that I did not want to pursue. That is because, though I didn’t say so, I did not want to get baited into going down a path that was likely to get ugly. Still, you continue to bring that up. My conclusion is that you are attempting to imply, over and over again, that I have dark motives for posting it. It appears to me that you believe you are making a point with the question and that you believe that you are emphasizing that point every time you ask it. I believe you are attempting to imply, over and over, that I have bad motives. I am open to being corrected on that score and hopeful that you will do so, Unless of course I am correct in my low grade inconsequential paranoia, that is. So, I ask you to clearly say no, it is not a rhetorical question with a negative implication or else have the intellectual honesty to say clearly what you really mean. Or, just explain why you cannot accept interest as a reason and yet are so 'interested’ in why I am interested
After either honoring my request or not, you certainly are not obligated to do so, if you are still curious I suggest you ask bslev, a person who has responded quite angrily a couple times when I pressed him a couple of times to answer a question, why I posted the article. That is even though he endorses my suspicions when he says, quote “Peter, the reason this was posted is obvious -- you know it, I know it, we all know it”. If he is willing to quit blowing his dog whistle and speak in clear English saying what he "knows", you will have your answer to both my motives, at least according to Dagblog’s mind reader, and to my reason for not wanting to go off-topic in the way you keep pushing for..

by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 1:18pm

Here are a couple of the thoughts that have occurred to me as I have followed various analysis of the Forward article.
When a contribution is given tax free it is considered that the U.S. government has subsidized that contribution. If Mr. Adleson or any one else contributes a billion dollars to Israeli charities which support needed social programs, it costs him much less that a billion dollars to do so. The difference is the U.S. subsidy to that contribution. Money is fungible. That billion dollars frees up a billion of Israeli tax money to, for instance, subsidize new settlements or pay the costs of occupation of Palestine. That would seem to be perfectly legal and it would be seen as a good thing by some but by others, including me, to be a counter-productive unintended consequence of our tax code. I don't want my tax money to support that occupation in any way while having absolutely no objection to anyone anywhere contributing to beneficial social programs.
Next, money going to Hillel is, in my opinion, an example of money going to what the article refers to as Israel related activities which can be called educational. I don't recall for sure but I don't think the article makes this same connection. A look at the National Hillel organizations mission statement, or what their president has clearly and forcefully stated more than once, shows that Hillel is intended to foster and strengthen the attachment of U.S. citizens who are young American Jews to the [foreign] Jewish state of Israel. Included in their mission is the reinforcement of some definite political positions, many of which which I also do not agree with, demonstrated by their refusal to allow dissenting voices from even highly respected Jewish persons or organizations, whether of Israeli or U.S. origin, that are critical of those political positions. I recognize their right to operate in this way but I do not respect it. As I said in the past, I admire the stand of Open Hillel.

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 1:50pm

The question is, how does this differ (legally) from people donating money to help earthquake victims in Haiti, or tsunami victims in Japan? It seems that the choices available to us are:

Eliminate all tax advantages for charitable giving.
Change the tax code so that the only charitable write-offs allowed are for organizations that are required to keep the charity in the United States (maybe to help fund organizations wanting to bring the joys of dressage to disadvantaged youths)^*
Change the tax code so that only x% of charitable giving is deductible from your income. E.g., if you donate $50,000 and x% is 50%, then you get to deduct $25,000 from your income, but you still have to pay taxes on the other $25,000.
Keep the status quo.

I'm probably missing some options here, but the main point I'm making is that singling out Jewish contributions to Israel is probably not the best way to argue a point against charitable donations being used outside our country (and neither is using the example of earthquake or tsunami victims).

^*Note that contributions to foreign organizations are not deductible, with a few exceptions listed here.

by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 2:17pm

Thanks for the link. Sorry, pressed too fast and meant to say that lots of this must involve how "religious organization" is defined for tax purposes.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 4:31pm

I think LULU would argue that he's not against tax-advantaged charitable giving and wouldn't want that eliminated, but is against giving to Israel being tax advantaged.

He may be against the religious exemption for all faiths across the board as well.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 6:53pm

Okay, this is clear.

You don't like public U.S. money, directly or indirectly, going to Israel.

I'll add...as long as this money could be construed to be in any way abetting the occupation or building new settlements, and so on.

Tax-advantaged money is a way of using public U.S. money, albeit indirectly, for this purpose.

I guess we'd have to add that any money going to Israel abets these projects--even, say, building a new hospital--because, presumably, it frees up money for the occupation that would otherwise be needed to build the hospital.

So, if any money is being sent to Israel by Americans it shouldn't be augmented with tax advantages. If Adelson wants to send Israel a billion, he should have to pay the full tax bill on it.

Not much time now, but the fungibility argument has some limits, IMO. Let's say, the occupation is costing $500K a year and American Jews are sending $1 million a year to various causes in Israel.

Is it fair to say that the full $1 million is abetting the occupation when the occupation is costing only $500K?

This is simplified, and I'm not sure math like this could be worked out. And maybe the occupation is costing much more than, or an amount equal to, what American Jews are contributing.

But still, I think this principle is fair. Do you?

Beyond this, while money IS fungible, in practice, it seems not to be. IOW, when an organization or a person stops paying for X, it doesn't necessarily mean he's going to use that money for Y. It depends on his priorities. And sometimes money gets spent even when, by the numbers, an organization doesn't have it.

So let's say I object to the occupation and decide to register that objection by withholding money I've been giving for a new hospital in the slums of Tel Aviv. Does my withholding make it harder for Israel to continue the occupation? Or does it just make it less likely that they'll build the hospital? Have we hurt the occupation, or have we deprived people of a hospital?

(I don't know the answer to this question.)

Think of it this way: Did we ever really benefit from the "peace dividend"? Or did that money just get spent in other objectionable ways, forgetting for the moment that we had a booming economy, and thus a lot more tax money, in the 1990s.

Later...

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 2:48pm

I just find that you have a strange obsession with things Jewish. I'm not even sure if it's an anti-semitic thing or what. Doesn't matter to me. But I do find it to be an incredibly curious obsession. And I think that obsession is reflected in your decision to post this without being able to articulate it's significance outside the hood or in the context of a broader discussion of the misuse of the tax code.

I also think you get a rush about being told this stuff, as if it reinforces your presumption that debate is being stifled. I find it odd, yes.

by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 1:52pm

I find people have a strange obsession with their own heritage. I'm supposedly Scottish, but the only thing I know about it is an Ewan McGregor line about being "colonized by wankers", and some sort of reversion of power that may or may not have happened. I certainly don't eat haggis or wear plaid skirts, and tend to Southern or Irish whiskey if I must. Ditto for anything religious - I use it as a literary reference, but beyond that, I have more affinity for the Church of Bob.

So if I'm interested in anything - war in the Congo, epigenetics, Tuvan throat singing, SpaceX launches, massive mortgage foreclosure, Ethiopian food, flying penguins - it just happens to be something that perks my curiosity (or possible angers me beyond all belief). Since I don't believe in God, or not even much in Bob, and have reconciled myself to my own mediocreness, I can't say I've had any divine directive for doing anything or feeling superior, and "my people" is probably my immediate household and possibly my extended family if they still talk to me.

So I find it inherently curious even that people self-identify as Democrats (vs. a more generic "liberal" or "progressive" or "anarcho-syndicalist") or have identity issues tied in with identity politics. I'm guessing Lulu might be similar - that he has no particular reason for doing much of anything outside of orneriness or perverse curiosity, and while people who are inherently stuck on some of these issues think there has to be a reason why someone talked about this or that, the real answer is "I talk about everything". Of course it's the real world, so when you talk about "everything", someone will argue about "something", typically the least interesting part of "everything", but then it becomes a sport like arm wrestling and half-nekkid mud wrestling, and even though I don't have a dog in most fights (I don't even own a dog), I still find myself rising to the useless challenge.

So probably Lulu's motivation is simply "it caught my eye" perhaps mixed a little bit with a mischievous Bluto starting a foodfight, except it's so incredibly easy to start a foodfight over anything that touches some 3rd rail that probably that part's worn thin and exhausting, so it's just "maybe I can bring up something I found interesting and then weather the inevitable shit storm/picking of nits".

So probably sharing nothing with Lulu aside from being white male American and coming up with idiosyncratic punnish pseudonyms, maybe it would be nice if the world could recognize that having a cause or a clan is way way overrated, and as most drinkers know, your family can be the dude next to you and the beer right in front of you and nothing that comes out really matters.

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 10:26am

This "caught my eye" idea MIGHT be a good theory IF he hadn't already explained his interest and didn't provide lots of examples of the same, e.g., Hillel, prior to this.

Your hankering for "useless challenges" seems to be stronger than most--just based on a rough calculation--but that's just the Internet.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 11:30am

Pot meet kettle. Kettle, meet Ma Kettle.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 11:50am

Whip-lash time.

This "caught my eye" idea MIGHT be a good theory IF he hadn't already explained his interest and didn't provide lots of examples of the same, ...

The Forward article that I linked to brought forth some good analysis of, and some reasonable discussion about, its topic. The only thing that started out contentious and remained that way is; WHY did LULU post it? You push that over and over even after I made several responses which, whether satisfying to you or not, did address the point. Above I asked you to explain why YOU are so dedicated to making making MY interest an issue. [ignoring, or wanting to, that there is a lot of interest in a lot of places about the article as well as another investigation about the same subject but investigated it as it relates to a different group] I said what I was thinking about that question. I also suggested that bslev's dog-whistle is one that he obviously expected you to hear. Is he right to think you are one to jump through that hoop on signal. Am I right to think you have been dancing all around it. You did not even pretend to answer any of my questions about why. Why not, PETER.
Whether you accept my answers as sufficient or not, do you allow the possibility that my interest in things involving American Jews and/or Israel could be part of a greater, more expansive but connected, interest which is legitimately connected to important things going on in the world?
I am unusually pressed for time. Maybe I can get into it all at depth enough to satisfy you later.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 2:17pm

Point of personal privilege. There is no dog whistle here. I don't think there is any ambiguity.

Edited to add that the lack of ambiguity goes to what I based my previously expressly belief on, i.e. an obsession with Jewish stuff. Not sure where dog whistles come into play, which is what you write I'm writing to PS about.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 4:04pm

The Forward article that I linked to brought forth some good analysis of, and some reasonable discussion about, its topic. The only thing that started out contentious and remained that way is; WHY did LULU post it?

PS: The only reason it remained contentious is that you refused to answer it.

You push that over and over even after I made several responses which, whether satisfying to you or not, did address the point.

PS: It did NOT address the point. What you said was that some other people decided to post it, so you posted it. My question went to...what about the content of the article interests you and why.

Above I asked you to explain why YOU are so dedicated to making making MY interest an issue.

PS: I spoke to that at the top. I seemed to me, as it has of late, that you do a lot of dancing around your point. So I asked you what your point was. You decided to not answer.

[ignoring, or wanting to, that there is a lot of interest in a lot of places about the article as well as another investigation about the same subject but investigated it as it relates to a different group]

PS: I didn't ignore it. I went looking for it. When I Googled it, I found a lot of Forward links, one Haaretz link, and two links by anti-Semitic sites.

I said what I was thinking about that question. I also suggested that bslev's dog-whistle is one that he obviously expected you to hear.

PS: I piped up before Bruce, I believe.

Is he right to think you are one to jump through that hoop on signal. Am I right to think you have been dancing all around it.

PS: Again, I asked my questions before Bruce did. What hoop is that, btw?

You did not even pretend to answer any of my questions about why. Why not, PETER.

PS: Because I wasn't responding based on what Bruce said. I was responding based on what you said.

Whether you accept my answers as sufficient or not, do you allow the possibility that my interest in things involving American Jews and/or Israel could be part of a greater, more expansive but connected, interest which is legitimately connected to important things going on in the world?

PS: I totally accept that possibility. I'm happy to read any answer. Above, you finally decided to answer the "why" and I responded to it and built on it. Take a look. And if the "why" is part of a "greater, more expansive, but connected interest..." then I don't know why you couldn't have said that when I asked you, at first, why you found this article interesting. Inside dancing all around it.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 6:22pm

This "caught my eye" idea MIGHT be a good theory IF he hadn't already explained his interest and didn't provide lots of examples of the same, ...

I'm not talking about your original non-explanations explanations. I'm talking about the answers you started to give above.

by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 6:26pm

Well, I'm good with people posting what they'd like for the most part. Not sure what else can be said.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 11:35am

That if they post what they'd like, they'll be attacked for posting what they like.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 5:57pm

I think you are being deliberately argumentative because you feel that lulu is being picked on. I say grown ups have to expect that they might be criticized for what they post,particularly when they are unable to articulate the point of the post, and edited to add when it is being presented in the form it was presented, with references to Jew money and all (by a Hebe principally for his Hebe readership but whatever) -- prompting you, and almost at the threshold, to question the value of what had been posted by lulu -- kinda not much there there for us folk outside the Jewish American ghetto is what I thought you had written.

Not everyone can be as careful as Peraclese Please about not "attacking" people for what they write.

By the way I did not attack anyone. Lulu felt I wasn't being forthcoming so I told him what I thought. And what I think. And I think that's kosher. I wish lulu could tell us why he posted this. Still waiting, but whatever.

And in response you decide to turn the issue into an attack on folks who focus on their identity too much. Ouch says the indifferent poster with a life combined with a focus on his identity. But argumentative and off topic nonetheless.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 9:18am

"deliberately argumentative" - well duh, just like you're being "deliberately insinuative". Lulu said why he found it interesting, why he posted. If that's not enough for you, c'est la vie, but don't keep pretending he didn't answer.

And mine wasn't an "attack" on folks who focus on their identity - it was trying to communicate with you how it's a bit of a disconnect to those of us who don't give a shit about what our great-great-grandparents or ethnic or religious kinfolk thought or did. I'd rather read about Mongol Hordes and the Reformation than Oliver Cromwell or Robert the Bruce. You're free to do and enjoy whatever it is you do. Different strokes, different folks.

by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 12:09pm

You can claim I'm insinuative, but I disagree. I've been clear about what I think about Lulu and what I see as an obsession. I get that from his decision to post this article without having anything to say about it, and from his record of posting articles about the zionists being behind Benghazi and the Syrian civil war. It's what we call a pattern.

Now, you too apparently see a pattern, a non-sequitur to this article, but a pattern nonetheless. Something about talking about one's heritage. It has nothing to do with this thread, and so again I believe you're being argumentative. If it really does bother you, perhaps we can discuss that in a place where it's relevant.

And I'm done, having never questioned Lulu's right to post something, having chimed in a bit, just a wee bit, because I think the whole thing is cheesy -- like just not the way I've been raised to play baseball with kids of different colors.

Even VA, who tells us he knows nothing at all about the historical tropes I have harped on -- I know it irritates you too -- understands that if one is to question American tax policy, it might be better to not make it a Jew thing. But let's play our game. Lulu's happy now, you've gotten to defend him with a little jibing offense, and I'm done, completely indifferent to getting my hands a little dirty where most groovy progressive Jews have no interest in getting involved--my special place as the masthead might say. As you said, to each his or her own.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 2:18pm

"from his record of posting articles about the zionists being behind Benghazi" - sorry, no idea about this one, didn't read it AFAIK

" you too apparently see a pattern, a non-sequitur to this article, but a pattern " - uh Bruce, I'd imagine 1/2 of your comments are related to Israel or Jewish issues. Sorry for noticing the sun is shining.

"if one is to question American tax policy, it might be better to not make it a Jew thing" - uh, well, I think there have been a million non-Jewish discussions about tax cuts we can't afford and Republicans getting tax breaks for voucher schools and laundering money through non-profits for various campaign activity, and Obama caving to GOP on taxcuts/social cuts, etc. But I guess pull an article out that's about Jewish contributions, there must be something severe & sinister.

Hey, that reminds me of the Jewish mother-in-law who gives her son-in-law 2 sweaters, so when he wears one, she can say, "so what, you don't like the other one?" There must be some other article he could have talked about - the 98% that Peter went on and on about -so the fact that he pulled out *this one* by God is suspicious - the $7 billion drop in the bucket.

by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 3:02pm

You lost me Peracles, sorry, but I'm spent on this one.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 04/05/2014 - 3:10pm

bslev, you are as full of shit as a Christmas turkey. Talk about someone having a pattern. I believe, for instance, that your excuse that your dog-whistle statement ["Peter, the reason this was posted is obvious -- you know it, I know it, and we all know it."] was just intended to say that I am "obsessed" and that nothing more scurrilous was being charged is nothing less is an outright lie. But that's why slanderers use the dog-whistle isn't it? So they can deny what they were putting out if called on it.

The rest of your comment here is either grossly distorted claims or just plain wrong. If you do decide to return to this after one more tiresome time of saying you are out of here and ending in a puffed up self-righteous huff, how about posting some links that support your charges.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 12:34am

I've made one charge, i.e. that you're obsessed with Jew stuff. I stand by it, decline your invitation to back up my charges, and note that if I had called you full of shit I might be charged with having violated the terms of service. But I think you get kind of like mascot treatment around here; kind of like TOS affirmative action for Lulu. Which is fine; I'm not offended and you can post what you'd like, and I will presume that you are more intelligent than a newt and respond accordingly -- but only when I want to.

But that's just me. Obviously some people seem to think your stuff is worthwhile even when you're too timid to explain the significance of the Jew stuff you post. But I'm not throwing a hissy fit at your request; sorry, I also have a hunch that you get off on that. Whatever rocks your boat dude.

by Bruce Levine on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 9:48am

Yep, the umps are biased towards Lulu - giving him those line faults, bringing him sandwiches between sets... it's like a reality show with Paris Hilton.

by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:09am

It seems to me that it's hardly off topic to ask you, the poster, to explain what you find interesting in an article you posted. Surely, something interested you when you saw the article--I'm asking you what that was.

If you want it stated less "personally," then I might ask: What's interesting about this article? Anyone? A good answer to this question is not: The Forward published it and so did Haaretz, which is where you went.

As I said at the top, I find it hard to "get" a number of your posts because you seem to be dancing around what you mean to say. It's like someone trying to communicate with body language instead saying what they mean outright.

by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 04/03/2014 - 2:25pm

by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 04/04/2014 - 10:29am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 9 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 10 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 1 year ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered

Comments

Jews Twice as Charitable in Wills

Study Says Far More Likely To Back Communal Groups

In the News

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

26 Billion Bucks: The Jewish Charity Industry Uncovered

Comments

Jews Twice as Charitable in Wills

Study Says Far More Likely To Back Communal Groups

Search form

In the News