Join Jim and Greg as they relish Democrats likely having such a tight majority in the House that it will be tough for many to accept jobs in the executive branch because the vacancies could make it tough for Democrats to get much legislation done. They also hammer musician John Legend for suggesting you’ll do more good donating to Democrats running for U.S. Senate in Georgia than giving to your local food bank. And they update the infighting among Democrats by discussing the latest salvos from Joe Manchin and AOC.

Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There are 5 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member

    Ricochet Audio Network: Joe Manchin and AOC.

    This could get good.

    • #1
    • November 13, 2020, at 12:10 PM PST
    • 1 like
  2. kedavis Member

    Of course, if we have President Biden crashing the economy, even with a still Republican-led Senate, a whole lot more people are going to end up needing their local food bank and other charities.

    • #2
    • November 13, 2020, at 12:20 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  3. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Of course, if we have President Biden crashing the economy, even with a still Republican-led Senate, a whole lot more people are going to end up needing their local food bank and other charities.

     The odds are approximately 999,999 to 1 that your following John Legend-in-His-Own-Mind’s advice and contributing to Georgia Senate candidates will have no effect on the outcome, other than to enrich campaign consultants.

    • #3
    • November 13, 2020, at 5:32 PM PST
    • 1 like
  4. Full Size Tabby Member

    I can understand Mr. Legend’s logic. Despite the evidence we see, many people do consider government transfers of wealth to be better for helping the less fortunate than charity. Most western European countries have completely replaced charity with government programs. If you have this view, then it makes sense to use your money to put in place a government that will take money from the “fortunate” and give it to the “unfortunate.” I think they recognize that there may be some short-term pain when the charities don’t get current dollars. But the long term goal of eliminating the charities and replacing them with government handouts is worth it (to them). [I think Jim’s speculation that people who advocate this do so because they don’t want to have the responsibility for delivering to charity is spot on. They want to outsource “loving your neighbor.”]

    • #4
    • November 14, 2020, at 6:46 AM PST
    • 1 like
  5. kedavis Member

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I can understand Mr. Legend’s logic. Despite the evidence we see, many people do consider government transfers of wealth to be better for helping the less fortunate than charity. Most western European countries have completely replaced charity with government programs. If you have this view, then it makes sense to use your money to put in place a government that will take money from the “fortunate” and give it to the “unfortunate.” I think they recognize that there may be some short-term pain when the charities don’t get current dollars. But the long term goal of eliminating the charities and replacing them with government handouts is worth it (to them). [I think Jim’s speculation that people who advocate this do so because they don’t want to have the responsibility for delivering to charity is spot on. They want to outsource “loving your neighbor.”]

    And isn’t there a HUGE question of efficiency?

    • #5
    • November 14, 2020, at 1:18 PM PST
    • 1 like