Solid discussion. ]So where should a new administration go from here? I would like to see the fraud rooted out and more aid given to those who really deserve and need it.

Why would you say unnecessary? I think the fact it’s from a liberal blog matters.

It's so obvious at this point that, to me, it's not necessary to point out. And it only dwarfs 75's substance-filled comment.

 

But I guess some don't recognize the source so it may be worth pointing out. Either way, I'd prefer that 75's comment becomes the source of conversation instead of this thread predictably turning into what it has.

It's so obvious at this point that, to me, it's not necessary to point out. And it only dwarfs 75's substance-filled comment.

 

But I guess some don't recognize the source so it may be worth pointing out. Either way, I'd prefer that 75's comment becomes the source of conversation instead of this thread predictably turning into what it has.

I'm sorry, cch5432, other than one comment I don't see where this thread has gone wrong. Pointing out the source in this particular case was necessary since he obviously had leanings one way whereas the author of the book didn't. That was the point I was making.

Not you.

Oh good, I thought for a minute there that you were thinking I had. :thumb:

I see no need for the personal attack.

 

The content is mostly the guys opinon, unlike Arthur Brooks. Arthur C. Brooks is a registered independent, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts. He cites extensive data analysis about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving. He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. Why do you believe the guy without the data over the guy with the data?

 

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

 

That couldn't be further from a personal attack, but thanks for trying. :lol:

 

How do you know the blogger is "liberal" ?

 

The blogger is named, "Stephen". Here's a write up about him from that site.

 

Stephen is currently the only contributor to the Thinkery. He is a seminary graduate, former pastor, former dormitory director for a private Christian university and visiting lecturer in English for a sister university in Korea, at which school he also served the English and Theology faculties as editor for academic papers and presentations. Stephen also worked for the headquarters of an Evangelical Christian denomination in the General Secretary's office, which placed him in the denominational archives, assisting in setting up the denomination's quadrennial general meeting, and even giving tours of the headquarters buildings. Yes, people would take detours on their trips or even make a special trip in order to see "where it all happened." It was hard to keep a straight face.

 

Religion and politics inspires a lot of nonsense from all sides. This is the place to cut through the nonsense.

:p:p Exactly what I expected- attack RTS's unnecessary comment and ignore 75's solid one. :jump::jump:

 

Seriously though, agreed with 75- that doesn't make much sense.

 

I had to be at work at 10 AM. I did not have time to respond to 75's post at the time. If it is okay with you, I choose not to be late for work instead of responding to certain posts.

 

Seriously though, I will respond to his posts next time in a timely fashion.:lol:

I'm not following his logic. Is he calling it a draw saying that conservatives giving more of their own money is the same as liberals giving more of everyone's money?

 

BTW, GREAT song. I love his music.

 

I believe what he is saying is that Liberals are more willing to use their own money and everyone else's money to fund programs that will help the needy. Conservatives are more hesitant to support programs like that. Liberals, according to that blog, support programs like Medicaid, breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, and WIC. I'm sure Conservatives are not a supportive of programs like that. Liberal states fund these programs better than Conservative states. Should that not count in the study?

See post #38. Rockmom is the poster child for humanity helping humanity and a beacon to those looking for an example of rising up from a bad situation.

 

No, I'm the poster child of a person lucky enough to be associated with people who were generous enough to treat me as family, and a family who hasn't ever lost their committment to each other. I don't think that all people in my situation are as fortunate. I was blessed, and there are many that aren't. That's why I believe it's the responsibility of the stranger to reach out to the less fortunate. And sometimes, that means my tax dollars support someone. I can live with that without rancor.

I believe what he is saying is that Liberals are more willing to use their own money and everyone else's money to fund programs that will help the needy. Conservatives are more hesitant to support programs like that. Liberals, according to that blog, support programs like Medicaid, breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, and WIC. I'm sure Conservatives are not a supportive of programs like that. Liberal states fund these programs better than Conservative states. Should that not count in the study?

 

Thanks. The support for public programs should count in the study, the only exception I would have is that liberals are more willing to use their own money also. That doesn't appear to be supported by the data. It appears from the data that while conservatives may not like the government programs, their taxes also help pay for them; then they dig out more from their own pockets.

Thanks. The support for public programs should count in the study, the only exception I would have is that liberals are more willing to use their own money also. That doesn't appear to be supported by the data. It appears from the data that while conservatives may not like the government programs, their taxes also help pay for them; then they dig out more from their own pockets.

 

But in conservative states those government programs are not supported like they are in liberal states.

That couldn't be further from a personal attack, but thanks for trying. :lol:

 

How do you know the blogger is "liberal" ?

 

The blogger is named, "Stephen". Here's a write up about him from that site.

HB, I'm not trying anything and yes, it was and you know very well it was but I really couldn't care less about that at the moment.

 

How do you know he's not a liberal?

 

Most importantly, I'll ask again, why do you believe the guy without the data over the guy with the data? You've always been big on scientific data in the past, why not now? What is it about "Stephen" that makes you believe his "blog" over Arthur Brooks scientific surveys? There has to be a reason.

I believe what he is saying is that Liberals are more willing to use their own money and everyone else's money to fund programs that will help the needy. Conservatives are more hesitant to support programs like that. Liberals, according to that blog, support programs like Medicaid, breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, and WIC. I'm sure Conservatives are not a supportive of programs like that. Liberal states fund these programs better than Conservative states. Should that not count in the study?

Secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.

All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

 

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

Arthur Brooks' book, Who Really Cares, is of course finding quite a bit of use as yet another rhetorical bludgeon to use against liberals. Conservatives give more to "the poor" than the hypocritical liberals who always preach against the wealth of the GOP.

 

...

 

We must also remember that Brooks is tracking charitable giving. This helps his cause, since one of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is their relative willingness to use governmental programs to help society. This is shown by the universal healthcare plans already put in place by Massachussetts, Oregon and San Francisco, and Schwarzenegger's proposal for a statewide plan in California. Of course Medicaid is a liberal program, as are breakfast at school, free lunches for poor kids, HeadStart, TANF, WIC, and the multitude of other programs that had conservative opposition at their beginning and suffer continual attacks on their existence. These programs are usually funded better in "blue" states than in "red" states - for example, the complete breakdown of the social safety net in Texas is well-documented, even if it wasn't well-publicized in the 2000 election.

 

Then there is the troubling fact that red states are federal tax donors, while blue states are federal tax recipients. Some of this is offset by the larger number of military installations in the Western red states. For example, New Mexico is chock-full of land given over to one or another branch of the military, NASA and various other governmental organizations. However, we must not discount how Medicare and Social Security, those great liberal programs, figure into these numbers. Also, when state programs are subsidized by federal dollars, the money is coming from liberals in their blue states.

 

I would be willing to call it a draw, to admit that the differing worldviews of liberals and conservatives just propel us to different strategies, and that someone like Arthur Brooks probably just doesn't even comprehend that liberals give charitably through governmental programs.

 

LINK

 

You have absolutely, positively, got to be kidding me. That is the most inventive phrase I have ever heard for "taxes."

HB, I'm not trying anything and yes, it was and you know very well it was but I really couldn't care less about that at the moment.

 

How do you know he's not a liberal?

 

Most importantly, I'll ask again, why do you believe the guy without the data over the guy with the data? You've always been big on scientific data in the past, why not now? What is it about "Stephen" that makes you believe his "blog" over Arthur Brooks scientific surveys? There has to be a reason.

 

I know what I meant by it, and it most definitely was not. So stop trying, please.

 

You throw out that he's a liberal without even knowing? I shouldn't have to prove that he isn't, you are the one making accusations (with no proof) that he is a liberal.

 

Just because Arthur Brooks has data doesn't mean he analyzed it in the best way. I believe "Stephen" makes some very good points. That's the reason.

I know what I meant by it, and it most definitely was not. So stop trying, please.

 

You throw out that he's a liberal without even knowing? I shouldn't have to prove that he isn't, you are the one making accusations (with no proof) that he is a liberal.

 

Just because Arthur Brooks has data doesn't mean he analyzed it in the best way. I believe "Stephen" makes some very good points. That's the reason.

I know exactly what you meant by it, so stop trying to spin it.

 

 

As to the rest, I can only say....:lol: :lol: :lol:

Come on, HB, like Arthur Brooks didn't make good points? The reason you believe "Stephen" might be because he reflects your views, but you can't just dismiss Brooks. Brooks actually put effort into it, "Stephen", not so much.

 

Give me proof that "Stephen" isn't a liberal and I'll retract my comment. :thumb: