EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 38
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
| ||
|
BalliSLife
1339 Posts
On October 24 2008 22:19 Hawk wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/?iref=hpmostpop all obama supporters are terrorists Ya because all robbers and bad people are obama supporters, gotta love cnn. | ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
Here's a CNN article about the ad: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/campaign.wrap/index.html | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 02:12 boghat wrote: capitalism and conservatism are the opposite of altruism, they just promote greed and unacceptance respectively. Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm Excerpt: "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." "If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity." And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif) Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: ![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/election04.gif) Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html According to this, 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states) While 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states) So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism.... | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32100 Posts
On October 25 2008 03:00 BalliSLife wrote: Ya because all robbers and bad people are obama supporters, gotta love cnn. http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html it was faked lolololol | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
| ||
|
boghat
United States2109 Posts
On October 25 2008 03:28 Savio wrote: So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism.... My quick defense would be I was talking about altruism on a global scale between all people. Religion and conservatism may not lend themselves well on a global scale of charity and altruism. I can give a better reply when I read the article you linked to, which I will do later. Although the fact that conservatives give more to charity than liberals does not surprise me at all, but raw numbers never say much, I'll have to read the article. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so if you give alms to the poor on the street, while looking at say taxation as "they took our money!", the fact that you are personally charitable still does not mean that you have an informed view of welfare and taxation policies, nor does it mean that your politics is humane. | ||
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
On October 25 2008 03:28 Savio wrote: Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. Well being indoctrinated by a church to donate money could be labeled coercion as well. It could even be called "redistribution of wealth". | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Its also hard to argue that being generous with someone else's money is "altruistic". And government involvement also brings the risk that people will initially be grateful for the help, then accustomed to, then eventually feel "entitled" to their entitlement...hence, "Health Care is a Right!" | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 04:09 oneofthem wrote: direct altruism is not expected in politics, just fair judgment and fair burden. I wonder what a "fair burden" is. It seems like if everyone pays the same percentage of tax with no subsidies or special circumstance...people and businesses...rich or poor....that that is about as fair as you can get. And those who don't make money, don't pay taxes and obviously some of the revenue would be spent to provide for those who are incapable (real disability) of providing for themselves. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
| ||
|
yoshtodd
United States418 Posts
On October 25 2008 04:35 Savio wrote: Churches do not have the coercive authority of the government. A church can't "arrest" you if you don't pay your tithing. If they teach that you should, you still have a choice. On the contrary I think churches do have that authority for many people. Government threatens you with jail if you shirk the written law, church threatens you with everlasting torment if you fail to abide by its moral law. It isn't much of a choice when you're offered either heavenly bliss or eternal damnation, the coercion is psychological not physical. Its also hard to argue that being generous with someone else's money is "altruistic". What do you mean generous with someone else's money... ideally each person should pay taxes according to their means. A poor person paying a small amount of taxes may be a generous contribution to the common good for them. And government involvement also brings the risk that people will initially be grateful for the help, then accustomed to, then eventually feel "entitled" to their entitlement...hence, "Health Care is a Right!" So charity is superior because it guarantees people will feel ever grateful and not develop feelings of entitlement? Is it true or does it just seem so that your ideology supposes that wealth equals value to society and as a human being? I.E. the poor don't have money because they are lazy and ignorant and the rich became so because of their intelligence and utility? It seems like it when you argue everyone by rights should keep their money, and the poor if they work hard and smart enough would naturally accumulate more wealth (to pay for health care etc). | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On October 25 2008 03:28 Savio wrote: Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money. http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm Excerpt: "In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." "If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity." And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous": Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race: Source: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html According to this, 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states) While 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states) So, I'm wondering how you are going to back up your assertion that religion and conservatism are impediments to altruism.... Could you please explain "comparing each state's average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2003 IRS data)." Don't charity deductions give you a tax break? Trying to quantify something like "generosity" in this way seems horribly horribly flawed... AT THE VERY LEAST, this should be called a "charity index" and not a "generosity index" I've rarely made any donations to charity, and I've never used my donations for itemized charitable deductions, but I consider myself a very generous person  Also, it's based on a ratio of average adjusted gross income. This is something that I agree with (a 5mil donation from Bill Gates is nothing  ) but it still brings up the issue of how hard something like this is to quantify. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
What do you mean generous with someone else's money... ideally each person should pay taxes according to their means. A poor person paying a small amount of taxes may be a generous contribution to the common good for them. I mean that politicians are not altruistic when they raise taxes in order to give to the poor. They are altruistic, when they give their own money to the poor. That is true for all people. Taxes are not altruistic. So charity is superior because it guarantees people will feel ever grateful and not develop feelings of entitlement? Chartiy is superior because it is actually altruistic. There is a role of government in providing Welfare for some people in society, but that role was passed and exceeded a long time ago. Now government forces EVERYONE into their retirement program, and may soon provide for everyone's health care. As it is right now, the vast majority of total government spending is on entitlement programs. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Could you please explain "comparing each state's average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2003 IRS data)." Don't charity deductions give you a tax break? Trying to quantify something like "generosity" in this way seems horribly horribly flawed... You can't quantify something if there isn't anyway to gather the data. Tax information is one of the few sources of that information. And there is no reason to believe that tax info is not an accurate estimate of the true contributions to charity. Afterall, everything is statistics that you can quantify is an estimate. AT THE VERY LEAST, this should be called a "charity index" and not a "generosity index" That would be fine with me and would probably be more accurate. But it still illustrates the point. OH, and everyone be sure to remember that the point I was making was that Boghat had no basis for believing that religion and conservatism were impediments to charity. My point was not to say that Republicans ARE without a doubt more charitable, but to point out that what he said makes no sense and had no evidence to back it up. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 05:43 D10 wrote: Im inclined to believe that democrats do more moral charity (helping with advice, with service, helping your friends and your employees) than material charity That could be but that is just a subjective feeling on your part. I could feel the opposite way and it wouldn't mean anything. EDIT: I know a LOT of religious people who dedicate a LOT of their time to charitable service. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 25 2008 04:55 Savio wrote: I wonder what a "fair burden" is. It seems like if everyone pays the same percentage of tax with no subsidies or special circumstance...people and businesses...rich or poor....that that is about as fair as you can get. And those who don't make money, don't pay taxes and obviously some of the revenue would be spent to provide for those who are incapable (real disability) of providing for themselves. Why is that fair? A flat tax, no matter the percentage, would be harder to bear for low earners. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On October 25 2008 06:00 Mindcrime wrote: Why is that fair? A flat tax, no matter the percentage, would be harder to bear for low earners.  | ||
| ||
