Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (209951)	12/5/2006 4:10:51 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

"Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals." "Funny that anyone should find this stuff surprising. Liberalism really does erode character. " What you meant to say, I'm sure, is that being non- RELIGIOUS erodes character (at least if you are interested in hewing at all to the character of the data set you are talking about, and given your posts, you may have no interest in such logic)- and that's only if we assume that charity has something to do with character. Obviously both statements about said erosion are kind of bigoted, but at least one has a tenuous connection to the facts. If you look at religiously driven donations as "bribery" to God, to allow you into the Pearly Gates, it begins to look less like good character. When I give, and when I work for social institutions, I do it because I want to, not because I need to get in good with God. I suppose if people really NEED God driving them to do nice things and to be nice people, I'm going to say that's a good thing, but it would be better, and they would have better characters (IMO), if they could just do it because it's a nice thing to do, rather than because they expect a pay off in the sweet hereafter. Obviously though, most people don't have the good character to be good without a God looking over their shoulder. Too bad about that.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (209951)	12/6/2006 10:28:00 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Government should: • Think twice before directly subsidizing nonprofit organizations, or investing in programs that increase economic equality. Such spending often "crowds out" private giving. Got that covered... The Nonprofit Sector and the Federal Budget: Analysis of President Bush’s FY 2007 Budget The budget proposals that President Bush recently submitted to Congress, covering fiscal year 2007 and beyond, would put new demands on the nation’s private, nonprofit organizations at the same time they would reduce the federal support going to these organizations to provide services. This analysis of the president’s FY 2007 budget prepared by Alan J. Abramson, Lester M. Salamon, and John Russell and published by the Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Research Fund highlights the following: Over the five years, FY 2007-2011, the Bush Administration’s latest budget proposals would reduce federal spending on programs of interest to nonprofits, outside of Medicare and Medicaid, by a cumulative total of $78.6 billion below current FY 2006 levels, after adjusting for inflation. If the president's proposals were enacted, federal funding of nonprofits, excluding support of nonprofit health organizations through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, would decline during the five years, FY 2007-2011, by a cumulative total of $14.3 billion below FY 2006 levels after adjusting for inflation. The impact of the president’s proposed spending plan on the nation’s nonprofit organizations would be even more severe were it not for the projected continued growth of the Medicaid program, which now delivers important assistance to nonprofit organizations outside of the health field. Reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies that inhibit charitable activity, including "onerous legal requirements, punitive mandatory expenditures, and impossible hiring practices." Reducing Federal Expenditures should help that a bunch. "Onerous legal requirements"....like non-profits disclosing what % of their contributions actually go to the needy? Allow all people to deduct charitable contributions on their tax returns... I'm ok with that just as long as next year you don't bitch that the IRS has made the short form more complicated and onerous. But I know you will; no good deed shall go unpunished. Encourage fund raising among charities by giving more government money to organizations that take fund raising seriously. Heck, that's how they got federal money to begin with. They lobby to get federal funds. Charities should: • Be unapologetic about raising funds, since data show that donors gain as much from the exchange of funds — by becoming happier and healthier — as the organizations they are supporting. I've never found an apologetic charity? I got 6 calls just yesterday and not one apology. Who are these apologetic charities? Does charity giving make people healthy and happier or do healthy and happier people tend to give more? I suppose if you're laying in a hospital getting chemo treatment you're probably not giving to charity. I wouldn't expect grumpy people to be charitable. Sounds like a chicken and egg problem. Individuals should: • Teach philanthropic behavior to their children, either by discussing giving as a family or by taking the children to a house of worship. Thumbs up. Support organized programs, such as Common Cents, in New York, that allow youths to gather funds from friends and family and experience what it's like to be a philanthropist. Thumbs up. Other than Common Cents, I don't know who they are [maybe schools?], but thumbs up anyway. Liberals should: • Ignore comments from people on the left wing of the Democratic Party who belittle the importance of charity. That's easy. I've never heard anyone belittle the importance of charity. Be wary of the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues, since such a viewpoint may weaken one's own resolve to take action or give away money. That's an interesting one. Wealthy people tend to give to universities and the arts but black people are three times more likely to be poor than whites. Then there is the Hispanic community, I think we all know what the white population thinks about Hispanics taking advantage of social services. Since the Federal Government is cutting back on funding how are you going to adjust your charitable giving to those groups that are receiving less? Work to make the Democratic Party friendlier to religion, since religious people give more to charity than secular people do. I think the friendliest you can be to religion is to leave them alone. Intermingling of Church and State is neither good for the State nor good for religion. At least that's what Thomas Jefferson thought. What no recommendations for conservatives? I detect a bias. Let me throw some ideas out. You can check these out yourself. Blacks are more likely to give than Whites. Single women are more likely to give than single men. Wealthy women are more likely to give larger and be more directly involved in charitable functions then their male peers. Conservatives should be more friendly to blacks, single women and women in general or the GOP will be known as the party of overweight white guys....wait a minute they are known as the party of overweight white guys. jttmab