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: jttmab who wrote (210006)	12/7/2006 5:26:01 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Regarding single women, or wealthy women ...there are studies. Who knows. You haven't posted anything about them. But neither of us really care - you're using them for rhetorical purposes. Ralph Nader is in la-la land. Again, one doesn't take individuals and extrapolate to a group. As noted elsewhere, Iktomi's (and for that matter your) denigration of religious givers is another example. How many liberals putting down other's charitable giving do I need to have a group of them? So questioning "the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues", hurts black and hispanic people? In some cases yes. If a particular social issue is ignored by the giving community It's been established that black working poor (and the working poor in general) are heavy givers, so we shouldn't expect minority needs to be ignored by the giving community. Although they may be addressed in ways differently than a government agency. For example, black communities have long complained about the basic need for jobs. Charities don't often create jobs, but the government can encourage businesses to create jobs by certain tax incentives. The government has been trying to encourage jobs that way for at least 30 years with little success. So its reasonable to disbelieve "the idea that government offers the best solution to social issues". Sure charities don't create jobs. Businesses create jobs. But the right charities do prepare and motivate people to become more employable. The biggest problem I have with Brooks is his obvious bias. If the guy has suggestions for the every entity in the world other than conservatives is it possible that he's done his study with bias. He makes suggestions to liberals because the facts scandalize given that he comes from a liberal family and is a liberal or perhaps former liberal himself. Isn't that obvious? I'm not even sure that Brooks has given thought to his suggestions beyond happy talk. Here's one that I think we would have difficulty assigning liberal/conservative to: "Encourage fund raising among charities by giving more government money to organizations that take fund raising seriously." I suspect Brooks has given his suggestions thought. Perhaps you should read the book to find out more than one can from a review.