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 (210119)	12/7/2006 5:43:14 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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? Until the data is carefully analyzed, I'd say the above is not true. Conservative religious giving is very largely giving to oneself, as I pointed out on this thread as well. You need to look carefully at 1) Non-cash donations, 2) religious donations, 3) private education donations. If you want to call that charity, fine, but I'd call that a scandal. Once the data is been analyzed by more people, Brooks is not going to look so good.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (210119)	12/7/2006 5:48:09 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

FWIW It is my opinion that the percentage of charity donars giving out of unselfish motives is very small. Charity, as a principle, has everything to do with kind hearted character. Charity as an institution is quite another matter; as it is quite possible and probable for people to use the mask of charity to garner influence, proselytize, or to self promote for economic or political reasons. "But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, 'I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on.' May God bless the sincere and giving souls. gem

To: Brumar89 who wrote (210119)	12/7/2006 10:36:29 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Who knows. You haven't posted anything about them. But neither of us really care - you're using them for rhetorical purposes. I know. ... Sorry, I did that on purpose. I like to observe how people handle things. You, mjfdl, and Iktomi each approached it from a different direction. I found it interesting. ... I care...there are different ways to slice the pie. As noted elsewhere, Iktomi's (and for that matter your) denigration of religious givers is another example. The last thing I would go is denigrate any one's decision on charitable contributions. It can be a difficult decision as to where to donate one's capital. I personally have little interest in building churches but someone else might say that ~spreading the word that Jesus died for our sin's is man's most important need. Both my mother and her mother bought statues to go in the Churches where they worshiped. That was their choice. I choose to give my donations elsewhere. In some ways I envy religious givers, it's an easy way to donate. I probably put too much effort into picking charities. How many liberals putting down other's charitable giving do I need to have a group of them? A random sample of somewhat more than 1,000. But you've failed to correctly identify me as denigrating religious givers, so that's problematic in itself. You should probably contract an independent polling organization and let them do the job right. 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. Do you think the WPA was a complete failure and waste of government effort and that charities would have picked up the ball during the depression along with business? I suspect Brooks has given his suggestions thought. Perhaps you should read the book to find out more than one can from a review. I was rather hoping that you might have a counter argument. I hate to think that I've picked my charities based on the exact opposite of what I should have been. But you don't have any independent thinking to offer on that. I just dumped a charity because they lied to me. So I have to either find another charity or up my contributions to the other charities I already support. I've been picking charities based on their lower administrative costs. Maybe I should have been picking charities with higher administrative costs since that suggests they are more serious about fund raising. jttmab