| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2008 04:08:17 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by Flash:
... governments role for taxes being used for more national interest like Defense, border security, etc. |
The Constitution (see my previous post) specifically defines that "etc." you so conveniently end your sentence with as "the general welfare." I realize that it must cause intense personal pain for you to realize that the words "taxes" and "welfare" appear in the Constitution while "coporate" and "profits" do not, but that's just the way it is.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 16:08:44. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 04:34:16 PM · #477 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Again the basic difference between liberal big government vs conservative small government. Although of late, there are plenty of exceptions to conservative core principles.
I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would otherwise choose a particular product) through punitive financial action (tax penalties), as a form of coercion.
edit to clarify; that is coercion as you have applied it. |
I think that there is no longer a connection between "conservative" and "small government". The choice is between areas of bloat.
To borrow a phrase from you: I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would choose otherwise) through punitive financial action (denial of benefits), as a form of coercion.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:17:05 PM · #478 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
... governments role for taxes being used for more national interest like Defense, border security, etc. |
The Constitution (see my previous post) specifically defines that "etc." you so conveniently end your sentence with as "the general welfare." I realize that it must cause intense personal pain for you to realize that the words "taxes" and "welfare" appear in the Constitution while "coporate" and "profits" do not, but that's just the way it is. |
GeneralE, I do believe that you are taking a bit of liberty with the definition/use of the term "welfare". For the constitution to include the phrase "maintain the general welfare" and for you to define that as being representative and inclusive of the current "welfare system" that Obama claims has lead to the misuse/dependence within the black community, are not what I would call synomous definitions. It does not cause me any personal angst, as I do not define it quite as liberally as you do - (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:21:30 PM · #479 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think that there is no longer a connection between "conservative" and "small government". The choice is between areas of bloat. |
I do not think we are that far apart here as it is currently applied - however even conservatives have a hard time with some of the current administrations policies over the last 7+ years, as has been demonstrated a few times by opposition to some of the nominees, the concern over such few spending vetos, and the approval percentages.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2008 05:23:29 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
To borrow a phrase from you: I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would choose otherwise) through punitive financial action (denial of benefits), as a form of coercion. |
At least you are not calling it torture.
;-)
|
|
|
|
03/22/2008 12:47:28 AM · #481 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think that there is no longer a connection between "conservative" and "small government". The choice is between areas of bloat. |
I do not think we are that far apart here as it is currently applied - however even conservatives have a hard time with some of the current administrations policies over the last 7+ years, as has been demonstrated a few times by opposition to some of the nominees, the concern over such few spending vetos, and the approval percentages. |
Right now, it's a question, not of who I think will do the best job in office, but who has pissed me off the least. Everyone of the politicians deserves a foot in the ass, but I only have one foot (I have to stand on one) and there are just too many asses. |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 12:47:52 AM · #482 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
To borrow a phrase from you: I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would choose otherwise) through punitive financial action (denial of benefits), as a form of coercion. |
At least you are not calling it torture.
;-) |
Yet |
|
|
|
03/22/2008 11:33:29 AM · #483 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
To borrow a phrase from you: I do call behavior modification (as in penalizing those who would choose otherwise) through punitive financial action (denial of benefits), as a form of coercion. |
At least you are not calling it torture.
;-) |
Yet |
You typed it; but I thought it.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 11:06:45 AM · #484 |
More examples of the benefits of liberal socialists policies
Here is a sound example of what is wrong when education is not at the forefront of social benefits. Our great state, the one led by a Canadian Socialist Liberal is again at the forefront, with Detroit (which is led by a liberal socialist - soon to be ex-led), at a dismal 24% graduation rate. 17 of the largest cities (nearly all led by liberal socialists mayors - read democrats) have a graduation rate of less than 50%.
I say again, education must be part and parcel to the receipt of benefits. Kids must stay in school, must be employable, and the ability to use those out of work that have skills (as tutors/mentors/etc), need to be pressed into service helping those who need it. A 75% dropout rate will only insure more social dependency - likely multigenerational. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 11:59:10 AM · #485 |
Originally posted by Flash:
More examples of the benefits of liberal socialists policies
Here is a sound example of what is wrong when education is not at the forefront of social benefits. Our great state, the one led by a Canadian Socialist Liberal is again at the forefront, with Detroit (which is led by a liberal socialist - soon to be ex-led), at a dismal 24% graduation rate. 17 of the largest cities (nearly all led by liberal socialists mayors - read democrats) have a graduation rate of less than 50%.
I say again, education must be part and parcel to the receipt of benefits. Kids must stay in school, must be employable, and the ability to use those out of work that have skills (as tutors/mentors/etc), need to be pressed into service helping those who need it. A 75% dropout rate will only insure more social dependency - likely multigenerational. |
So, you support public education but object to being taxed to pay for it? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:32:49 PM · #486 |
| Whew. Thank God. I thought this thread had died. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 12:48:42 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Whew. Thank God. I thought this thread had died. |
Only vaguely related to Al Gore and his award, but still very much alive. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:24:09 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you support public education but object to being taxed to pay for it? |
No - I have paid years and years of taxes to support public education. My beef is with those that have a philosophy that the reason we have 50% graduation rates (or in our case 24%) is because the poor afflicted economically deprived, don't get a fair shake and we should raise taxes even more to give them even more money, that will be spent on more social programs that do not produce a realized benefit.
In our particular case we have a liberal mayor of Detroit and a liberal Governor, both of whom support giving massive quantities of tax money to those who didn't earn it. The result of which (imo) is this glaring example of a failed public social policy whereby Detroit schools rank 1st with the worst graduation rate - which my taxes helped pay for (and yours for that matter).
So I ask again - instead of this continuing cycle of failed social programs, why not support some measure aligned with accountability for the recipients of social support moneys, specifically like insuring that those children from families supported on the public's dime, 1st stay in school and 2nd graduate with a minimum of a "C" average. I propose that if the receipt of the monthly check was directly tied to the childs attendence and performance, then more children would be graduating and thus more likely employable - and in theory (scientific or otherwise) eventually would lead to an overall lower dependence on the social system.
I also find it illuminating that when review was made of Obama's charity donations, it averaged out to about 3.8% of income. Oddly, that is in line with liberals as a whole. Conservatives on the other hand, average at nearly 30% of income for charitable giving (I do not have a link for these figures), thus it truly speaks to the philosophical divide between the two. Liberals think that forcing everyone to pay - (read tax) is the answer, while conservatives believe that charity (voluntarily) is the answer. For me at least, it addresses who the true supporters are of the downtrodden. Liberals want to help as long as they can spend someone else's money.
And spending someone else's money on the failed socialist support systems in our state has resulted in the nations lowest graduation rate. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:39:23 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I also find it illuminating that when review was made of Obama's charity donations, it averaged out to about 3.8% of income. Oddly, that is in line with liberals as a whole. Conservatives on the other hand, average at nearly 30% of income for charitable giving (I do not have a link for these figures), thus it truly speaks to the philosophical divide between the two. Liberals think that forcing everyone to pay - (read tax) is the answer, while conservatives believe that charity (voluntarily) is the answer. For me at least, it addresses who the true supporters are of the downtrodden. Liberals want to help as long as they can spend someone else's money.
And spending someone else's money on the failed socialist support systems in our state has resulted in the nations lowest graduation rate. |
I'll believe your figures when I see data to support them. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:44:52 PM · #490 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'll believe your figures when I see data to support them. |
Even if you completely disregard that portion of the post, could you support mating accountability to the receipt of social support funds, specifically as it related to children staying in school and graduating with a minimum of a "C" average? Further to utilyze other out of work persons, already on the public payroll, assisting in their area of extpertise to tutor/mentor those in need? |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:47:49 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In our particular case we have a liberal mayor of Detroit and a liberal Governor, both of whom support giving massive quantities of tax money to those who didn't earn it. The result of which (imo) is this glaring example of a failed public social policy whereby Detroit schools rank 1st with the worst graduation rate - which my taxes helped pay for (and yours for that matter).
|
Of course the exodus of manufacturing jobs from Michigan to China is the fault of the "Great Liberal Conspiracy to Ruin America" fault as well as are the resulting increases in poverty and unemployment. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:54:02 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'll believe your figures when I see data to support them. |
Even if you completely disregard that portion of the post, could you support mating accountability to the receipt of social support funds, specifically as it related to children staying in school and graduating with a minimum of a "C" average? Further to utilyze other out of work persons, already on the public payroll, assisting in their area of extpertise to tutor/mentor those in need? |
I support encouraging academic success, but not requiring it as a prerequisite to receiving government subsistence.
It's a case of the carrot vs. the stick. Just because the carrot proves inefficient does not mean the stick will be an improvement.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2008 01:56:31 PM · #493 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course the exodus of manufacturing jobs from Michigan to China is the fault of the "Great Liberal Conspiracy to Ruin America" fault as well as are the resulting increases in poverty and unemployment. |
I don't know if there is a Great Liberal Conspiricy to Ruin America, but I do know that liberal's policies have not worked for the benefit of our state. The loss of manufacturing jobs has many root causes, one of which is those supported by socialist organizations demanding overpayment for minimal effort expended and agreed to by greedy corporate bean counters that were too near sighted to do what was right in the long term. But raising taxes on the few that are working, won't fix the current problem. New solutions to garner new jobs is the answer and it begins with making it attractive to businesses who will bring in the work and employ the thousands who will in turn pay their tax and support the social economic needs.
edit to add; and to bring this back into the topic, forcing businesses to comply with unrealistic measures based on unproven politically motivated global warming scenarios, will not help either.
Message edited by author 2008-04-01 13:59:36. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 02:27:37 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Of course the exodus of manufacturing jobs from Michigan to China is the fault of the "Great Liberal Conspiracy to Ruin America" fault as well as are the resulting increases in poverty and unemployment. |
I don't know if there is a Great Liberal Conspiricy to Ruin America, but I do know that liberal's policies have not worked for the benefit of our state. The loss of manufacturing jobs has many root causes, one of which is those supported by socialist organizations demanding overpayment for minimal effort expended and agreed to by greedy corporate bean counters that were too near sighted to do what was right in the long term. But raising taxes on the few that are working, won't fix the current problem. New solutions to garner new jobs is the answer and it begins with making it attractive to businesses who will bring in the work and employ the thousands who will in turn pay their tax and support the social economic needs.
edit to add; and to bring this back into the topic, forcing businesses to comply with unrealistic measures based on unproven politically motivated global warming scenarios, will not help either. |
And of course the conservatives have done wonders for our great state. Engler was such a treasure, eviscerating the State Police and all and let's not forget Mike Cox and the current brand of nutjobs in charge of the State legislature who'd rather fight with Granholm or each other than actually get anything done.
Becoming "competitive" by allowing companies to spew the same toxins into the Great Lakes that they can in China makes is a great idea. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:17:10 PM · #495 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also find it illuminating that when review was made of Obama's charity donations, it averaged out to about 3.8% of income. Oddly, that is in line with liberals as a whole. Conservatives on the other hand, average at nearly 30% of income for charitable giving (I do not have a link for these figures), thus it truly speaks to the philosophical divide between the two. Liberals think that forcing everyone to pay - (read tax) is the answer, while conservatives believe that charity (voluntarily) is the answer. For me at least, it addresses who the true supporters are of the downtrodden. Liberals want to help as long as they can spend someone else's money.
And spending someone else's money on the failed socialist support systems in our state has resulted in the nations lowest graduation rate. |
I'll believe your figures when I see data to support them. |
I realize that this line of discussion is off-topic, but the question was asked, so...
I can't find stats on charitable giving as a %of Income for Conservatives and Liberals, but multiple studies have shown that Conservatives give far more to charity, in both time and money than do Liberals ( and not just to religious institutions ). Here are the results from a book published by Arthur C. Brooks describing the results of his analysis ( you can read the whole article here ).
Here is an excerpt:
-------------------------
Who gives the most in America: conservatives or liberals?
A. There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. Understanding "charity" in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.
The fact is that self-described "conservatives" in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described "liberals." In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.
These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were "conservative" or "extremely conservative" made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.
One major explanation for the giving discrepancy between conservatives and liberals is religion. In 2004, conservatives were more than twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship weekly, whereas liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to attend seldom or never. There are indeed religious liberals in America, but they are currently outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.
Q. Aren’t people who favor social spending just as charitable as people who give money to charities?
A. It depends. Many Europeans feel that they "give" through their taxes, and in some European countries they have the high taxes and generous social welfare benefits to show for it. This argument doesn’t work so well in America, however, because we don’t have the same redistributive policies.
About 80 percent of American liberals say they think the government should "do more" to reduce income inequality, versus just 27 percent of American conservatives. This is another reason, besides religion, liberals in America give less than conservatives. For example, in 1996, people who believed the government should not take greater measures to reduce income inequality gave, on average, four times as much money to charity each year as those who believed the government should equalize incomes more. This result persists even after correcting for other demographics. It even holds for all sorts of nonmonetary giving. For example, people who stated in 2002 that they thought the government was "spending too little money on welfare" were less likely than those saying the government is "spending too much money on welfare" to give food or money to a homeless person.
Q. Why shouldn’t the government expand to cover our current charitable giving through taxes, as is done in Europe?
A. First, there is evidence that giving makes people happy. A number of studies have concluded that giving affects our brain chemistry. People who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper’s High." They believe that charitable activity induces endorphins that produce a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.
Second, there is evidence that private giving is implicated in economic growth. Per-capita charity and per-capita GDP in America have moved together over the years. Evidence that the two forces cause each other comes from an analysis of how past values of one variable affect future values of the other. This analysis shows that a 10 percent increase in current GDP per American would lead to a 9 percent rise in charitable giving. At the same time, a 10 percent increase in giving per person would provoke a 3 percent increase in GDP. Given the size of our economy, this means $1 given privately would increase GDP by about $15.
In sum, if we substituted our private charitable giving for government redistributive programs, we would pay a price in terms of economic growth, personal prosperity, and even happiness. Charitable giving should be seen not just as a nice detail about American life, and even less as a mere tax deduction. It should be seen as a national priority. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:29:04 PM · #496 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
I also find it illuminating that when review was made of Obama's charity donations, it averaged out to about 3.8% of income. Oddly, that is in line with liberals as a whole. Conservatives on the other hand, average at nearly 30% of income for charitable giving (I do not have a link for these figures), thus it truly speaks to the philosophical divide between the two. Liberals think that forcing everyone to pay - (read tax) is the answer, while conservatives believe that charity (voluntarily) is the answer. For me at least, it addresses who the true supporters are of the downtrodden. Liberals want to help as long as they can spend someone else's money.
And spending someone else's money on the failed socialist support systems in our state has resulted in the nations lowest graduation rate. |
I'll believe your figures when I see data to support them. |
...
The fact is that self-described "conservatives" in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described "liberals." In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.
|
Giving 30% more is far different than giving 30% of income.
If Obama's 3.8% is average for a liberal, that would mean that a conservative would give 4.9%. |
|
|
|
04/01/2008 04:33:02 PM · #497 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Q. Why shouldn’t the government expand to cover our current charitable giving through taxes, as is done in Europe?
A. First, there is evidence that giving makes people happy. A number of studies have concluded that giving affects our brain chemistry. People who give often report feelings of euphoria, which psychologists have referred to as the "Helper’s High." They believe that charitable activity induces endorphins that produce a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin.
|
Oh Puhleeze.
I'd be happy if the President cared as much about the average American as he did lining the pockets of his cronies with dollars. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 09:57:22 AM · #498 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Giving 30% more is far different than giving 30% of income.
If Obama's 3.8% is average for a liberal, that would mean that a conservative would give 4.9%. |
You are correct. There is a difference between 30% more and 30% of income. I knew I had the 30% right, just the wrong application. Glad to see that there is evidence to support the difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives (which was my main point anyway). |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 10:04:25 AM · #499 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And of course the conservatives have done wonders for our great state. Engler was such a treasure, eviscerating the State Police and all and let's not forget Mike Cox and the current brand of nutjobs in charge of the State legislature who'd rather fight with Granholm or each other than actually get anything done.
Becoming "competitive" by allowing companies to spew the same toxins into the Great Lakes that they can in China makes is a great idea. |
You cannot blame our current condition on the Republicans. As much as everything is "Bushes" fault, I must challenge you that in our state, it is the Democrats who are and have been in control. It is the Democrats that govern nearly every major city with disastrous results in economies and graduation rates. It is the democrats here on this site that are opposing requirements to have children of families on government assistance, stay in school and maintain at least a "C" average and graduate to continue receiving funds. It is the liberal mindset that continues to support giving giving giving, as long as they first take it from someone else. Then they do not require accountability on the funds given.
We have 2 separate ways of looking at things, and for me, the conservative line of thought that incorporates accountability mixed with freely given charity, is far superior to the current result we see in our state, after years and years of liberal policies. |
|
|
|
04/02/2008 10:09:07 AM · #500 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Giving 30% more is far different than giving 30% of income.
If Obama's 3.8% is average for a liberal, that would mean that a conservative would give 4.9%. |
You are correct. There is a difference between 30% more and 30% of income. I knew I had the 30% right, just the wrong application. Glad to see that there is evidence to support the difference in philosophy between liberals and conservatives (which was my main point anyway). |
Regardless of the financial differences, monetary donation is only one aspect of charitible giving. I'd be curious to see the same analysis for non-monetary donations (in-kind donations, services etc.)
Monetary contributions are the easiest way to donate since it's easy to write a check, but quite a bit more work to volunteer at a food pantry, soup kitchen or homeless shelter. |
|
