There you go... you opened your smelly trap again. You now get the credit for that.
By the way, can you prove that that what I said was wrong? If not then go and shove your pile of crap up your trap.
Study finds Republicans more charitable
- Thread starter drmarkan
- Start date
There you go... you opened your smelly trap again. You now get the credit for that.
By the way, can you prove that that what I said was wrong? If not then go and shove your pile of crap up your trap.
There is a difference though, it's indeed arguable whether donations can or cannot make a dent in the poverty situation but I don't think anyone can seriously disagree that the bankruptcy bill hurts the poor and that a minimum wage increase would help them.
In other words liberals don't make a lot of donations because they don't believe these donations would help, conservatives know full well that their policies and decisions are hurting the poor, yet they go ahead and do it anyway.
You are giving me a hard time seeking facts before reaching a conclusion?
Yes, republiklans aren't so much interested in facts, are they.
Yes, republiklans aren't so much interested in facts, are they.
Without reading the book, it is all nonsense IMO.
The book may only classify certain charitable deduction as legitimate, and that legitimacy may on the basis of what the author thinks.
Would donations to Amnesty International by liberals, or to the ACLU be considered charitable?
Or would donations to some religious group who actually uses the money to fund some campaign for a candidate who was against gay marriage and abortion be viewed as charitable?
This is not a simple matter, and I have serious doubts about the study itself being of any great revelatory value.
Why not wait till we have fact on this "study" before we reach sweeping generalizations...
The book may only classify certain charitable deduction as legitimate, and that legitimacy may on the basis of what the author thinks.
Would donations to Amnesty International by liberals, or to the ACLU be considered charitable?
Or would donations to some religious group who actually uses the money to fund some campaign for a candidate who was against gay marriage and abortion be viewed as charitable?
This is not a simple matter, and I have serious doubts about the study itself being of any great revelatory value.
Why not wait till we have fact on this "study" before we reach sweeping generalizations...
You started this, show me some facts...
I am gonna gather that this study can be ripped apart pretty easily to demonstrate a false argument and bias by the author...
I am gonna gather that this study can be ripped apart pretty easily to demonstrate a false argument and bias by the author...
Where I disagree with you here is that people can disagree with both policies. First of all, the individual is responsible for reckless spending in the first. I agree that runaway medical bills can effect some, but the fallacy that is brought up time and again is that the new bankruptcy laws hurt the poor. The following link explains the law. Note: poor people make less than the median income for their state:
http://www.bankruptcyaction.com/bankreform.htm
Minimum wage increase is also debatable. Do you ever wonder why our jobs are heading overseas? Sometimes we have to look outside of our own beliefs and understand something a little bigger. You want to believe it is all greed based, but the government is the one who is driving businesses out of the country.
When you say that conservatives know their policies hurt the poor, why would they then turn around and give to charity? That doesn't make sense. It is funny how you paint this picture that conservatives are mean and trying to screw the poor while they are the ones giving more to charity. Yet the liberals are giving less to the poor through charity and are more noble because they supposedly are all distrusting of a charities effectiveness. Maybe we should shut down habitat for humanity. Those guys are doing nothing to make a difference in the world. We should put that money towards the government so they can throw another project in the ghetto.
If you read my first post, I said I plan on picking up the book. Did you at least read the article? I posted a link. What is funny, is that you say show me proof, yet you are already saying the study is easily going to be debunked without having read it.
The only reason I am discussing this with dddooo is because he too is making excuses before reading the book as well.
Personally, if you do not care to look at it and continue to believe that the study is wrong purely because of it's findings without actually reading it, I could care less. I know the type of person you are, and I really do not care if you find this to be interesting or not. You definitely would not want to have an honest discussion about it even if you did read it. That is definitely not the type of person you are.
You are defending the book without reading it, right? You have agreed with the author, at least are defending his conclusions without reading the book, examination of what he based his findings on, careful critical analysis of his methods as I mentioned, etc., right?
I say the study is going to be easily debunked, because to do a study properly, and factually, you have to have tax returns or proof of donations, who the money is donated to and where it actually goes, what percentage of money is donated relative to net worth/income, etc. I think some author claiming that liberals donate more than conservatives would also be easily debunked, as the data is very hard to come by, and most difficult to prove the percentages and causes reflect real charity.
Or did you not know that though figures can't lie, partisans can figure in nearly any direction they want.
Seriously, think about what data would actually be required to really support such a broad and sweeping generalization that the author is suggesting.
This sounds like a hack job to me, and I could be wrong, so when you get facts, present them, okay?
LOL...
Then when you start up with the ad hominem crapola, you really do yourself in....
I question the author and his work, so then you attack me.
Classic....
I say the study is going to be easily debunked, because to do a study properly, and factually, you have to have tax returns or proof of donations, who the money is donated to and where it actually goes, what percentage of money is donated relative to net worth/income, etc. I think some author claiming that liberals donate more than conservatives would also be easily debunked, as the data is very hard to come by, and most difficult to prove the percentages and causes reflect real charity.
Or did you not know that though figures can't lie, partisans can figure in nearly any direction they want.
Seriously, think about what data would actually be required to really support such a broad and sweeping generalization that the author is suggesting.
This sounds like a hack job to me, and I could be wrong, so when you get facts, present them, okay?
LOL...
Then when you start up with the ad hominem crapola, you really do yourself in....
I question the author and his work, so then you attack me.
Classic....