You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Study finds Republicans more charitable
- Thread starter drmarkan
- Start date
So we agree that there is no reason to accept what the author is saying is true based on the article posted.
Thanks...
Oh, and my use or non use of ad hominem is no defense for your own use of ad hominem...
Doh!
Thanks...
Oh, and my use or non use of ad hominem is no defense for your own use of ad hominem...
Doh!
Quote from drmarkan:
I am defending the point that until the book is read, disputing it is futile. I am also defending the argument that charities are effective. You should read the posts.
For someone who personally uses ad hominem attacks quite frequently, you sure do complain about it a lot.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So we agree that there is no reason to accept what the author is saying is true based on the article posted.
Thanks...
Oh, and my use or non use of ad hominem is no defense for your own use of ad hominem...
Doh!
Wrong again, but if you want to believe that, fine. I wasn't defending the use of ad hominem either. If it makes you feel better to believe what you are saying, then by all means, keep believing it.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So we agree that there is no reason to accept what the author is saying is true based on the article posted.
Thanks...
Oh, and my use or non use of ad hominem is no defense for your own use of ad hominem...
Doh!
Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.
"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."
I will say that I would take a Harvard professor's take on the book as a compelling reason to read the book and a pretty good validation of the points being made in the article regarding the book. Moreover, I would take his view as having more substance than what you would bring to the table.
Quote from dddooo:
Besides liberals don't believe in helping the poor through private donations, they advocate doing it through government programs so obviously they are not playing the game according to the rules set by conservatives that they don't believe in. [/B]
There lies the problem. The gov't is full of waste and useless people who can never be fired and don't care.
Quote from drmarkan: [/B]
First of all, the individual is responsible for reckless spending
and the lenders are responsible for reckless lending, aren't they?. Except that they get to write the laws that absolve them of any reponsibility. No matter how much they screw up and how reckless their lending practices are they will get their money back. Why on earth would they want to do due dilligence evaluating a loan application when it's zero risk for them?
Anyway in the context of our discussion it's irrelevant who is responsible, you can certainly argue that any poor person is responsble for his/her poverty. The point is this law will not prevent reckless spending but will keep hurting poor people years after they file for bankruptcy.
Minimum wage increase is also debatable. Do you ever wonder why our jobs are heading overseas?
Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Jobs are heading overseas because our free trade policies allow manufacturers to use sweat shops in India, child labor in China and slave labor in Africa and still sell these goods and services in our markets. Sweat shops, child and slave labor were banned in this country in 19th and 20th century but in 21st century american businesses found a loophole. Fortunately all newly elected democrats were elected on a strongly populist economic platform so hopefully this disgrace and economic suicide will end soon but at any rate it has nothing to do with the minimum wage.
So the right approach would be to make the government more transparent and flexible, make it efficient, lean and mean, eliminate waste and abuse as opposed to eliminating the gov't itself which may indeed provide extremely valuable, important, unique services.Quote from sputdr:
There lies the problem. The gov't is full of waste and useless people who can never be fired and don't care.
I agree, what about the time people donate volunteering for homeless shelters, soup kitchens, community centers etc. That's not a cash donation so no doubt the author is not taking it into account.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
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?
Quote from the Disgusting hypocrite:
Then when you start up with the ad hominem crapola
Quote from drmarkan:
For someone who personally uses ad hominem attacks quite frequently, you sure do complain about it a lot.
Quote from the Disgusting hypocrite:
My use or non use of ad hominem is no defense for your own use of ad hominem...
Doh!
So the use of ad hominem is something that would have to be 'defended'?
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypocrisy
So you are saying you believe the author's position is correct, based on a study have never even seen?
Quote from drmarkan:
Wrong again, but if you want to believe that, fine. I wasn't defending the use of ad hominem either. If it makes you feel better to believe what you are saying, then by all means, keep believing it.