ncbirdfan

I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People

177 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Sprightly said:

Here is the original article:

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Generosity-in-the-States/156205

There are no "corrections." There are opinions and the MIT opinion uses specific people - Romney and Obama for instance -- as examples. These are real people in the survey.

You had to make me go back didn't you? From MY bigger and better article:

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zenwalk said:

You had to make me go back didn't you? From MY bigger and better article:

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals. 
 

:D When one doesn't like the result, one always argues with the methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

:D When one doesn't like the result, one always argues with the methodology.

No one denies conservatives give to their churches but in reality that money goes into buying new canvas for the circled wagons. WaPo then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/?utm_term=.1ca0cdaa83cd

Edited by zenwalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's next? Are you going to claim that Democrats/Liberal politicians and their donors have taken vows of poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

You had to make me go back didn't you? From MY bigger and better article:

The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals. 
 

That is always a problem.  And breaking it down to social and fiscal falls far short of the categories we fall into.  Neither social nor fiscal address foreign policy.  And there are always people in the middle of every issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

Maybe because the government is owned by corporate entities who never tire of another tax break or subsidy?

And by social special interests.  And by politicians who have surrendered their duty.

Mostly though, it has been disowned by people who either sit on their *** and remain stupid to the issues so they don't vote or perhaps worse, stupidly vote for a candidate based solely on the letter after their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

No one denies conservatives give to their churches but in reality that money goes into buying new canvas for the circled wagons. WaPo then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/?utm_term=.1ca0cdaa83cd

I am sure that is true is some cases.  In my experience, we have a church that does a couple of fund raising events a year at our winery.  I am not a member of the church, but we donate our time and space to them.  They use the money they raise to build housing, schools, and churches in Juarez.  In addition the church members spend their summer vacations doing the actual work themselves.  I am sure they enjoy the camaraderie with each other living in tents and cooking outside, but what they speak of is the beauty of the Mexican people. 

And you can't deny that hospitals across our country are named after saints.  That is because churches built them.  They would all be named after presidents if the Fed built them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

And by social special interests.  And by politicians who have surrendered their duty.

Mostly though, it has been disowned by people who either sit on their *** and remain stupid to the issues so they don't vote or perhaps worse, stupidly vote for a candidate based solely on the letter after their name.

 

13 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

What's next? Are you going to claim that Democrats/Liberal politicians and their donors have taken vows of poverty?

How much the Trump administration is worth. 

 

The Trump administration is considered the wealthiest in United States history. Here is a look at the value of assets held by some top officials at the time they joined the administration, based on financial disclosure filings. People highlighted in yellow are members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

Because the value of each asset is reported as a range, like “$100,001 - $250,000,” as opposed to a precise amount, we are showing the total value of assets as bottom and top estimates. People who had at least one asset classified as “over $50,000,000” are shaded in green, indicating that their total assets could actually be worth much more than this number.



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/01/us/politics/how-much-people-in-the-trump-administration-are-worth-financial-disclosure.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, zenwalk said:

 

How much the Trump administration is worth. 

 

The Trump administration is considered the wealthiest in United States history. Here is a look at the value of assets held by some top officials at the time they joined the administration, based on financial disclosure filings. People highlighted in yellow are members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.

Because the value of each asset is reported as a range, like “$100,001 - $250,000,” as opposed to a precise amount, we are showing the total value of assets as bottom and top estimates. People who had at least one asset classified as “over $50,000,000” are shaded in green, indicating that their total assets could actually be worth much more than this number.



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/01/us/politics/how-much-people-in-the-trump-administration-are-worth-financial-disclosure.html

Buzz! You are avoiding the question!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

No one denies conservatives give to their churches but in reality that money goes into buying new canvas for the circled wagons. WaPo then:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/?utm_term=.1ca0cdaa83cd

My experience is quite different.

The churches from one faith to another, from one community/parish to another are more involved in communities at the front porch level than they have ever been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jdsample said:

I am sure that is true is some cases.  In my experience, we have a church that does a couple of fund raising events a year at our winery.  I am not a member of the church, but we donate our time and space to them.  They use the money they raise to build housing, schools, and churches in Juarez.  In addition the church members spend their summer vacations doing the actual work themselves.  I am sure they enjoy the camaraderie with each other living in tents and cooking outside, but what they speak of is the beauty of the Mexican people. 

And you can't deny that hospitals across our country are named after saints.  That is because churches built them.  They would all be named after presidents if the Fed built them. 

Yes, many catholic hospitals began as charity hospitals. Most catholics are democrats though (not that these hospitals maintain themselves on bingo drives anymore).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sprightly said:

Buzz! You are avoiding the question!!  

What question is that? That republicans are less generous than their democrat brethren? I'd say the size of their fortunes speak for themselves. The size of their sanctimonious egos speaks for their miserliness. Face it. These loafers are in government to enrich themselves and could give a tinker's damn about poverty. I'd say you are the one avoiding the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zenwalk said:

Yes, many catholic hospitals began as charity hospitals. Most catholics are democrats though (not that these hospitals maintain themselves on bingo drives anymore).

The point is religious people, not the Holy State established and support them.  But by all means avoid them out of principle when you have your next heart attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ncbirdfan said:

That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you saying methodology means nothing? Or are you just saying this because the local one agrees with your opinion?

Most of his comments makes no sense my.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zenwalk said:

What question is that? That republicans are less generous than their democrat brethren? I'd say the size of their fortunes speak for themselves. The size of their sanctimonious egos speaks for their miserliness. Face it. These loafers are in government to enrich themselves and could give a tinker's damn about poverty. I'd say you are the one avoiding the question.

Go back and read the thread title before you accuse anyone of sanctimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bmore_ken said:

So you think he paid $30 million with no benefit to him? You think his net worth was reduced by $30 million? You must be new to this country and how the tax code works.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm simply saying that I find this idea from the OP:

If I have to pay a little more with each paycheck to ensure my fellow Americans can access health care? SIGN ME UP.

to be mistaken. In fact, regular Americans paying a little more is not going to finance health care. Here's who pays for government:

Top 1% Pay Nearly Half Of Federal Income Taxes

Many middle class Americans have convinced themselves (with help from Republicans and even some Democrats) that somehow it is they who shoulder the tax burden in this country when in fact the lions share of the money comes from people like Trump. That's simply a fact and is all I am trying to point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm simply saying that I find this idea from the OP:

 

 

to be mistaken. In fact, regular Americans paying a little more is not going to finance health care. Here's who pays for government:

Top 1% Pay Nearly Half Of Federal Income Taxes

Many middle class Americans have convinced themselves (with help from Republicans and even some Democrats) that somehow it is they who shoulder the tax burden in this country when in fact the lions share of the money comes from people like Trump. That's simply a fact and is all I am trying to point out.

That's because they OWN more than the rest of the 99% combined. So if they are paying nearly half, they are not paying nearly enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

That's because they OWN more than the rest of the 99% combined. So if they are paying nearly half, they are not paying nearly enough.

Yes I am well aware of that. Let's try to stick to what I am saying and not make assumptions about what I mean. The point is that this author is not going to finance health care by paying a little more in taxes. She appears to be under the impression that her relatively insignificant tax return is paying her freight as well as that of others. I find that unlikely. I suspect that most people pay enough to cover their own end and it's the super rich who are 'paying for others' if we want to think of it that way (which apparently the author does).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

Yes I am well aware of that. Let's try to stick to what I am saying and not make assumptions about what I mean. The point is that this author is not going to finance health care by paying a little more in taxes. She appears to be under the impression that her relatively insignificant tax return is paying her freight as well as that of others. I find that unlikely. I suspect that most people pay enough to cover their own end and it's the super rich who are 'paying for others' if we want to think of it that way (which apparently the author does).

Proportionately, the middle class and poor pay more. The problem is the 1% owns more than 99% combined.  They control who pays taxes and they used to pay a rate of 90% (they really didn't pay that much with all the loopholes, just like they don't really pay as much as they claim they do today.). Those were the days when the middle class flourished - were able to buy new shiny cars and nice houses, go on modest vacations and at the same time save for wealthy (for them) retirement. In other words the super rich should pay for the others. They shouldn't just be gobbling up more wealth.

Edited by ncbirdfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

Proportionately, the middle class and poor pay more. The problem is the 1% owns more than 99% combined.  They control who pays taxes and they used to pay a rate of 90% (they really didn't pay that much with all the loopholes, just like they don't really pay as much as they claim they do today.). Those were the days when the middle class flourished - were able to buy new shiny cars and nice houses, go on modest vacations and at the same time save for wealthy (for them) retirement. In other words the super rich should pay for the others. They shouldn't just be gobbling up more wealth.

 

First, the high tax rates were on income, not worth, so how much is owned is irrelevant in that regard.  Second, today's uber-earners don't typically have the incomes one might expect, they get their earnings from capital gains, taxed at a much lower rate.

The middle class flourished because they had manufacturing jobs, which is the best way to actually create wealth.  Those jobs are now creating middle classes in India and China, because we regulated them into moving.  Our air is cleaner, our water fresher and our coffers emptier.  There is an old saying in business that the keys are price, quality and timeliness; but you can only get any two and be competitive.  Well' it appears you can have brilliantly clean air or sparkling water or jobs, but only 2 of the 3.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

Go back and read the thread title before you accuse anyone of sanctimony.

The basics of Republican health legislation, which haven’t changed much in different iterations of Trumpcare, are easy to describe: Take health insurance away from tens of millions, make it much worse and far more expensive for millions more, and use the money thus saved to cut taxes on the wealthy...

 

So one way to understand this ugly health plan is that Republicans, through their political opportunism and dishonesty, boxed themselves into a position that makes them seem cruel and immoral — because they are.

Yet that’s surely not the whole story, because Obamacare isn’t the only social insurance program that does great good yet faces incessant right-wing attack. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability benefits all get the same treatment. Why?




https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/opinion/understanding-republican-cruelty.html?mwrsm=Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Responsibility is an alien concept for most Republicans 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just the Feds but this State & City have been sucking so much out of me in Taxes & Fees for almost 50 years and just wasting it all or pouring it down the Rat Hole that NO, I Don't feel any Social Responsibility esp. for those who have learned how to live off the Gov't teat and Not Produce anything themselves except for More offspring to do the same. I'm Not Rich and never will be. Any Peanuts raise I get any year just gets eaten up by how much my Costs go up every year. I've been treading water for I don't know how long. And speaking of Water, the extra fees and stuff now are More than the Water I actually use every month. It's all BS to those of us who have Worked their whole lives supporting those that Don't. And I WAS a registered Democrat my whole life up till the last time I renewed my license when I said, heck, switch it to Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mrsmlh said:

IMO jumping from about $7.50 per hour to $15 per hour was/is too much too fast.  If it was done in increments of say $1 or $2 per year, I don't think it would so bad.

Agreed. However what you are saying too general. BTIM....depending on where you live ...some of the requested increases are immediate while in other states/places it is incremental.

However from a politicians viewpoint.....you don't make a big splash and photo op by announcing a logical planned incrementally laid out increase schedule. Drop the $15 bombshell....you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now