Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, Stossel has been shown to be incorrect more than once. He doesn't cite any specific data other than Arthur Brooks told him so. Where is the data? Where is teh supporting information for this statement?
Regarding the tax discussion earlier on, I didn't quite understand what that was all about. Sure, taxes are not always levied fairly, but taxes as such are simply necessary as long as there is any kind of professional dedicated government. And with huge entities such as states and countries you can't do without government these days.
Actors, singers, CEOs etc. may earn a lot, but they also pay a lot of taxes. Sure, many of them are still left with millions, but they have also paid millions in taxes, which is way more than most of us ever pay. And in the end, it is us consumers who make those people filthy rich in the first place.
Another point. It is not the sole purpose of government to help the poor. Government has stepped in because the private sector has been unwilling or unable to do so. Prior to public programs such as Social Security, unemployment, AFDC,etc., People who were old, unable to work or out of work for not fault of their own were left to whatever happened. Charities were largely ineffective.
Again, can you cite specific data about the alleged laziness of welfare recipients? How do you know how many are lazy and how many are just down on their luck and need help? Anecdotal evidence is insufficient. Please provide real facts, not stories about "a guy I knew ..." or "this friend of my cousin's second wife knew someone who..."
Straw man.
Never said the poor are lazy, blah, blah, blah. The OP attempted to cite bible passages to cast the (Broadly speaking) conservative christain opposition to gov't socail programs as hypocrisy or at least in contradiction to the sacred text. As I pointed out opposition to gov't programs does not equal lack of compassion for the poor. The disagreement is often about delivery of that compassion.
It is a typically self-rightoues liberal pose to assume that disagreement with their chosen ideas to help the poor means their opponents don't care about the poor.
First of all, Stossel has been shown to be incorrect more than once. He doesn't cite any specific data other than Arthur Brooks told him so. Where is the data? Where is teh supporting information for this statement?
Brooks wrote a whole frickin' book about it. Look it up yourself.
Voluntary donation of money to entities that one chooses is charity. Most conservatives donate much more to charities than liberals. Confiscation of wealth from private citizens by the government to distribute to entities that may be diametrically opposed to Christianity is a different matter.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,016,954 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2
Straw man.
Never said the poor are lazy, blah, blah, blah. The OP attempted to cite bible passages to cast the (Broadly speaking) conservative christain opposition to gov't socail programs as hypocrisy or at least in contradiction to the sacred text. As I pointed out opposition to gov't programs does not equal lack of compassion for the poor. The disagreement is often about delivery of that compassion.
It is a typically self-rightoues liberal pose to assume that disagreement with their chosen ideas to help the poor means their opponents don't care about the poor.
Exactly! I'd love it for liberals to explain why the bureaucrats who are administering services to the poor must have high salaries, top notch benefit packages and a lifetime pension upon retirement. I thought helping the poor has to come from the heart and not the "what's in it for me" attitude that comes from many civil servants.
"But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.
"Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.
***
"And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. 'The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor,' says Brooks. 'The middle class give the least.'"
"
so...poor people give the most of themselves....are the most charitable.
NOT rich people.
and especially these days when it's not beneficial tax-wise to be "generous."
I never took social work in college. And I graduated in 1971. I'm neither liberal nor conservative, mainly because I don't have the common propensity to make snide, unfounded and nonsensical comments about what one or the other believes. I asked for facts, you refer me to a book which may or may not have those facts. I just don't accept unsubstantiated claims based on little or nothing.
As for the salaries and such that bureaucrats receive, again, get involved and do something besides whining and complaining.
And I never said or implied that my "opponents" don't care about the poor. Please don't deliberately misinterpret or misstate what I said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
