Being atheist is not better than being religious.

Both are flawed imo. Highly flawed.

I still respect both positions though.

ManusJustus said: Kasz, you are incorrect agian. Charity cannot be quantified by monetary donations.  For example, a rich coal mining CEO donated money to my university for the construction of a new building, but he required that the name of the building promote the coal industry (to counter the push for green energy).  Lets say he donated a a million dollars and after taxes had a net loss of $600,000, but how much value do you put on advertising and promotion of self interests?  Surely a person who anonymously gives a donation is 'giving more' than a person who gives the same amount but wants recognization and to promote self-interests.  So again, donations to charity are not an accurate measure of caring. Concerning taxes, liberals want a progressive tax system that increases taxes on the rich, yet liberals also happen to have more money on average than conservatives. Also, you failed to bring up an example of private donations being as effective as government funding.  Which, I might add, is impossible since the government has much more resourcess and is better able to pursue charitable actions than a private charity could ever hope for.

Such an example is BY FAR the VAST minority and it's hilarious you'd try and bring it up to prove a point.

The second point... again is silly since the salary difference between liberals and conservatives is about 6%.  Not exactly a GIANT divide.

The third... I didn't come up with an example because well.. it's just well known charities are more effective.  The government is known for it's vast inefficenies... so much so that IT has started giving money to private charities.

 

There are good and corrupt charities... and only corrupt government.  For all your posturing you haven't provided something to the contrary, even though it's something widely regarded by as false... mostly because I think your still holding on to a false notion that more done = more effective even when it spends more money.

But heck, food banks do way more with less then foodstamps. 

Private donations work better then government aid, because government aid usually isn't ever fully given what was promised... and if it does is often given largely in debt relief, which doesn't help anyone in the present.

Not to mention the nations in which government aid does go through too are often consdiered DISASTEROUS.  Such as many different african nations.

See http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Aid-Working-Better-Africa/dp/0374139563

The government often causes more trouble then it's worth because it's big, pushes everyone out of the "aid" market and then does it what it thinks is best, even when it's blatantly obvious it's wrong.  Charities are small and agile, government is large and slow, and not willing to improve things until the government decides to get together and finally kick it in the ass.

 

For another example of problems.  When comparing people on Welfare and people who work but make about the same money donating to charity... people who work donate WAY more then the people on Welfare despite their income differences being negligable.  Both groups are equally eligable and probably both use food banks.

Kasz216 said: ManusJustus said: I said 'accurate' measurement.  Obviously, if someone donates $100 and they get $50 back, they really only gave away $50. Paying taxes isn't a sign of charity, but supporting tax increases is.  If a person wants to pay $3,000 more in taxes and wants public healthcare, then that person is being very charitable. Government spending on charity is much more effective than private charities, I can't even fathom why anyone would argue against this.  Public healthcare gives everyone healthcare while private charities are unable to provide these services.  Don't even argue against this until you have an example of a charity getting enough donations to pay for the healthcare of an entire country. Sure it is, you just need to take the deductables out of the equation... which is already done based on the facts that liberals make money, and therefore their deductions would be higher. As for supporting tax increases being a sign of charity... i'd say it all depends on who the tax increases are meant to be on.  When have you ever seen a group support higher taxes on themselves?  It's usually rare... and if they felt that way really... why aren't they donating that excess they think they should be paying every year?  Is the thought "They government should be taxing me an additional grand a year to help the poor... but screw it!  HD TV! That is the biggest liberal disconnect.  It's like support for an unrealized law actually HURTS the people the unrealized law is supposed to help because some people see charities as old fashioned relics or something. As for the third paragraph... you aren't making any sense in it.  Being able to get more funds doesn't equal effectiveness.    Spending 50,000 and treating 100,000 people is more effective then spending 500,000 and treating 500,000 people.  Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it's effective at doing it. I mean, despite our broken healthcare system, surivival rates and other REAL healthcare statistics are at the top of the charts.

The states that vote democrat generally have the higher household income, which is evidence that the rich do support higher taxes on themselves. The 'latte liberals' do support higher taxes on themselves. They also believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure quality of life, not charities - which is why they do not all donate heavily.

Kasz, lets assume for a moment that private charities are more efficient at provind care than public charities. Then what difference does it make if people donate to a private charity or if the government gives tax money to a private charity (which our government already does in huge amounts)?

ManusJustus said: Kasz, lets assume for a moment that private charities are more efficient at provind care than public charities. Then what difference does it make if people donate to a private charity or if the government gives tax money to a private charity (which our government already does in huge amounts)?

Easy, that money that goes in large part to private charites (which you know... is something that greatly proves my point that you've provided) has to be decided opon where to go, which means vast overhead, and largely isn't awarded by merit but politcal favor.

Rath said: Kasz216 said: ManusJustus said: I said 'accurate' measurement.  Obviously, if someone donates $100 and they get $50 back, they really only gave away $50. Paying taxes isn't a sign of charity, but supporting tax increases is.  If a person wants to pay $3,000 more in taxes and wants public healthcare, then that person is being very charitable. Government spending on charity is much more effective than private charities, I can't even fathom why anyone would argue against this.  Public healthcare gives everyone healthcare while private charities are unable to provide these services.  Don't even argue against this until you have an example of a charity getting enough donations to pay for the healthcare of an entire country. Sure it is, you just need to take the deductables out of the equation... which is already done based on the facts that liberals make money, and therefore their deductions would be higher. As for supporting tax increases being a sign of charity... i'd say it all depends on who the tax increases are meant to be on.  When have you ever seen a group support higher taxes on themselves?  It's usually rare... and if they felt that way really... why aren't they donating that excess they think they should be paying every year?  Is the thought "They government should be taxing me an additional grand a year to help the poor... but screw it!  HD TV! That is the biggest liberal disconnect.  It's like support for an unrealized law actually HURTS the people the unrealized law is supposed to help because some people see charities as old fashioned relics or something. As for the third paragraph... you aren't making any sense in it.  Being able to get more funds doesn't equal effectiveness.    Spending 50,000 and treating 100,000 people is more effective then spending 500,000 and treating 500,000 people.  Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it's effective at doing it. I mean, despite our broken healthcare system, surivival rates and other REAL healthcare statistics are at the top of the charts. The states that vote democrat generally have the higher household income, which is evidence that the rich do support higher taxes on themselves. The 'latte liberals' do support higher taxes on themselves. They also believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure quality of life, not charities - which is why they do not all donate heavily.

Once again.. 6% difference incomes. 30% difference in donation rates. Meaning that even with taxes included, conservatives destroy liberals in giving.

Kasz216 said: Rath said: Kasz216 said: ManusJustus said: I said 'accurate' measurement.  Obviously, if someone donates $100 and they get $50 back, they really only gave away $50. Paying taxes isn't a sign of charity, but supporting tax increases is.  If a person wants to pay $3,000 more in taxes and wants public healthcare, then that person is being very charitable. Government spending on charity is much more effective than private charities, I can't even fathom why anyone would argue against this.  Public healthcare gives everyone healthcare while private charities are unable to provide these services.  Don't even argue against this until you have an example of a charity getting enough donations to pay for the healthcare of an entire country. Sure it is, you just need to take the deductables out of the equation... which is already done based on the facts that liberals make money, and therefore their deductions would be higher. As for supporting tax increases being a sign of charity... i'd say it all depends on who the tax increases are meant to be on.  When have you ever seen a group support higher taxes on themselves?  It's usually rare... and if they felt that way really... why aren't they donating that excess they think they should be paying every year?  Is the thought "They government should be taxing me an additional grand a year to help the poor... but screw it!  HD TV! That is the biggest liberal disconnect.  It's like support for an unrealized law actually HURTS the people the unrealized law is supposed to help because some people see charities as old fashioned relics or something. As for the third paragraph... you aren't making any sense in it.  Being able to get more funds doesn't equal effectiveness.    Spending 50,000 and treating 100,000 people is more effective then spending 500,000 and treating 500,000 people.  Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it's effective at doing it. I mean, despite our broken healthcare system, surivival rates and other REAL healthcare statistics are at the top of the charts. The states that vote democrat generally have the higher household income, which is evidence that the rich do support higher taxes on themselves. The 'latte liberals' do support higher taxes on themselves. They also believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure quality of life, not charities - which is why they do not all donate heavily. Once again.. 6% difference incomes. 30% difference in donation rates. Meaning that even with taxes included, conservatives destroy liberals in giving.

I was arguing that rich liberals support higher taxes on the rich - not that they give more. I don't see how your argument follows...

Rath said: Kasz216 said: Rath said: Kasz216 said: ManusJustus said: I said 'accurate' measurement.  Obviously, if someone donates $100 and they get $50 back, they really only gave away $50. Paying taxes isn't a sign of charity, but supporting tax increases is.  If a person wants to pay $3,000 more in taxes and wants public healthcare, then that person is being very charitable. Government spending on charity is much more effective than private charities, I can't even fathom why anyone would argue against this.  Public healthcare gives everyone healthcare while private charities are unable to provide these services.  Don't even argue against this until you have an example of a charity getting enough donations to pay for the healthcare of an entire country. Sure it is, you just need to take the deductables out of the equation... which is already done based on the facts that liberals make money, and therefore their deductions would be higher. As for supporting tax increases being a sign of charity... i'd say it all depends on who the tax increases are meant to be on.  When have you ever seen a group support higher taxes on themselves?  It's usually rare... and if they felt that way really... why aren't they donating that excess they think they should be paying every year?  Is the thought "They government should be taxing me an additional grand a year to help the poor... but screw it!  HD TV! That is the biggest liberal disconnect.  It's like support for an unrealized law actually HURTS the people the unrealized law is supposed to help because some people see charities as old fashioned relics or something. As for the third paragraph... you aren't making any sense in it.  Being able to get more funds doesn't equal effectiveness.    Spending 50,000 and treating 100,000 people is more effective then spending 500,000 and treating 500,000 people.  Just because it CAN do something doesn't mean it's effective at doing it. I mean, despite our broken healthcare system, surivival rates and other REAL healthcare statistics are at the top of the charts. The states that vote democrat generally have the higher household income, which is evidence that the rich do support higher taxes on themselves. The 'latte liberals' do support higher taxes on themselves. They also believe it is the governments responsibility to ensure quality of life, not charities - which is why they do not all donate heavily. Once again.. 6% difference incomes. 30% difference in donation rates. Meaning that even with taxes included, conservatives destroy liberals in giving. I was arguing that rich liberals support higher taxes on the rich - not that they give more. I don't see how your argument follows...

If your talking super rich... well yeah, but they're a small portion of all liberals just like they're a slightly smaller portion of all conservatives. The general line of reasoning is that support of hig her taxes replaces actual charity. Those who think taxes should be risen on them by say... 10,000 dollars a year aren't donating thast 10,000 they don't think they deserve. Liberals in general seem to have a disconnect their to where support for polcies not yet realized (tax raises for example) ironically leads to the poor getting screwed. I often wonder how serious people are when this is the case.

Kantor said: SamuelRSmith said: If only I was gay.... I'd be BARE smart. Being gay has nothing to do with it. Just sleep with a whole bunch of different women (or men), and your IQ will skyrocket. Or maybe it's the other way around.

Einstein was a pimp then

Kasz216 said: Once again.. 6% difference incomes. 30% difference in donation rates. Meaning that even with taxes included, conservatives destroy liberals in giving.

When will the inaccuracies stop, Kasz?  We already made it clear that tax deductions and promotion of self interests makes what conservatives give as less, such as a rich businessman who donates because he wants a building or community center named after him or religous people who donate because they think they will recieve rewards after they die.

You also fail to realize that liberal areas are also more expensive areas to live in.  Liberals tend to live in urban areas and conservatives tend to live in rural areas, meaning that liberals have to pay more money for living expenses.  A conservative who buys a house in rural Wyoming has a lot more money left over than a liberal who buys a house in San Francisco.