AllDeaf.com
Mobile - Perks - Advertise - Spy - Who Quoted Me  
Go Back   AllDeaf.com > Deaf Community > Current Events > War & Political News
LIKE AllDeaf on Facebook FOLLOW AllDeaf on Twitter
Like Tree22Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 02-05-2012, 09:59 AM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
It is also most certainly not only extremely wealthy people who believe raising taxes is bad for the economy. My husband spent 20 years in the Air Force as an enlisted man. We had one kid when he joined. We had seven when he retired. We were often eligible for food stamps (although we did not take them after the first year we were married).
We've been pretty poor before, and we may be again (he just joined the ranks of the unemployed). But we've never see raising taxes as good for the economy.
There would be no need to raise taxes if spending (read: wasted non-necessities) was brought under control. Ever notice how when spending cuts are mention some folks will bring in the argument that the spending is necessary but won't give a thought to waste?
rolling7 is offline  
Alt Today
All Deaf

Beitrag Sponsored Links

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com
   
Unread 02-05-2012, 10:16 AM   #32 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Alberta,Canada
Posts: 386
Send a message via Skype™ to JabberJay
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex View Post
I had to post this on my facebook.
__________________
JabberJay is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 05:41 PM   #33 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
I think many people here agree with conservatives on the food stamps issue more than they think, based on comments on the thread about snack foods on food stamps. I saw people who here can find nothing to question about food stamps, over there insisting that their tax dollars should not be spent on cokes. But they are. And that's the kind of thing conservatives say.

Most conservatives I know and have read think the problem isn't that people are on them fraudulently, it's that the rules are too lax, and that there are no controls on what people buy with them.

Up until last week, when my husband joined the unemployed, he spent the last few years as a grocery store manager. He sees what the majority of people buy on their food stamps. It doesn't matter how much they 'meet the rules of eligibility' when they are buying cases of cokes, chocolate bars, twinkies, frozen convenience foods with zero nutritional value, and- really oddly, loads of crab legs. He sold more crab legs to people on food stamps than anybody else. In fact, I think in our county, you can only afford crab legs if you are on food stamps.

We went from 1 in 10 Americans on food stamps four years ago, to 1 in 7 last year.
My husband and I have been deeply involved in the lives of some of these people for the last five years. We're watching generational dependency, and it's destructive. We've been asked by school aged children why anybody in our family works when you get groceries, medical care and housing for free. They've sweetly offered to take us to the food pantry to show us how to get free food. We've watched the government reward their parents when they make foolish decisions and punish them when they try to save, or get jobs.

When my husband was regional manager of the little grocery chain where he worked, he tracked the food stamps income and found that one of the stores got 40% of their income from food stamps, one about 30-35%, one 25%, and one less than ten. We see how destructive this system is unless you are very, very strong and have some skills the government wn't provide to get free of it. This reliance on government income does not bode well for the future.

I don't find the Welfare State any more compassionate than the Slave State, honestly. It's cruel, it creates dependence and it weakens people.

It's also not compassionate at all to take money from one person and give it to another. True compassion digs into your own pockets.

I don't think the immense effort of using one's pinky finger to press a particular button in a private voting booth says anything at all about how much one cares for the poor. It's what you do personally. And as it happens, conservatives donate at least 30% more out of their own pockets, personally, than liberals do.
Quote:
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.
It's easy to say that because you vote a certain way you care more about the poor, but it's not true. I don't prove I care more about my poor neighbor Jill by smacking my other neighbor Jack and stealing his wallet to give to her, nor do I prove my compassion by voting for somebody else to take his wallet and give the contents to her (and often to myself).

Some people prefer to rely on propaganda points (the Republicans don't care about the poor) instead of facts to inform their thinking. Happily, Brooks wasn't one of them:

Quote:
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 05:45 PM   #34 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
I read Brooks' article: "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 05:51 PM   #35 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
I read Brooks' article: "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

How odd that you left the next statement out:
Quote:
But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
Hmmmm.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 06:12 PM   #36 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
It also makes little sense to eliminate religious donations because they also help the poor. Here are some examples of the 'religious' institutions that warmhearted liberals who care about the poor think shouldn't count:

Ghana West Africa Missions- which helps give clean working wells to villages that don't have them.
The Shoebox Project- families (or churches) prepare shoeboxes of gifts for poor children in third world countries. We usually include school supplies and some first aid supplies in ours.
Prison Fellowship Ministries- the Christmas Tree thing, where needy children, and often children of prison inmates, are given Christmas gifts and other donations.
Haiti Christian Development Project- they help with micro projects in agriculture, and other projects building towards self sustaining lives
Manna Global Ministries- they do several things, our interest was in the children's home which provides religious instruction as well as food, shelter, and education
Healing Hands International-
Hope for Haiti's Children- rebuilding homes, orphan care, nutrition, and so much more

During Hurricane Katrina, when the Red Cross and other secular agencies were insisting they could only use money, our then tiny church (30 people) collected thousands of dollars in blankets, baby clothes, diapers, formula, paper products and basic first aid and mailed it to another tiny church in the area, where they delivered the products to people who needed them within hours.

The Christian crisis pregnancy center where we adopted our daughters- the center, even 15 years later, still provides counseling and other services to our girls' birth mother. they provide job training, help with clothing and housing and a food pantry to mothers in need, and adoption is not their first goal. They prefer to help mothers keep their kids.

The local crisis pregnancy center in town, different denomination from the one where we adopted our girls, but they have the same goals and practices.

My kids once collected a thousand dollars and wanted to give it anonymously to a family in need, so they spoke to the leadership at our church, who accepted the money from the kids and then gave it to the family, telling them it was an anonymous donation. On paper, that was a donation to a religious institution.

We are not unique. Among the people we know, I think we probably donate less than most (largely because we have seven kids, and five are still at home).

There's no compassionate reason to eliminate organizations like these from consideration when looking at how much money people donate to charitable causes.

The facts are, conservatives do donate more of their own personal time and money to the needy than liberal do. This is hard to accept if one prefers demonizing and marginalizing those who disagree. Brooks didn't like the findings of his own research, either, but he did the honest thing and changed his mind.

You don't have to believe this is because one group cares more about the poor than another. Brooks himself believes it's a matter of different views about *how* to best meet charitable obligations.
Liberals believe that the government should do the job.
Conservatives believe people in private should do this.

Both sides act on those beliefs in a way that is consistent. Liberals agitate for more government, but don't donate as much, and Conservatives donate more, but agitate for less government.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 06:13 PM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug5 View Post
It is always the extremely wealthy/rich people making this argument.

The 99% people should use this argument against them. Lowering taxes on the middle class and poor helps the economy most. THe tax rate on the rich has negilible affect on the economy.

Get rid of sales taxes and gas taxes which hits the lowest income people the most.
I AGREE!!! Thats why i want Obama get the DOJ on Florida ban on using food stamps on sodas. Sales taxes just like things expensive to buy like the Gas tax for example. If the wealthy can find loopholes by hiring lawyers and putting their money in swiss bank accounts instead of paying the I.R.S why cant the poor find loopholes too? Like you dont pay sales taxes with Food Stamps?
SteveMcGarrett is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 06:16 PM   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatdidyousay! View Post
That poster upset me as it is true about how the government think the people are stupid! We where told in my state if we voted for the seat belt law our auto insurance rate would go down. Right!! I voted against the law.
Right!!! Seat Belt laws,Parking Meter violations,Traffic violations and trapping prositution has nothing to do with public safety. It has everything to do with REVINUE!
SteveMcGarrett is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 06:27 PM   #39 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
How odd that you left the next statement out:

Hmmmm.
Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do. Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans. It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country. Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 06:28 PM   #40 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug5 View Post
It is always the extremely wealthy/rich people making this argument.

The 99% people should use this argument against them. Lowering taxes on the middle class and poor helps the economy most. THe tax rate on the rich has negilible affect on the economy.

Get rid of sales taxes and gas taxes which hits the lowest income people the most.
Every time the government, usually the Republicans, cut taxes, the federal deficit goes up.
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 07:27 PM   #41 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
Every time the government, usually the Republicans, cut taxes, the federal deficit goes up.
That's because the government refuses to cut spending.

In my own household, if I reduce my income but don't reduce my spending, the same thing happens.
Reba likes this.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 07:39 PM   #42 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do. Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans. It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country. Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.

Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?

Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.
Or, Democrats prefer to make other people pay to support their pet programs, but don't help people out themselves.
Conservatives do not agree those programs help Americans. I believe they are harmful.

Quote:
It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country.
There is no evidence that this is true.
Quote:
Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.
There is no evidence that church organizations do not spend money feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in their own countries. There is no evidence that individual conservatives don't do this. FYI, we have had homeless people live with us in our own home for months at a time, at least three different families, and a few singles. The singles were.... vets.

Quote:
Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?
A hefty share? I doubt your figures, but it really doesn't matter. The point is not that there are no people left who still need help. It's that your comic book characterizations of people who differ from you politically are not well informed, not based on facts, and not really useful for a meaningful discussion.

You know, your argument is really with reality, as Brooks discovered. Conservatives personally give more to charity than liberals do. That's simply a fact. Nothing you have said has disproven Brooks' research.

There are probably perfectly legitimate reasons for that, as I said.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 07:49 PM   #43 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
That's because the government refuses to cut spending.

In my own household, if I reduce my income but don't reduce my spending, the same thing happens.
How is Obama reducing income?
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 07:53 PM   #44 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
Or, Democrats prefer to make other people pay to support their pet programs, but don't help people out themselves.
Conservatives do not agree those programs help Americans. I believe they are harmful.



There is no evidence that this is true.


There is no evidence that church organizations do not spend money feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in their own countries. There is no evidence that individual conservatives don't do this. FYI, we have had homeless people live with us in our own home for months at a time, at least three different families, and a few singles. The singles were.... vets.



A hefty share? I doubt your figures, but it really doesn't matter. The point is not that there are no people left who still need help. It's that your comic book characterizations of people who differ from you politically are not well informed, not based on facts, and not really useful for a meaningful discussion.

You know, your argument is really with reality, as Brooks discovered. Conservatives personally give more to charity than liberals do. That's simply a fact. Nothing you have said has disproven Brooks' research.

There are probably perfectly legitimate reasons for that, as I said.
comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?

DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 08:44 PM   #45 (permalink)
Retired Terp
 
Reba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 44,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
Democrats support more social welfare programs than conservatives do.
Support? As in, donate their money to?

Quote:
Hm. Democrats complain less about taxes spent on programs that benefit Americans.
Whose money are they spending? Their own?

Quote:
It's so strange conservatives like to help others abroad but not in their own country.
What's wrong with helping both? Whose says that they help others abroad to the exclusion of helping those at home?

Quote:
Housing and feeding the homeless, indifent, disabled, who can not take care of themselves should first be the responsibility of the various church organizations that are now spending billions of donated dollars on feeding and housing the hungry and homeless in other countries.
What are the numbers behind that statement? I know of lots of charities that are sponsored by churches that provide for the homeless, disabled, and poor in America.

Quote:
Your own war veterans are suffering greatly from PTSD, there is a 12.% unemployment rate in veterans, a hefty share of them are homeless. Why is that if Republicans or conservatives are so charitable and caring?
The Republicans can't do it all by themselves.

Veterans shouldn't have to depend on charity for their battle-related aftercare. The military services and Veterans Administration are supposed to be responsible for that.

However, there are many charities that do provide services and housing for veterans. I donate to several of them myself.

Quote:
Many Conservatives remind me a lot of a certain passage in the book "The Help" where white American women who treated their black maids as second class or worse were donating so generously to children in Africa.
Are you saying that conservatives are racist hypocrites?
Grayma likes this.
Reba is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 08:48 PM   #46 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reba View Post
Are you saying that conservatives are racist hypocrites?
some of them, yes. especially when they use the word "illegals".
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:02 PM   #47 (permalink)
Retired Terp
 
Reba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 44,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
How is Obama reducing income?
Grayma is comparing a family's income to the Federal government's revenue.

When a family's income goes down, they cut back on expenses.

When the Federal government's revenue goes down, it should cut back on expenses.
Reba is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:07 PM   #48 (permalink)
TWA
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,374
Two observations.

1) Individual anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate like this.
2) Quibbling over specific words and semantics in an attempt to derail argument.
TWA is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:09 PM   #49 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reba View Post
Grayma is comparing a family's income to the Federal government's revenue.

When a family's income goes down, they cut back on expenses.

When the Federal government's revenue goes down, it should cut back on expenses.
yes, i understand what she was comparing and was wondering exactly what she was referring to in terms of reduced income.

Obama did a lot of budget cuts and compared to Bush, he's spent way less than half. Bush spent 5.7 trillion. Obama spent 1.3 and with all the budget cuts, subtracted from that, his total expenditure is actually $983 billion.

and USA's national revenue has actually gone up, not down.
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:11 PM   #50 (permalink)
Retired Terp
 
Reba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 44,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
some of them, yes. especially when they use the word "illegals".
That's interesting since illegal aliens come in all races and ethnicities, some being the same races and ethnicities as American citizens. I thought the divide was between legal and illegal status, not between races since both statuses include all races.

The term "illegals" is slang and not proper English usage, in my opinion.
Reba is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:34 PM   #51 (permalink)
Dream Weaver
 
TXgolfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 19,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
yes, i understand what she was comparing and was wondering exactly what she was referring to in terms of reduced income.

Obama did a lot of budget cuts and compared to Bush, he's spent way less than half. Bush spent 5.7 trillion. Obama spent 1.3 and with all the budget cuts, subtracted from that, his total expenditure is actually $983 billion.

and USA's national revenue has actually gone up, not down.
What?
__________________
He who answers before listening-that is his folly and his shame..
TXgolfer is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:35 PM   #52 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reba View Post
That's interesting since illegal aliens come in all races and ethnicities, some being the same races and ethnicities as American citizens. I thought the divide was between legal and illegal status, not between races since both statuses include all races.

The term "illegals" is slang and not proper English usage, in my opinion.
In my opinion, "illegals" is a slur.
DeafCaroline is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 09:38 PM   #53 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Doug5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?

yep, and drug abuse is a symptom of ptsd. Theyre probably haunted by intrusive thoughts and self medicate to make them go away.
Doug5 is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 10:42 PM   #54 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
How is Obama reducing income?
I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 10:51 PM   #55 (permalink)
Registered User
 
kokonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.
Absolutely correct.
__________________
Oh, goody. She's gone. No sign of her. Oh, yeahhhhh! And him, too. Sweet!

Man, what a total mess. What a big fail. I am just laughing at it all. Gotta have sense of humor in life.


Paranoia much? Run to Mama then.
kokonut is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 11:01 PM   #56 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeafCaroline View Post
comic book arguments? thanks for the laugh.

I do respect people having a differing political view, just not the ones who don't take the time to inform themselves before expressing them.

You are really clueless about the current state of veterans in the US, eh?
]
No Carolyn, the name-calling you do is not respectful.
Differing from you is not the same as refusing to take the time to inform myself, and glossy propaganda pictures are not informed discussion.

My husband is a vet who served 20 years. My son-in-law is a vet who lost most of the hearing in one ear serving in Iraq. We have many, many vets among our friends, and some among our late friends.
I am far from, what was that name you called me? Oh, clueless. No. I am not.

You made a claim without a citation. I always doubt uncited claims, but as I pointed out, it was irrelevant (and really, a strange thing to pull out of the air and toss in the pot, as it had nothing to do with what we were discussing). It's irrelevant because my point of discussion is Brooks' research, which has nothing to do with homeless Vets.

Nowhere did I say that conservatives or Republicans have taken care of all of society's problems. Nowhere did I say there are no vets with problems.:


My points are:
You cannot honestly or accurately say that Republicans don't care about the poor, because the facts are that conservatives, including Republicans, donate more to the poor than liberals do. You have presented absolutely no counter-evidence that disproves Brooks' research, which is widely accepted even among liberals who have actually looked at it.

What you can say is that liberals prefer government programs for addressing social problems and conservatives don't. This is kind of like saying that boys have external plumbing and girls don't, as in, it's kind of self identifying. If you prefer government programs, that generally means you are liberal by definition. If you prefer private charity, that generally means you are conservative, by definition.

The real issue is *why*. The reasons why are probably as varied as the individuals. Reasons like, "Because anybody who doesn't like what I like politically is a selfish jerk and an idiot," well, those aren't reasons, are they? They're just naked, baseless assertions.

While dragging homeless Vets into the discussion is a distraction and a red herring, it is interesting to note what happens if we are to agree with you that the existence of homeless vets is proof of compassion or lack thereof. If that is true, we must lay that on the door of the Democrats, who controlled both House and Senate before a Democratic President was elected, and who controlled both for another year or two after he was elected. With that trifecta, there was nothing stopping them from doing anything they liked. Did they not solve the homeless vet problem because they lacked compassion?

Hint: I don't think so. But if they were Republicans, you would. Since they are Democrats, must be some other reason?
Tousi and kokonut like this.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 11:05 PM   #57 (permalink)
Registered User
 
kokonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,054
I'll say this, Grayma, please give thanks to your hubby and SIL for their service. Just as I thank my brother and his son, and my sister who are vets, too.
Reba likes this.
__________________
Oh, goody. She's gone. No sign of her. Oh, yeahhhhh! And him, too. Sweet!

Man, what a total mess. What a big fail. I am just laughing at it all. Gotta have sense of humor in life.


Paranoia much? Run to Mama then.
kokonut is offline  
Unread 02-07-2012, 11:32 PM   #58 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grayma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 958
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWriteAlex View Post
Two observations.

1) Individual anecdotal evidence means nothing in a debate like this.
2) Quibbling over specific words and semantics in an attempt to derail argument.
I am not sure what kind of debate this is.

I think individual anecdotes do mean something when, as I saw it, the debate is really about a particular stereotype, such as:
X political party hates the poor (or doesn't care about them or whatever).

Examples of members of that political party who do not fit that stereotype are useful, IMO.
I am not a Republican, much to my husband's chagrin. He is. He is the primary breadwinner in our family, and is deeply involved in all the charities I mentioned- the one giving wells to villages in Africa is his particular pet charity. So I think our individual anecdotes are antidotes to the baseless stereotype that I saw offered here.

I've seen anecdotes used in a similar way to counteract other claims or assumptions here on AD- claims about the reading level of deaf children, the benefits or lack thereof to various orally based methods, the use of ASL as a benefit to language development. These discussions are generally answered by both appeals to personal experience and research.

Brook's research showing that conservatives give more to the poor than liberal do is more than anecdotal, of course.

As for semantics, I do think words mean something. I am not a fan of Humpty Dumpty's approach.
Tousi, Reba and kokonut like this.
Grayma is offline  
Unread 02-08-2012, 02:56 PM   #59 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grayma View Post
I said nothing about Obama.

You said that when the government cut taxes, the deficit goes up.
I agreed with you.

Taxes are the governments' income.

I said that when the government reduces its income (taxes), they do not reduce their spending, so of course the deficit goes up.

It's the same in my home. If I reduce my income but do not reduce my spending, my family deficit goes up.

If the government cuts taxes but doesn't cut spending, of course the deficit goes up.

A different way to look at it is that when the governments income goes up the personal income of the taxpayers goes down.
rolling7 is offline  
Unread 02-08-2012, 04:23 PM   #60 (permalink)
Registered User
 
DeafCaroline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,889
All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.
DeafCaroline is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Join AllDeaf on Facebook!    Follow us on Twitter!

AllDeaf proudly supports St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Copyright © 2002-2014, AllDeaf.com. All Rights Reserved.