What's a Palin

[lurker]

littleflower wrote:

jkisha wrote:
Which is interesting in that those that are least for helping those in need are almost always very 'faithful' christians.
JK

do you have a source for this assertion? i have seen evidence of the exact opposite.

I have seen evidence of the exact opposite too. And yes I do have examples but I don't have time to look them up.

JK

I'd LOVE to see these examples. Every study on charitable giving I've seen indicates that the religious give, per capita, more than the non-religious. That the right gives, per capita, more than the left

In this post 'give' is used to mean 'gives freely, without compulsion'.

I've often held that the left favors governmental compulsion in giving because they assume that their personal reticence in charitable giving is universal and it is therefore better to MAKE everyone help the less fortunate.

[Simon of the Playa]

Lurker wrote..

fellow travellers

my god, i havent heard that code word for "commie" in at least 25 years.



that's interesting....you assume i come at these issues from a leftist point of view, when in actuality, i've been fightin' commies all my life.

strange e-playa we live in, huh...


Fear not Obama, he has the Intelligence, Steadfastness, and Resolve to lead us thru the next 4 years, at least.

i, and many others, including 90% of the Joint Chiefs, do NOT think the same of McCain.

I'll take my chances with the Media's darling instead of that angry little turd and his dumb as a puck hockey mom.

[Simon of the Playa]

oh yeah, what happened to Wonderphil?



did he slide back into the sewer from whence he came, or did he get "whacked"?

[dr.placebo]

Recently it appears that conservatives who think (no slander, please) are starting to favor Obama.

-- Christopher Buckley (son of Wm. F. Buckley, formerly of the National Review):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... rsement-2/

-- Christopher Hitchens (conservative columnist at Vanity Fair and Slate):

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

-- Wick Allison, former publisher of the National Review:

[urlhttp://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Conservativ ... 0-563.html[/url]

Now if I can only swing lurker over...

[Simon of the Playa]

now this is just so RICH in irony...slathered, actually.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/1 ... 34595.html

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... n_john.php

[Elderberry]

Every study on charitable giving I've seen indicates that the religious give, per capita, more than the non-religious. That the right gives, per capita, more than the left

In this post 'give' is used to mean 'gives freely, without compulsion'.

I've often held that the left favors governmental compulsion in giving because they assume that their personal reticence in charitable giving is universal and it is therefore better to MAKE everyone help the less fortunate.

The main motivation behind "charitable" giving by religious groups is to proselytize. I'd call that marketing and advertising, not 'charitable giving'.

JK

[Elderberry]

Good reads Doc and Simon.

JK

[ygmir]

Every study on charitable giving I've seen indicates that the religious give, per capita, more than the non-religious. That the right gives, per capita, more than the left

In this post 'give' is used to mean 'gives freely, without compulsion'.

I've often held that the left favors governmental compulsion in giving because they assume that their personal reticence in charitable giving is universal and it is therefore better to MAKE everyone help the less fortunate.

The main motivation behind "charitable" giving by religious groups is to proselytize. I'd call that marketing and advertising, not 'charitable giving'.

JK

I agree, but, with the understanding that they still are giving.......usually don't require anything but listening to what they say.......
And, I don't see what's wrong with that, really......not that I'd want to do it. but, if I was hungry, etc, I'd be willing to eat soup while someone preached.......
but, that's just me.......

[Elderberry]

I agree, but, with the understanding that they still are giving.......usually don't require anything but listening to what they say.......
And, I don't see what's wrong with that, really......not that I'd want to do it. but, if I was hungry, etc, I'd be willing to eat soup while someone preached.......
but, that's just me.......

Yes, I too am a subscriber to the golden rule--He who has the gold (or food in this case) makes the rules. And it is even more insidious in that a person that is down in their luck, hungry, etc. are more susceptible to their brainwashing; which I thought was illegal in Abu Ghraib. I guess it's OK in the name of God.

If they really thought they had a good product shouldn't they be going after the people that are not quite so vulnerable?

But it's an age-old technique--even the army uses it to recruit, but that's another topic.

JK

[ygmir]

I agree, but, with the understanding that they still are giving.......usually don't require anything but listening to what they say.......
And, I don't see what's wrong with that, really......not that I'd want to do it. but, if I was hungry, etc, I'd be willing to eat soup while someone preached.......
but, that's just me.......

Yes, I too am a subscriber to the golden rule--He who has the gold (or food in this case) makes the rules. And it is even more insidious in that a person that is down in their luck, hungry, etc. are more susceptible to their brainwashing; which I thought was illegal in Abu Ghraib. I guess it's OK in the name of God.

If they really thought they had a good product shouldn't they be going after the people that are not quite so vulnerable?

But it's an age-old technique--even the army uses it to recruit, but that's another topic.

JK

yeah, I agree with you.
But, I've seen no charity that doesn't have an agenda....even gov. programs are tailored to keep people addicted to the handouts and "entitlements", so, they'll look to gov for their sustenance......it's all the same.
Seems it'd be a motivator, for many, though, to not have to deal with their rules......

and yup, religions in general want people that can't be independent......not really any different than gov, they want to be admired and depended on, to further their existence........and power.......and control, etc, etc....

[littleflower]

Every study on charitable giving I've seen indicates that the religious give, per capita, more than the non-religious. That the right gives, per capita, more than the left

In this post 'give' is used to mean 'gives freely, without compulsion'.

I've often held that the left favors governmental compulsion in giving because they assume that their personal reticence in charitable giving is universal and it is therefore better to MAKE everyone help the less fortunate.

The main motivation behind "charitable" giving by religious groups is to proselytize. I'd call that marketing and advertising, not 'charitable giving'.

JK

that is such bullshit. sorry, JK... but it is. i don't even know how you can make such a statement ... for one thing, the discussion was about individual giving, ie, left vs. right ... are you saying that religious people do not give to their church in order to help the poor? how would you know what motivates a person to give, or to whom?

but if we go into organizations that do the work ... i suppose that if a religious charity so much as puts up a banner with its name they are proselytizing?

and then, there are ordinary people who actually donate their time to help others ... do you really think they all try to convert everyone they help?

[Elderberry]

Every study on charitable giving I've seen indicates that the religious give, per capita, more than the non-religious. That the right gives, per capita, more than the left

In this post 'give' is used to mean 'gives freely, without compulsion'.

I've often held that the left favors governmental compulsion in giving because they assume that their personal reticence in charitable giving is universal and it is therefore better to MAKE everyone help the less fortunate.

The main motivation behind "charitable" giving by religious groups is to proselytize. I'd call that marketing and advertising, not 'charitable giving'.

JK

that is such bullshit. sorry, JK... but it is. i don't even know how you can make such a statement ... for one thing, the discussion was about individual giving, ie, left vs. right ... are you saying that religious people do not give to their church in order to help the poor? how would you know what motivates a person to give, or to whom?

but if we go into organizations that do the work ... i suppose that if a religious charity so much as puts up a banner with its name they are proselytizing?

and then, there are ordinary people who actually donate their time to help others ... do you really think they all try to convert everyone they help?

If the churches were really into 'giving' they wouldn't build multi-billion dollar empires--after all, with all the suffering and poverty in the world, wouldn't that collection plate money be put to much better use if it were given to the people rather than build the crystal cathedral or the vatican? If it were really charitably motivated wouldn't they sell all their assets and give them to the poor? The collect all the money from the poor suckers that are members of the church and then give a pittance of that money back as charity as a front so they don't lose their tax exempt status.

JK

[ygmir]

......listening to the comforting hum as the electric can opener works it's way around a tin of imported worms.........

[littleflower]

If the churches were really into 'giving' they wouldn't build multi-billion dollar empires--after all, with all the suffering and poverty in the world, wouldn't that collection plate money be put to much better use if it were given to the people rather than build the crystal cathedral or the vatican? If it were really charitably motivated wouldn't they sell all their assets and give them to the poor? The collect all the money from the poor suckers that are members of the church and then give a pittance of that money back as charity as a front so they don't lose their tax exempt status.

JK

that response does not even come close to answering my questions.

if churches sold all of their real estate and gave it to the poor, it would not solve the problem ... more like a short term semi-fix ... the poor always have been, and always will be, with us. it's part of life. we may not like it, but it is what it is... and it gives those of us who are not poor an opportunity to help others. life is not perfect ...

but also consider that if the church did sell all of its stuff, we would all be the poorer for the lack of meeting places, organizations, art, and architecture. i love beautiful churches ... nothing quite like entering a gothic cathedral in france when some choir is singing ... and they are open very often, and available to all (catholic ones, at least)... nobody has ever bothered me in them, either. man does not live on bread alone...

[lurker]

Dr Placebo, Hitchens is a lefty--his 'conservatism' extends only as far as the GWOT. He's a great writer, but I never expected to see him back(without being able to vote for or be subject to) Obama.

Buckley? Who cares? Didn't like his father either.

Simon, this is gonna sound weird--I wasn't thinking 'commie' when I used 'fellow traveler'--I was just trying to put in something that worked for 'people who think the way 'you' do' and it fit. Maybe I was wearing my lacy Freudian slip at the time, who knows?

And I don't think you're a commie--again, I think this thread is limited by the choices we have. We've been at this for a while--and I think we're more alike than a thread like this could ever show.

Jkisha, I've had to deal with faith based charities, and I hate the ones that operate on the 'submit to my god and we'll give you food' principle. I hate the ones that proselytize at all(I've got an in-law who does missionary work in South and Central America--to get the Catholics to become some kinda born-again thing--gah!). But I've seen that there are a great many that don't do this. AND, I've noticed that when the standard churchgoer gives, they're giving to help--the proselytizing isn't mentioned as a part of it--even for those that DO preach first and help after.

And that's the level we're talking about--the giving that's done by individuals--not what the organizations DO once they've got the money.

[Elderberry]

that response does not even come close to answering my questions.

if churches sold all of their real estate and gave it to the poor, it would not solve the problem ... more like a short term semi-fix ... the poor always have been, and always will be, with us. it's part of life. we may not like it, but it is what it is... and it gives those of us who are not poor an opportunity to help others. life is not perfect ...

but also consider that if the church did sell all of its stuff, we would all be the poorer for the lack of meeting places, organizations, art, and architecture. i love beautiful churches ... nothing quite like entering a gothic cathedral in france when some choir is singing ... and they are open very often, and available to all (catholic ones, at least)... nobody has ever bothered me in them, either. man does not live on bread alone...

You are mixing apples and oranges. I think some of the large cathedrals and churches are beautiful too--sell them, put the money to charitable causes--have the buyers turn them into museums.

If all of your religious 'givers' are as pious as you think, they will continue to give even more when they see their money is really helping.

And the poor will always be with us, because we think it is more compassionate to just give them enough to survive rather than to give them what they need to succeed, or put them out of their misery. Either would be better than what we are doing now.

JK

[littleflower]

You are mixing apples and oranges. I think some of the large cathedrals and churches are beautiful too--sell them, put the money to charitable causes--have the buyers turn them into museums.

If all of your religious 'givers' are as pious as you think, they will continue to give even more when they see their money is really helping.

And the poor will always be with us, because we think it is more compassionate to just give them enough to survive rather than to give them what they need to succeed, or put them out of their misery. Either would be better than what we are doing now.

JK

"my religious givers"? jk...

what i hear you saying ...

no religious person freely gives anything to the poor...

religious organizations care only about power and money ...

the solution is to have a government take from the rich and upper middle class .... and give it to the poor ... as governments are more reliable, and not nearly so corruptible, as religious organizations ...

[Elderberry]

"my religious givers"? jk...

what i hear you saying ...

no religious person freely gives anything to the poor...

No, I am not saying that. On an individual basis, there are many people that are truly philanthropic. Around the holidays it makes me feel good to give paper money to anyone that is begging on Hollywood Blvd. (large enough bills to make their eyes pop.) But on an institutional basis, I think they are all more corrupt than the government.

religious organizations care only about power and money ...

Correct

the solution is to have a government take from the rich and upper middle class .... and give it to the poor ... as governments are more reliable, and not nearly so corruptible, as religious organizations ...

Yes. That is not to say there is no corruption in government, howerer. Just the less of two evils.

I would prefer there to be no religion and that government were extremely limited; but given what we have to work with, I'll go with government. (as long as we don't have another republican regime )

JK

[Ugly Dougly]

......listening to the comforting hum as the electric can opener works it's way around a tin of imported worms.........

Imported? Why oh why can't we support local worms?

[ygmir]

all our local worms are in Washington D.C.

[littleflower]

I'll go with government. (as long as we don't have another republican regime )

JK

well, that's the rub, ain't it!

[littleflower]

all our local worms are in Washington D.C.

are you sure there aren't any in sacramento?

[ygmir]

all our local worms are in Washington D.C.

are you sure there aren't any in sacramento?

good point.

perhaps, it would be better stated: "all our domestic worms are in government buildings" and, as such, unreachable.........

[gyre]

that response does not even come close to answering my questions.

if churches sold all of their real estate and gave it to the poor, it would not solve the problem ... more like a short term semi-fix ... the poor always have been, and always will be, with us. it's part of life. we may not like it, but it is what it is... and it gives those of us who are not poor an opportunity to help others. life is not perfect ...

Just nonsense.

We don't have nearly the level of poverty this country once had, but it is much worse than it once was.
In this county "welfare reform" meant throwing 33% to 66% off food stamps at one time.
Guess how well the job market picked up the slack?
And the food pantries?

Guess what happened to our crime rate when people got hungry?
It costs us much more than food stamps, mostly at the expense of poor people getting robbed.
Real estate value dropped all over the city too.

The cost/benefit ratio of food stamps, even with criminals, has been calculated before.

Last I heard, getting food stamps while trying to finish college still gets you jail.

The poorest people are consistently those with health issues as a cause.
Anyone proud of that?

[Elderberry]

Not to mention that the figures just came out for infant mortality world wide and The GREAT United States of America with the BEST and MOST EXPENSIVE health care money can buy has ranked 29th!!!! Far below all of those countries with the "inferior" national health care plans. BTW Infant Mortality rate is one of the main criteria of rating a countrie's health care system.

I think Obama has it right, so was Hillary when Clinton was president. The time is right and the time is now. Go Obama.

JK

[ygmir]

Not to mention that the figures just came out for infant mortality world wide and The GREAT United States of America with the BEST and MOST EXPENSIVE health care money can buy has ranked 29th!!!! Far below all of those countries with the "inferior" national health care plans. BTW Infant Mortality rate is one of the main criteria of rating a countrie's health care system.

I think Obama has it right, so was Hillary when Clinton was president. The time is right and the time is now. Go Obama.

JK

it would be interesting to see how the infant mortality rate breaks down.....
I could see a lot of infant mortality related to substance abuse, I also wonder if it includes, possibly, "illegals" that are fearful of going to get help for their babies, and, that may say more about our social system than health care.....but, if it's pinned on health care, it might look worse than it is

[gyre]

Seems to be mostly related to prenatal, but it all is part of it.

[Elderberry]

I just caught this on MSNBC and the brief analysis for the reason was that so many people in this country do not have health insurance.

JK

[littleflower]

i just looked up crime rates in LA, they are down this year ... what explains that?

the reasons for crime and poverty are many...

real estate went down here in the 90's ... i was upside down on my mortgage throughout the clinton years... the same years that the media told us all were sooooo great were lousy in LA. starting in 2000 the value increased about 600% ... now it's down, but no where near what it was when clinton was in the white house.

did i blame clinton for the decline? a little bit ... he cut defense spending and some jobs went away... but that was not the only cause...

did i give bush the credit for the increase? not really...

break it down to food stamps if you like ... but the fact is, if you raise taxes too far, jobs will decline, and less money will go to government. give too much to the people, and many (including myself, BTW) will lose the incentive to work. i would much rather see them get rid of the pork, but both parties have that problem, don't they.

[gyre]

If you find poverty so comfortable, the door's always open.

Everything was cut, but most people don't realize food stamps were first.

If you spend more on crime than food stamps cost, is that smarter?

It has been calculated that food stamps can be justified on the reduction in health and brain damage to children alone.

I think most people want to eat and when they have no alternative, desperate people are hard to deal with.


Morality aside, it is believed that most habitual thieves steal only enough to get by.
Most crime is said to be done by 1% to 5% of hardcore thieves, often raised by thieves.
Other than addiction issues, those 24 hour thieves need to be locked up unless reformed somehow.
They are said to be responsible for 95% of all theft.

Failing to deal with theft is more costly than dealing with it, but you wouldn't know it from the politicians.
Average jail term here is 3 months.
Rate here is rising and another burglar died after pointing a gun at a citizen yesterday.

Welfare reform not being possible as ordered, they ruled people unfit for work, sent them home and then issued a letter saying they are ready to work and off all benefits.
That was it.
That has worked pretty much as well as expected.
Two more child murders last week in one day.

If you become desperate enough to steal, there is a job program for convicts though.
It involves the high paying field of fast food.

And illegal immigration has hurt the job market here horribly, no matter how many people prefer to pretend otherwise.