Who really cares about the poor?

Superfreak said:
Ok.... fair enough... I have two options in answering your criticism....

1) Let you know where you can find the book that will show you the data you have requested.

2) Scan hundreds of pages from the book and post them on here... which I am quite sure would not go over well with the books author or Damo.

Side note... nice attempt at a strawman. Clearly you are working your way through Cypress's class. I was not "patting myself on the back" as I fall into the non-religious group as well. I was pointing out the continued mis-perception by liberals that they somehow care more about the poor or that they are not a party of the wealthy... yet as pointed out, the majority of the wealthiest districts in the country trend dem.
Click to expand...


I'm merely providing some criticism of the article, and I could go on and on with it. For example, how is charity defined? All tax-exempt organizations? Organizations that only provide services to the poor? There's a big difference between say, Bill Gates donating a ton of money to global health initiatives and someone donating a bunch of money to the chamber of commerce. However, both may be characterized as "charity." Under this scenario a liberal's one million to global health versus a conservative's 2 million to the chamber of commerce results in a proclamation that conservatives give twice as much to "charity" and therefore "really care about the poor."

I think it's hilarious that you use this stuff to boldly state that conservatives care more about the poor. Sorry if I refuse to accept it at face value.

Further, pointing to this data as evidence that liberals are the party (I think you meant Democrats) is kind of silly. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at a poll about party identification and income? I guess you would then run into problems when you find that while the most wealthy (over $150,000) are slightly more likely to be Democrats, so is everyone that makes less than $75,000.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/451/money-walks
 
Damocles said:
Or, you are closer to actually reading the facts of the article than you realize. All I have done is simply repeated what the article says about the book here in the thread. So if I am "closer to agreeing with you than I think" it is actually because, had you actually read the article, you would have found yourself less in disagreement with it than you think.

Other than your attempt to say that the liberals are all poorer when they make, on average, 6% more than those who do not identify as liberal....
Click to expand...

People in urban areas tend to make more money, vote liberal and care less about their fellow man Damo.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm merely providing some criticism of the article, and I could go on and on with it. For example, how is charity defined? All tax-exempt organizations? Organizations that only provide services to the poor? There's a big difference between say, Bill Gates donating a ton of money to global health initiatives and someone donating a bunch of money to the chamber of commerce. However, both may be characterized as "charity." Under this scenario a liberal's one million to global health versus a conservative's 2 million to the chamber of commerce results in a proclamation that conservatives give twice as much to "charity" and therefore "really care about the poor."

I think it's hilarious that you use this stuff to boldly state that conservatives care more about the poor. Sorry if I refuse to accept it at face value.

Further, pointing to this data as evidence that liberals are the party (I think you meant Democrats) is kind of silly. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at a poll about party identification and income? I guess you would then run into problems when you find that while the most wealthy (over $150,000) are slightly more likely to be Democrats, so is everyone that makes less than $75,000.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/451/money-walks
Click to expand...

Again with a strawman.... the greater details are found in the BOOK. The article simply is a quick summary by the author of the article. I did not "boldly state" anything. I pointed everyone to the article. For those that want greater details, I pointed to the book.

If you want the greater breakdown, read the friggin book.
 
In fairness to both sides, we couldn't tell from either article where and how the data were derived. I don't know if this would be covered in the book or not.

They'd have to have used established records -- e.g. contributions through employers, etc., but political affiliation isn't a part of the info any employer has on file. It's that part in particular that gives me pause; it's impossible, really, to identify who has given based on political ideology.

Similar to leaning's story, our local dragstrip is really a community of racers. When one racer developed cancer, the rest got together and donated enough to help him and his family cope financially with the expenses. Similarly, when another racer's son was seriously injured in a traffic accident we all got together and helped out so that they aren't in financial distress as a result. Both people are now fine I'm happy to say.

I've volunteered countless hours in animal-related endeavors and don't think that any of that was actually tallied up; also nobody knows my political leanings. The med. school where I work has a system where staff may contribute through payroll to named charities and it's pretty extensive, but I really prefer to give as I choose and feel it's not my employer's business. There are tons of other people who do the same thing and we'd never be counted in a study like this.

Just something to consider.
 
Thorn said:
In fairness to both sides, we couldn't tell from either article where and how the data were derived. I don't know if this would be covered in the book or not.

They'd have to have used established records -- e.g. contributions through employers, etc., but political affiliation isn't a part of the info any employer has on file. It's that part in particular that gives me pause; it's impossible, really, to identify who has given based on political ideology.

Similar to leaning's story, our local dragstrip is really a community of racers. When one racer developed cancer, the rest got together and donated enough to help him and his family cope financially with the expenses. Similarly, when another racer's son was seriously injured in a traffic accident we all got together and helped out so that they aren't in financial distress as a result. Both people are now fine I'm happy to say.

I've volunteered countless hours in animal-related endeavors and don't think that any of that was actually tallied up; also nobody knows my political leanings. The med. school where I work has a system where staff may contribute through payroll to named charities and it's pretty extensive, but I really prefer to give as I choose and feel it's not my employer's business. There are tons of other people who do the same thing and we'd never be counted in a study like this.

Just something to consider.
Click to expand...

Thorn you need to write it up and sell a book about it.

some of us seem to forget that this is what this is all about selling a book.
 
Superfreak said:
Again with a strawman.... the greater details are found in the BOOK. The article simply is a quick summary by the author of the article. I did not "boldly state" anything. I pointed everyone to the article. For those that want greater details, I pointed to the book.

If you want the greater breakdown, read the friggin book.
Click to expand...


So basically you posted part of an article, stated that it was "very telling," solicited responses from liberals only to tell the responding liberals to go buy the book.

OK. Next time just say "Hey liberals, buy this book."
 
Thorn said:
They'd have to have used established records -- e.g. contributions through employers, etc., but political affiliation isn't a part of the info any employer has on file. It's that part in particular that gives me pause; it's impossible, really, to identify who has given based on political ideology.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I don't think it is possible to tell 100% one's political affiliation in a report/book like this. It might be possible to find a trend. I will point out that in my account of the girl with cancer, I would estimate that 70% or more of the crowds at the events were registered democrats. All of the politicains who showed up at the event were democrats. We are, after all, in a heavy democratic district. But that is just political affiliation not defining liberal/conservative bent.
 
Rural people do tend to be more church going.
But that does not make all church goers conservatives. Contrary to some beliefs many liberals are Church goers.
 
Last edited:
This is what happens when you try to fit people into a "one size fits all" package. Doesn't work too well with most folks.
 
I think the Book tries to oversimplify a complex situation.
Makes it easier to sell to some people I suppose.
 
Generally books like this are for finger pointing and getting the upper hand. One side can point to the other side and say, "We're better than you."
 
Dungheap said:
So basically you posted part of an article, stated that it was "very telling," solicited responses from liberals only to tell the responding liberals to go buy the book.

OK. Next time just say "Hey liberals, buy this book."
Click to expand...

The article provides bullet points on what the book covers. Those bullet points are what were telling. You then asked for different/more data. That which was not in the article. I told you where you could get it from.

You want to dismiss the points made in the article because YOU don't want to believe what the data presents. If you feel the author of the article and the author of the review of the book are wrong, then you are free to go to the source.

Now, are you done with your whining and excuses?
 
What I think a lot of people are forgetting about in this thread is that Democrat=/= liberal.

Many low income families vote DEMOCRAT, but do not consider themselves liberal.
 
If giving to their churches counts as charity, then I can see why. And this is averages. The super rich are usually Republicans for obvious reasons, and they give as a tax write-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top