And ignorance again shows its head

1). You assume Julio works harder than me. I won't waste your time with my background, but at one point on top of my full time job I held two part time jobs and mowed a dozen lawns to put food on the table. Today I bust my every day...that means Saturday and Sunday. I don't remember the true last day off I had. I'm not complaining...working hard is my choice.

2). 60 hours a week...that is standard for me. I've done more 80+ weeks than I care to remember.

3). I never said my position was superior.

4). Giving to charity...I wasn't banging a drum about how much I give. I do pay taxes and i give to charity. I also house orphans in my home, volunteer at three non profits and support others when I can. I help people in need on moving day with my own back, I visit people in the hospital, I anonymously give to people in need. Most importantly though, I let lazy people fail.

I personally have no patience nor empathy for people who blame their failure on others. You are responsible for your life. If you don't like where you are then get your ass in gear and change it. I did...and I make absolutely no apologies for it.

 

Oh...churches have employees and buildings, insurance and utilities? Wow...thats Crazy!!

Okay, let's give to only charities that don't have buildings, rent, utilities, employees. Lets give to those who don't own computers or pay for Internet or buy paper, pay postage, print checks, drive autos or use a phone. Where can I find that one??

So you are saying government is the answer? Really? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Hello....McFly...

 

No, I'm saying giving to a secular charity ensures more of the money you give goes to those who need it. Is that so difficult to understand?

Not all charities have to pay for their own propaganda, people to spread that propaganda or big fancy buildings and gold crucifixes.

 

You original point was about people who earn money having the right to keep it. I agree to a point.

If you work hard you have the right to keep what you earn minus taxes. The only question is what those taxes should be.

I believe those with more wealth should pay more tax on the ADDITIONAL INCOME they earn. You will be taxed the same as anybody else on the first part of your income, it is only the additional money above a given higher threshold that you pay higher taxes on. What is wrong with that? I'm certainly not complaining.

You may indeed work like a demon to make the money you do, but that is your choice, it doesn't qualify you for martyr status. Many others will do no more than anybody else to earn a very high wage, do they deserve their wealth more than Julio? Should they complain when they are asked to contribute a bit more but still remain in a position of great wealth? My opinion says not.

 

To be clear, one of the primary differences between you and me is that I recognize there is no such thing as luck for those of us who are healthy and sane. Only opportunity to be had or lost.

 

Dude...where are you getting this crap?? Why in the world are you assuming I have all this money??? Do I make good money...depends upon who you ask I guess.

But then this comes back to the purpose of the money we make. I started life in a roach infested mobile home...I'll be Happy to end it there too (less the roaches). Stuff is stuff; my personal success isn't based on what I have...it's based upon what I do for others.

The reason I work so hard is the business supports so many families. It gives people an opportunity to make a difference in the community, in their families, in their churches, in the lives of others. I give corporately and personally, sacrificially I argue...of money AND time. Why, because it is right.

I have no inheritance coming. And, if I have a bundle of cash when I leave this world my kids have already been told they aren't getting it all...they need to earn their way too.

Yaztromo...I like you...no joke. You dont hold back and debates like this are enlightening to say the least. For what it is worth I respect your passion.

 

Total bs

 

........shooter shakes his head sadly............

The country is lurching from one crisis to another

And here, in the think tank known as XNXX yet another liberal/bleeding heart/comunist starts yet another inflammatory thread about what demons conservatives are.

And the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers jump up and start screaming at the OP.

And everyone else jumps in to flail on their special interest of the moment.

Meanwhile, yet another crisis erupts and the name calling and finger pointing starts all over.

And the key point is..........another crisis erupts..........which everyone ignores.

Shooter goes back to his porn........

 

Ah, now I see where you are going with this line of reasoning. You assume that the donations for charity and the collections/tithing all go into the same pot at the church. In the US churches are tax exempt if they are non-profit organizations, not because they are charities. In order to run a charity, a church must separate the funding from it's operational budget for the religious side of their activities.

What makes the churches so much better for the operation of a charity is that they are largely a community center, with a good source for volunteers. They are usually in buildings with meeting space and other facilities which lend themselves to shelters and food distribution.

However, the bulk of the charitable work that is "faith based" is not done through an individual church, nor are they connected with any strong religious missionary efforts. The Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries and others are not affiliated with any one religious organization. But, they are "doing God's work" by helping the less fortunate.

There are thousands of such charities throughout the US and the world. Not all of them are content with just helping the poor, some tie their aid to the recipients acceptance of their particular belief. But these are in the minority of the lot.

 

well answer the question.

 

Here is proof

I am basing a base line from a report on Businessweek of the top 50 most generous philanthropists. Below is the link to the chart and information.

http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual.html

I only analyzed the top 10 people and researched their political affiliation. And out of the top 10 list, numbers 6 and 10 are Republicans. Walton Family (number 6) donates to education, Jon Huntsman (number 10) donates to cancer research and business education.

I am sure if the rest of the 40 people on the list were to be checked for political affiliation, it would be found that more Republicans would be on the list. And all of the members on the top 10 list donated to campaigns, so it is not just a Republican deal but also a Democratic deal to donate to campaigns.

Now as you can tell, even though Walton Family have given 2% of net worth in donations, they are close to number 3 and 8 on the list, and have donated more than numbers 7 and 9; who as we already know, are all Democrats. And if you also notice, Jon Huntsman has donated 46% of net worth, which is higher than numbers 2,3,7,8, and 9 on the list; and as we already know, are all Democrats.

So before you go off saying things Yaztromo, how about you research some information, before making such a bold statement about conservatives donating to just Republican campaigns so that they can keep more of their money. All of the top 10 have donated to one or more political campaigns.


And to respond to the answer of the originally posted question Yaztromo. By using logic on your assessment to come to the conclusion that you did Yaztromo, it would be simple to come to the following conclusion as well:

Is left wing / liberal thinking a psychological self defense mechanism for poor people?

I mean, if you have little to no cash how are you going to justify that to yourself?

I am just going to correct you here as well. If you are going to talk about psychological self defense mechanisms, you might be referring to denial or displacement as examples.

But conservatives or right wings use sublimation, compensation, and assertive as their psychological self defense mechanisms. Maybe once you read the definitions of these aforementioned self defense mechanisms, you might better understand this elaboration of how liberals and conservatives react differently to the same problems in their lives.

 

that's the bottom line isn't it, it is the conservatives fault. bi-ist much.

 

Please elaborate, because I was just showing that conservatives and liberals use different psychological self defense mechanisms to solve their problems.

 

it would be my pleasure. but if you were just talking about some kind of political psychology of which you were but how you put in the punch like that at the end certainly suggested you tug a be the solution not the problem line from the sixties of free love and drugs not the teens of good versus evil in the space age.

 

Hey ElC, good to see you.

And read your solid opinion on a shaky subject.

It's pretty simple that many Conservatives and Liberals are such because of their basic psychological makeup, rather than the other way around.

 

Isn't that the truth. But, there is good news here too!!

IF, and I know If is a big statement, but IF this debate cause just one person to challenge their paradigms and research facts learning what truly is (myself included) then it very well may be worth it.

Foundational change is seldom achieved rapidly; it can be a maddening array of incremental steps that, at times, seem in vain. However history shows that change can and does come as a result of those who are willing to challenge the status quo, through those who continue to speak truth in the face of adversity and admonishment.

What I fear is not those with opposing views; I fear the undercurrent of apathy and complacency fueled by the mirage of security and governmental stability. I, for one, will never give up.

 

Well, I actually was just responding to the original post of this thread. I was just showing that there are Republicans who are philanthropists and donate money to more than just political campaigns. I also showed that the 2 Republicans that I used as examples, beat many of the Democrats. And also showing that Republicans are not the only ones who donate to political campaigns who are philanthropists.

The second part was to use the logic that Yaztromo used to come up to his two statements, and flipped the statements, to make sense for Democrats as well. Because if those statements works for Republicans, then those statements I posted must work for Democrats. If my statements do no work, then Yaztromo's logic is flawed.

And the final part was just to explain to Yaztromo about psychological self defense mechanisms. Because by the answer posted, it was evident that the user had no idea what psychological self defense mechanisms are or anything about psychology.

I was not trying to put any sixties spin into my response. I would recommend you also research the terms I used to describe the difference between the two parties and their uses of the aforementioned self defense mechanisms. Once you do the research, and you actually know what they mean; if you still have questions, I will answer any of them or further elaborate as to why I chose those for the parties. I also did forget to include distortion and projection for the Democrats as well.

 

Fallacy: Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

----------

When liberals describe conservatives, and when conservatives describe liberals it is difficult for both groups to describe the other group without resorting to the straw man fallacy. Liberals describe conservatives as selfish. They sometimes go further and say that conservatives are stupid and poorly educated.

Conservatives say that liberals are power hungry. They sometimes go further and say that liberals are lazy and content to live off of welfare checks.

As far as the welfare charge is concerned, after the election of 1994 resulted in a Republican Congress a reporter in the area where I lived thought a Republican majority in Congress was bad for welfare recipients. Indeed, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 stopped Aid to Families with Dependent Children from being a life time entitlement.

So that reporter visited a few welfare offices to see what welfare recipients thought of the election. None of the welfare recipients had voted. Most did not know an election had taken place.

That is anecdotal evidence, but I am confident that few lifetime welfare recipients vote.

After I voted for a straight Democratic ticked in 2008 I visited a bar in my city that probably has the lowest prices in town. Consequently, it has the poorest customers. It was full of customers. The television was on. It was not on the election, but on some silly sitcom.

No one was talking about the election. When I tried in a friendly manner to start a conversation about the election no one was interested.

Again that is anecdotal, but I doubt many welfare recipients and low income people vote or follow the news.

 

In political arguments it is common for one to contrast the highest ideals of one's side with the worst reality of the other side.

During the Cold War Americans often described the Soviet Union in terms that more accurately described Stalin's USSR, after the worst excesses of Stalin had been ended. Russians often described the United States in terms more appropriate to the nineteenth century.

 

Until the 1970's, the USSR was in essence a closed society, news in and out of the country was extremely filtered. There was almost no way for the average American to know what was happening in the USSR.

Nor could the Soviets Bloc citizens have any idea what life was like in the US, with travel restrictions and state controlled media, exposure to the West was miniscule.