Southerners more charitable?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:28:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Southerners more charitable?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Southerners more charitable?  (Read 2502 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2005, 05:58:36 AM »

The federal government fails to take into account cost of living.

And, with a few exceptions, they shouldn't. There is no need to; even in a rich city like San Francisco there are still areas with very low incomes and poverty problems.

But it costs more for them to live, you San Francisco hater.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? House prices have NOTHING to do with poverty whatsover. The very fact that house prices in your area are topping $1 million on regular basis indicates pretty damn strongly that it is NOT a poor area; sure like everything in your part of the world the value is certain inflated, but not so much as to obscure a very obvious point that you are blinded by your own selfishness from seeing.

[/quote]
Yeah, they are absolutely no homeless people in the bay area. Your reasoning is seriously lacking.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, and I never said that it does. I would certainly say that enough does to more than justify it though.
[/quote]

This is America. Poor people don't get sh**t.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say that there was anything right or wrong with it. The majority party gets to spend more money than the minority party. The Democrats did it when they ran things. That's life.
[/quote]

The Democrats did not spend $600 million per Congressional district.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No I do not as it does not really effect poor people very much, unless the cost of basic things like food is stupidly high. Even so, it would make more sense for the state governments to deal with that particular problem.
[/quote]
The cost of food is pretty expensive in the bay area. Bread is close to $4 a loaf.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor people in San Francisco, Boston and Manhatten do not subsidise rich people in West Virginia, Mississippi and North Dakota, unless the amount of money spent on this sort of redistribution makes up almost all of the federal budget. And it doesn't.
What, in effect, happens with this sort of thing is that money from rich people in the San Francisco Bay area and other rich places, goes to poor areas like Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta. Could you explain what is so very wrong about that?
[/quote]
Poor people in San Francisco may make more money than upper middle class people in West Virginia. You like the fact that the government doesn't take into account cost of living, because you hate San Franicisco.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2005, 06:49:05 AM »

But it costs more for them to live,

Are you actually going to make an effort to respond to my points or... ?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've told you this before... but you don't seem to have listend... it's generally not a good idea to get drunk before posting.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where did I say anything like that? Homelessness usually has a hell of a lot more to do with an inadequate provision of social housing than absurdly high house prices.

The median gross rent in San Francisco as of the last census was $928. 63.2% of renters were paying more than $750. This compares with the Californian averages of $747 and 48.1% and the national averages of $602 and 28.8%.

Now, I could be wrong, but I have a funny feeling that those figures have a much greater effect on the number of homeless than average house prices.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's rich coming from you

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roll Eyes
Not true. Just not true at all; the pattern of relief to the poor and poor areas in America is certainly very strange (a product of the way government is set up for the most part) with some impressive services on the one hand, and some dire failings (notably over healthcare; although the people that get *really* screwed by the crazy healthcare setup aren't actually people at the very bottom) on the other, but it's just not true to say that the poor don't get [expletive deleted].
Besides, most Americans are quite compassionate towards people less fortunate than themselves and there is a lot of support for effective anti-poverty measures (something that both Republicans and [national] Democrats are opposed to for some odd reason), notably among most Evangelicals (yes! I've managed to get this row slightly back on topic!).

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But they probably *would* if they regained power. Besides, the Democrats have always had a couple of people who have been very skilled at getting lots of money for their districts (Carl Perkins and Daniel Flood come to mind). Not that that's always a bad thing.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And has anything been done about that by the state (when you lot were in charge that this. No need for a rant about Der Governator at the moment) or local governments?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true at all: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html

Besides, there really aren't many rich people in West Virginia. The only concentrations are in the Eastern Panhandle (D.C exurbia) and some of the western Charleston suburbs. There are a couple of tiny concentrations in other places (just east of Morgantown for example) but those areas wouldn't be considered to be rich in most other places.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You really need to lay off the booze
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2005, 08:00:31 AM »

Yeah, northerners pay more in taxes and living expenses. Our taxes go to subsidize the ungreatful people in the south.

it's "ungrateful," not "ungreatful"  Tongue
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2005, 08:02:55 AM »

We've been over this topic before.  The conclusion reached at that time is that Southerners, on average, go to church more than those in, say, New England, and given that every single time you go to church, it's suggested that you donate some money, it makes sense that churchgoers would be more charitable than non-churchgoers.

A better thing to measure, in my opinion, that would really measure the level of charitability, would be the rate of completely voluntary, non-prompted donations, such as donations to the Red Cross or something like that.

Of course, there are also other arguments given by the Boston Foundation for why this measure is not a good one that you seem to have ignored.

Honestly Gabu, I'm not at all sure that there is a significantly lower level of church attendance in northern than in southern states.  I think this aspect of the so-called blue-red divide has been seriously exaggerated.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2005, 08:08:34 AM »

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 26, 2005, 08:38:06 AM »

We've been over this topic before.  The conclusion reached at that time is that Southerners, on average, go to church more than those in, say, New England, and given that every single time you go to church, it's suggested that you donate some money, it makes sense that churchgoers would be more charitable than non-churchgoers.

A better thing to measure, in my opinion, that would really measure the level of charitability, would be the rate of completely voluntary, non-prompted donations, such as donations to the Red Cross or something like that.

Of course, there are also other arguments given by the Boston Foundation for why this measure is not a good one that you seem to have ignored.

Honestly Gabu, I'm not at all sure that there is a significantly lower level of church attendance in northern than in southern states.  I think this aspect of the so-called blue-red divide has been seriously exaggerated.

Attendence (sort of) by county: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/adherents.gif

Look how high southern New England is
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 26, 2005, 08:51:01 AM »

We've been over this topic before.  The conclusion reached at that time is that Southerners, on average, go to church more than those in, say, New England, and given that every single time you go to church, it's suggested that you donate some money, it makes sense that churchgoers would be more charitable than non-churchgoers.

A better thing to measure, in my opinion, that would really measure the level of charitability, would be the rate of completely voluntary, non-prompted donations, such as donations to the Red Cross or something like that.

Of course, there are also other arguments given by the Boston Foundation for why this measure is not a good one that you seem to have ignored.

Honestly Gabu, I'm not at all sure that there is a significantly lower level of church attendance in northern than in southern states.  I think this aspect of the so-called blue-red divide has been seriously exaggerated.

Attendence (sort of) by county: http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/adherents.gif

Look how high southern New England is

Thanks, man.  Not surprising at all to me.  I think this is further indication that the so-called cultural divide based on geography alone has been exaggerated.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 26, 2005, 06:12:01 PM »

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 26, 2005, 11:51:32 PM »

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 26, 2005, 11:53:38 PM »

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.

3 serious flaws

1: Most of the money doesn't go to the poor
2: What about the poor who live in Democratic areas?
3: The cost of living is much higher in some Democratic aras
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2005, 12:31:38 AM »

I love it how socialists like JFraud are total hypocrites when it comes to their idea of "wealth redistribution".

It is kind of funny actually.  All for redistribution of wealth until it is redistributed AWAY from them, and then they hate it.

I have often made the same point as jfern about the fact that a high income in one section of the country is not worth the same amount as a high income in another section.  I am well aware of the fact that people who live in high income states are effectively penalized with a higher level of taxes for their standard of living than people in lower income states with a lower cost of living.  A person making $75,000 per year, as an example, would be struggling to get by in New York if he/she had to raise a family, and very well off in Mississippi, yet they'd both be taxed the same, other than the deduction for state and local taxes, which would be higher in New York.

But since it's the Democrats who often argue that anybody making more than $50,000 per year is fabulously rich, I think jfern is barking up the wrong tree.  Also, the people in the higher income areas (i.e., New York, California) have voted for high taxes repeatedly, so it's not too easy to sympathize with their plight.

This is all ignoring the larger problem of where the money is spent. In 2000, the average Republican congressional district got $600 million more in spending than the average Democratic congressional district. Very little of the money is helping the poor, much of it is sh**tty pork projects.

Also, maybe people would earn more in the south if they weren't so anti-education.

Ah, who actually ends up getting the money?  The locals that are provided jobs.

3 serious flaws

1: Most of the money doesn't go to the poor
2: What about the poor who live in Democratic areas?
3: The cost of living is much higher in some Democratic aras

I can assure you Democrats benefit, cough **Robert Byrd**,  and the money does not go directly to the poor, but indirectly. 

The cost of living is higher because the market for labor pays more.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.