Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation

[iNow]

Pick your figure but up to a fifth the people wanting to work are out of work and untold number are under employed or worried about BEING unemployed. Those that are working, have a business or want to start a business are all concerned with what might possibly be happening, could lose their jobs, business or their dreams. To pretend these emotions are non existent or that people should somehow be secure in all that's known going on and what may not be known, in itself is not American.

And that's all completely irrelevant and non-sequitur to the volcano, to healthcare, and to the call for civility and awareness of tone.

 

 

I swear, I think Limbaugh represents brain disease... a mind cancer targeting the reasoning abilities of otherwise intelligent people, much like Beck... and they're contagious ones, at that.

 

Along similar lines, I think you have an enormously biased and inaccurate view of "what most of the country desires," and this is magnified by the confirmation bias to which your preferred sources directly contribute.

[jackson33]

And that's all completely irrelevant and non-sequitur to the volcano, to healthcare, and to the call for civility and awareness of tone.

 

 

I swear, I think Limbaugh represents brain disease... a mind cancer targeting the reasoning abilities of otherwise intelligent people, much like Beck... and they're contagious ones, at that.

 

Along similar lines, I think you have an enormously biased and inaccurate view of "what most of the country desires," and this is magnified by the confirmation bias to which your preferred sources directly contribute.[/Quote]

 

 

Ah, I feel at home again, first "off topic" and "irrelevance'" and then an off topic diatribe...

 

Would you agree the US, is right of center on Domestic/Fiscal Issues? Would you agree they tend toward self preservations, or the idea, everything correct, is near exactly what they feel is correct? If you can answer yes to both, you have my basic understanding how Americans (on average) feel. This places Congress, the perceptive view of most Americans of Government itself, somewhere near ultra liberal/socialist, which seems to be where polling places them. Americans don't blame their President, on the whole for what Congress enacts and when they do, it's not to the same degree.

 

As for Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, FNC, may not top your most favorite list, but they are the most successful in their fields. Clinton, Gore, Biden, Reid and Polisi are not my favorites in their field, but I personally wouldn't say they are brain dead (my words) or don't think they have sincere beliefs. I do disagree with their ideology, knowing their actions and words rarely mean anything. They all seem to have done really quite well generating a great deal of wealth and keeping their flock in line.

 

 

Time for my card game...

[Pangloss]

Both Stewart and Rush are selling snake poison, but at least Stewart labels his product as snake poison, while Rush labels his poison as vitamin tonic.

 

Well IMO there's a deliberate attempt in Stewart's humor to hide an ideological viewpoint behind a thin veneer of false objectivity. I say "thin" for a reason -- they'll joke about it and nod to the critics who call them liberals, but in the end they're telling the audience "just because we're liberal doesn't mean we can't give you the truth", which is absolutely true, but that doesn't mean that the truth is what they're actually giving people. IMO they have an agenda just like Limbaugh does, and they hide it just like Limbaugh does. (Same deal with Colbert -- it's kind of a "hide it in plain sight" thing. We know that they know that we know that they know they're really liberal, so they're actually supposed to be objective. Kinda twisted, but that's how it seems to me.)

 

I think the only elevations Stewart gets over Limbaugh are (a) he's a good bit more intelligent, and (b) he doesn't promote hatred and intolerance.

 

 

I don't know if you caught it, but this morning on THIS WEEK they had an interview with Clinton, and this was one of the first things they covered.

 

On the Tivo, waiting for wife to get home (she and I usually watch it together). BTW, what's your take on This Week since George left? I'm still a-boggle over that move. I guess he wanted to stretch/grow/whatever, but GMA? Seriously? Kind of a step down, eh?

[iNow]

I think the only elevations Stewart gets over Limbaugh are (a) he's a good bit more intelligent, and (b) he doesn't promote hatred and intolerance.

I actually considered making your second point above myself, but felt it would be too subjective so chose not to share it as support of my argument. I'm really glad to see you make it, as it means I wasn't totally off base or biased for thinking it.

 

 

 

BTW, what's your take on This Week since George left? I'm still a-boggle over that move. I guess he wanted to stretch/grow/whatever, but GMA? Seriously? Kind of a step down, eh?

 

Out of all the people they've tried on, I like Tapper the best. Glad they stuck with him thus far. Walters was a joke. However, word is that Tapper is an interim fill-in, and that in August we will see Christiane Amanpour from CNN take the host chair. We'll have to see how that turns out. As for George with the hard to spell greek last name? I'm not sure what he was thinking. My only guess is that he's trying to follow the route of Katie Curich and get an anchor chair on the evening news, but I'm just pulling that one out of my colon.

 

As an aside, I somewhat envy the fact that you watch this with your wife. My girlfriend would never sit through an episode of this with me. Instead, she gives me a hard time for watching C-SPAN and Charlie Rose after long days of work only to then also watch this stuff on Sundays (and worse, that I watch all three... THIS WEEK, Meet the Press, and Face the Nation so I can try to get as balanced a view as possible).

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow; Sometime I wonder why I bother (rhetorical), of course it was your link, mentioned in my post, not clarified in your headline, that's the point....Out of context.

 

What context?

[Pangloss]

I actually considered making your second point above myself, but felt it would be too subjective so chose not to share it as support of my argument. I'm really glad to see you make it, as it means I wasn't totally off base or biased for thinking it.

 

 

Out of all the people they've tried on, I like Tapper the best. Glad they stuck with him thus far. Walters was a joke. However, word is that Tapper is an interim fill-in, and that in August we will see Christiane Amanpour from CNN take the host chair. We'll have to see how that turns out. As for George with the hard to spell greek last name? I'm not sure what he was thinking. My only guess is that he's trying to follow the route of Katie Curich and get an anchor chair on the evening news, but I'm just pulling that one out of my colon.

 

As an aside, I somewhat envy the fact that you watch this with your wife. My girlfriend would never sit through an episode of this with me. Instead, she gives me a hard time for watching C-SPAN and Charlie Rose after long days of work only to then also watch this stuff on Sundays (and worse, that I watch all three... THIS WEEK, Meet the Press, and Face the Nation so I can try to get as balanced a view as possible).

 

I agree about Tapper, and I've always felt that he's a solid, objective reporter. I actually missed the Walters hosting, but my wife said it was pretty awful. (The sharing of a politics hobby is a mixed blessing, btw. Works okay with her but I know better than to bring it up with her family, who make me look like Al Franken!)

 

That's interesting about Amanpour. Seems like kind of an odd choice but I've felt that ABC is kinda locked in with their roster for a while now. Maybe mixing it up will be a good thing.

[The Bear's Key]

Lighten up, he's trying to be tongue and cheek with his audience and tweak sensitive media and I really think you're just feeding the troll, so to speak.

Oh yeah, Rush is just oozing with tongue in cheek, good-natured, and inside humor.

 

Explain that one.

 

I don't know what to say. "Doctor of Democracy" - "America's Truth Detector" - 'All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie" and then topped with "and an all around good guy" - if you guys don't see the comedic tone of all that then nothing I say is going to shed any light on it

You forgot the surrounding text...

 

The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide.

.....

There is a "consensus" among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.

Not exactly Colbert or Daily Show material (nor is that first link I posted above).

 

 

"Rush Limbaugh blames volcano on Healthcare legislation"

 

Out of CONTEXT

Let's examine a more subtle point on context, as it highlights why Rush and talk radio shows often get away with lots of inconsistencies and unsupported nonsense.

 

 

I understand your sentiment. Now, what does it do?

 

As I said yesterday, Rush donated $400,000 dollars to help people with blood cancer, and turns his show into a fund raiser once a year for this effort. Not to mention his donations and participation in the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation that provides scholarships to children of marines or law enforcement officers that died in the line of duty.

 

P; It's was a little more than you remember, he also matched the ladies bid, with another 2.1 donation and reported it when both donations were submitted. 4.2M$ total

Investment.

 

Rush could just keep his donation anonymous (or not so visibly *show off* the dollar figure), but that wouldn't lure people's hearts, would it? So he invests some $$ to attract more listeners and/or fans, who'd be sympathetic to his advertised "generosity".

 

Wanna see him make a real gift? Let's see him not claim it on tax deductions. Because what's really happening is the rest of taxpayers are picking up his unpaid obligations.

 

For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations, it's actually the same result either way

 

• A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously.
   
  
• Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need.
  

[Sisyphus]

Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh are both demagogues, but entirely different kinds. Pat Robertson probably actually believes stuff like god erupting a volcano to prove him right, as do most of his fans. Rush almost certainly doesn't. He might see people believing that as an added bonus, but I don't think that's the main goal. He is a troll, trying to get a reaction. The mentality is really remarkably similar. Making people mad = "winning the argument."

[ParanoiA]

Investment.

 

Rush could just keep his donation anonymous (or not so visibly *show off* the dollar figure)' date=' but that wouldn't lure people's hearts, would it? So he invests some $$ to attract more listeners and/or fans, who'd be sympathetic to his advertised "generosity".[/quote']

 

Exactly. Works good doesn't it? It caused hundreds of thousands of dollars to flood into the coffers of good causes that effect the real lives and deaths of your countrymen. Cast all the value judgments you want, I'll take the results. And maybe balance the possible negative motives I could pull out of a good gesture, with the positive ones rarely considered.

 

Wanna see him make a real gift? Let's see him not claim it on tax deductions. Because what's really happening is the rest of taxpayers are picking up his unpaid obligations.

 

For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations' date=' it's actually the same result either way

 

* A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously.

* Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need.

 

[/quote']

 

All charitable donations are a net loss, even at a 100% tax deduction.

 

Charitable donations are deducted from your taxable income before taxes are figured - because it's income you don't have, it has been spent entirely on a "social need". Keeping that money instead, would result in more income since it is *not* spent, only taxed for a portion. How is it an "unpaid obligation" to not figure his tax bill on income forwarded to a social need?

 

And you're forgetting the charitable donations either go to a need the public is not funding, or augment a need they are funding, thus still serving social need. Surely you're not going to argue that fighting blood cancer is not a social need.

 

So, to your point, it's an increase in funds directed to a social need than otherwise would have been directed to it. If Rush keeps that 2.1 Million dollars from the auctioned Harry Reid letter, he pays a certain percentage in taxes, X. X is a fraction of that amount, and only a fraction of that subsequent amount will even go to social need.

 

If Rush donates that 2.1 million dollars, then *all* of that 2.1 Million goes to social need.

 

The obvious distinction here is that an increase in charitable donations is an increase in social need funding and decrease in funding the rest of government - since the total tax burden is reduced yet social funding increased. The only burden being shifted is that we don't loot the rich for money directed to a good cause, which means the cost of the remaining machinations of government - apart from social need - will shift back to the rest of us. Just like EIC, dependency deductions, itemized deductions...etc, all of these things shift the burden of the tax bill.

[Pangloss]

Oh yeah, Rush is just oozing with tongue in cheek, good-natured, and inside humor.

 

I don't believe that was ParanoiA's claim.

 

 

Rush could just keep his donation anonymous (or not so visibly *show off* the dollar figure), but that wouldn't lure people's hearts, would it? So he invests some $$ to attract more listeners and/or fans, who'd be sympathetic to his advertised "generosity".

 

Wanna see him make a real gift? Let's see him not claim it on tax deductions. Because what's really happening is the rest of taxpayers are picking up his unpaid obligations.

 

For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations, it's actually the same result either way

 

• A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously.
   
  
• Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need.
  

 

One clear difference, of course, is that the donor decides where the money goes.

 

But I also question the statement that "government... still needs the lost funds". That is predicated on an assumption that every single penny the government spends is 100% necessary.

 

I also wonder why this issue only comes up now, in a discussion about a conservative donor. If you don't think Oprah deducts her donations, you're mistaken. Shall we downplay her charity as well, since you say that she's simply selecting the recipients of tax-derived benefits?

 

But I think the position is in error anyway, because only a portion of your income is taxed. If I give a million dollars to charity, I may have spent $500,000 less in taxes (by sheltering the mil), but charities have received $500,000 more from me than they would have gotten from the government (if the government were giving the money to charities, which of course is not what happens), and I have $500,000 less to spend on myself than I would have if I had not donated to the charity.

 

So both Rush and Oprah are being magnanimous.

[iNow]

The donation issue which was introduced to this thread on the previous page is a total red herring, anyway. It's not like donating a million dollars per year to help pre-born babies survive outside the womb makes up for (or makes alright) the murder of a person once a year.

 

Now, I'm not at all suggesting that Rush is some sort of killer, so please... let's not even begin to go there.

 

My point, however, is that good works don't somehow negate the negative attributes, comments, and behaviors of a human being... This thread was about the negative behaviors, comments, and attributes of Rush Limbaugh... specifically, his comments about the volcano eruption and his suggestion that Clinton has opened the flood gates for violence by calling for civility in political discourse.

 

All of the donations in the world don't negate the negative aspect of those behaviors. Donations are a total red herring.

 

Talk about them all you wish... They have zero to do with this thread and it's subject.

[The Bear's Key]

The only burden being shifted is that we don't loot the rich for money directed to a good cause...

With the burden shifted to lower classes, especially those who make little to no deductions. Someone must pay all those unpaid taxes.

 

....which means the cost of the remaining machinations of government - apart from social need - will shift back to the rest of us.

There is no "remaining" machinations. If you've taken note...even with both government programs and charity donations at work, poverty is still rampant enough in various/many areas.

 

Charitable donations hasn't reduced the government's load, in other words. So it'd do even less by itself, without government aid in place -- and especially without tax deductions (i.e. tax shifting).

 

Just like EIC, dependency deductions, itemized deductions...etc, all of these things shift the burden of the tax bill.

Exactly my point.

 

 

I also wonder why this issue only comes up now, in a discussion about a conservative donor.

Because of what ParanoiA said to iNow.

Rush makes the essential point that results count, and that merely giving a shit and caring is substance free rationale that doesn't help a single person.

 

While I give you credit for caring, what is the result of it? So, if we're measuring people...shouldn't I stick with results and actions over vocalized intents and emotions?

 

Also...I've had the subject brewing in my head for quite some time now, so I'm taking the opportunity to unload it.

 

I'm not impressed by donations, and never been (except perhaps somewhat by those who can't afford much to give, yet offer a substantial percentage compared against their weekly measly paychecks).

 

To insinuate that someone is less effective for caring yet not donating is somewhat lacking in perception.

 

Maybe for some of us, to just merely donate often tends the symptoms and not so much the root of problems. Also, I don't trust many charities and even nonprofits at times. I'm not alone in feeling that either.

 

So I've never donated except as insignificant handouts. It's not my style to donate and I'm just not inclined to, as my time and energy is spent on helping improve the world in a manner that works best for me. Right now I'm volunteering over 1,000 miles away from home -- and I'm not very loaded with money or time. Yet here's some reality to chew on: I'm no better for doing so than people who donate instead of taking direct action, or no better than people who care yet have rarely or never volunteered/donated.

 

Any claim that someone is helping more by donating is a crock of shit. First off, we don't know what anyone here is doing in their lives, and second, it's a personal issue -- and so to boast like that about one's donating to a cause(s) is very much like attention-seeking.

 

Now I'll take the opportunity to let everyone know also that some of what iNow has posted both in research and thoughts helped in my quest to seek/establish remarkable and practical methods for improving the world. And not just by iNow, but others here as well.

 

Inspiration can be a strong vehicle too.

 

And so yes, caring is often enough -- and don't forget we know nothing about members on these forums. Also, if people wanna take action, it's no one's business except theirs when or if to do so.

 

Sometimes a good motivator come along to get us up from our asses, but they don't boast about money donated or how much they've accomplished. Perhaps it's the very reason they're a *good* motivator.

 

If you don't think Oprah deducts her donations, you're mistaken. Shall we downplay her charity as well, since you say that she's simply selecting the recipients of tax-derived benefits?

Investment. Any celebrity that advertises personal donations is suspect -- not guilty automatically -- but nonetheless it doesn't impress me and never will. It's just the way I am. How's that for "politically incorrect"?

 

But I think the position is in error anyway, because only a portion of your income is taxed. If I give a million dollars to charity, I may have spent $500,000 less in taxes (by sheltering the mil), but charities have received $500,000 more from me than they would have gotten from the government (if the government were giving the money to charities, which of course is not what happens), and I have $500,000 less to spend on myself than I would have if I had not donated to the charity.

You do have a point. Mine is that it doesn't impress me or elevates them above others for doing so, at least compared to someone who'd kept it anonymous (plus not tax-deductible).

 

So both Rush and Oprah are being magnanimous.

Or perhaps, opportunists. Except that Oprah does act like a caring person, which makes her less suspect. Rush on the other hand, acts like he's a douchebag vs the plight of many in unfortunate living conditions that he rallies against.

Edited April 20, 2010 by The Bear's Key

[Pangloss]

Investment. Any celebrity that advertises personal donations is suspect -- not guilty automatically -- but nonetheless it doesn't impress me and never will. It's just the way I am. How's that for "politically incorrect"?

 

Pretty PI, I agree, and good for you.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not impressed by donations' date=' and never been (except perhaps somewhat by those who can't afford much to give, yet offer a substantial percentage compared against their weekly measly paychecks).

 

To insinuate that someone is less effective for caring yet not donating is somewhat lacking in perception. [/quote']

 

Well I am absolutely impressed by donation because it's a net loss for the donor, and directs more funds to a social need. Tax deduction does not shift the burden of the donation directly to the taxpayers. The donation still is money and resources above and beyond what otherwise would have been secured.

 

And donation is initiated by will, so waste, corruption and other deficiancies must be kept in check enough to maintain at-will funding. This creates a bit of a free market approach to aid. And the more the public rewards rich figures in public life, the more they will do this. If recognizing their good deed to feed their vanity is all it takes to get hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to a good cause, then that's a cheap trade off well worth it.

 

So I've never donated except as insignificant handouts. It's not my style to donate and I'm just not inclined to, as my time and energy is spent on helping improve the world in a manner that works best for me. Right now I'm volunteering over 1,000 miles away from home -- and I'm not very loaded with money or time. Yet here's some reality to chew on: I'm no better for doing so than people who donate instead of taking direct action, or no better than people who care yet have rarely or never volunteered/donated.

 

Not true. Donating time is just as important. We have churches in my neighborhood that provide plenty of money and food for the local "homeless pantry" here. But someone still needs to drive the trunks, unload them, sort through it all, set up to receive the homless and needy in our area and put together boxes of this stuff and distribute it. Money doesn't do that. People do. People like my wife and kids.

 

We don't have money to donate. But we do have two teenagers that use this kind of volunteer work to get out of grounding, or to earn some time out of a punishment. (Instead of punishing them with volunteer work, I flip it around...seems to work, for now anyway)

 

Not the purest of reasons to help, but it does a service for our local community by providing labor that really can't be secured any other way.

 

If you're doing something, then you're helping. My point was sitting around "caring" doesn't do anything. I just wanted to put some perspective on how someone is being judged. I'm not impressed with intentions. I'm impressed with results. When someone cares very deeply about something, yet actually does nothing to that end, then I question the character of that same person to judge someone else who actually is doing something about it.

 

Any claim that someone is helping more by donating is a crock of shit. First off, we don't know what anyone here is doing in their lives, and second, it's a personal issue -- and so to boast like that about one's donating to a cause(s) is very much like attention-seeking.

 

It's the best kind of attention seeking. "Looky at me everybody, I'm helping someone - aren't I wonderful". Instead of "Looky at me, I have shiny gadgets." Or "looky at me express my individuality, my pants are saggy and I got my hat on sideways, yo", Or, "looky at me I'm pwning this dude!!11"

 

Of all the ridiculous vanity in our culture - this is the one that offends you so much? Disingenuous charity? It doesn't even reach my radar.

 

Now I'll take the opportunity to let everyone know also that some of what iNow has posted both in research and thoughts helped in my quest to seek/establish remarkable and practical methods for improving the world. And not just by iNow' date=' but others here as well.

 

Inspiration can be a strong vehicle too.

 

And so yes, caring is often enough -- and don't forget we know nothing about members on these forums. Also, if people wanna take action, it's no one's business except theirs when or if to do so.

 

Sometimes a good motivator come along to get us up from our asses, but they don't boast about money donated or how much they've accomplished. Perhaps it's the very reason they're a *good* motivator. [/quote']

 

So perhaps he should have answered my question about "what does that do", with something about inspiring others to take action. Sitting around and giving a crap doesn't do anything. That was my point, and still is.

 

Rush did good in donating. So do many others who are ideologically opposed from you. They do good things for our countrymen and they deserve some credit for it. To rationalize around that is desparate to see your "enemy" as "evil".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My point' date=' however, is that good works don't somehow negate the negative attributes, comments, and behaviors of a human being... This thread was about the negative behaviors, comments, and attributes of Rush Limbaugh... specifically, his comments about the volcano eruption and his suggestion that Clinton has opened the flood gates for violence by calling for civility in political discourse.

 

All of the donations in the world don't negate the negative aspect of those behaviors. Donations are a total red herring.[/quote']

 

Well they speak to his character, which you attacked. I just figured if you're going to judge him, perhaps you could judge all of him. From what I can tell, he's done more good in the world than I have, and probably more than you have, so I'm not sure you've judged him correctly.

 

But that's cool. Carry on how you wish.

[iNow]

We don't have money to donate. But we do have two teenagers that use this kind of volunteer work to get out of grounding, or to earn some time out of a punishment.

 

<...>

 

If you're doing something, then you're helping. My point was sitting around "caring" doesn't do anything. I just wanted to put some perspective on how someone is being judged.

 

And if your son, after all of this volunteer activity, then went on to call his teacher a heartless bitch who deserves to have her tires slashed, or her family a bunch of inbred disgusting nothings, you're suggesting his volunteer activities somehow negate that or make it less worthy of castigation?

 

As I said... donations and charity are total red herrings to the issue under discussion. I appreciate that Rush does so much good with the wheelbarrow's full of cash he makes. I don't appreciate him suggesting that a call for civility will result in increased violence or that volcanoes are erupting due to the passage of healthcare legislation.

 

These are separate issues.

[ParanoiA]

And if your son, after all of this volunteer activity, then went on to call his teacher a heartless bitch who deserves to have her tires slashed, or her family a bunch of inbred disgusting nothings, you're suggesting his volunteer activities somehow negate that or make it less worthy of castigation?

 

Of course not. If someone says they are a better person because of my son's treatment of a teacher, then I would point to his volunteer activities, among other things, to serve as counter evidence to that judgement.

 

You said "And yes, I think that makes me better than people who are laughing at this suffering or using it to reinforce their message like Pat Robertson does."

 

So, I'm saying that it doesn't. Emotionally, I get your point. Logically, I do not.

[jackson33]

iNow post 29, this thread;

As an aside, I somewhat envy the fact that you watch this with your wife. My girlfriend would never sit through an episode of this with me. [/Quote]

 

iNow, seems like just yesterday, I was chastised for promoting "ADULTERY", when suggesting you relax and take "your girlfriend" out for dinner.

 

Let's examine a more subtle point on context, as it highlights why Rush and talk radio shows often get away with lots of inconsistencies and unsupported nonsense. [/Quote]

 

TBK; Actually, most anything "they" discuss is based on others reporting, or to contrast a persons statement, almost to prevent liable action from target, as in this case.

 

For my response, on the rest your Post 32 (tax advantage) please check out and discuss on Mr. Skeptic's thread;

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51188

 

 

For those of you who detest social programs and prefer such necessities were funded by donations, it's actually the same result either way

A person donates to charity --> less taxes paid --> government budget still needs the lost funds --> so the rest of taxpayers foot the bill....and in the end it means that person's donation/charity was funded by taxes -- just not as obviously.

 

Or, government collects taxes to pay for social need. [/Quote]

 

Not really; First, Social Programs, not directly paid for by the benefactor or their employee (payroll taxes, unemployment insurance), are simply charity offered by the Federal and as mentioned earlier, no one pays taxes with the expectation those taxes are going for charity. Technically, anyone can donate to Government for any charity, but above the taxes owed (pretty darn rare), but that money goes directly into 'General Funds', this includes your choice to add 5.00 or what ever it is for 'Campaign Finance Funding' (On standard tax forms). Charitable Organization, must report administrative cost or incident expense, and are rated by a host of sources for 'Distribution Rates'. Think the 'Red Cross' figures .87 cents of each dollar, goes to some benefactor and as mentioned, if you designate the use of your money for one specific purpose, that .87 cents per, goes directly to your requested project.

 

In editing this post (not particularly happy with it) I came up with an honest question for you; If Government were to send a State 100M$, to aid and assist (pick your issue) or the Red Cross 100M$, to aid and assist on the same issue and in that State, which do you think would come closer to getting the job done, most effective???

[jryan]

It's also not the same thing as it gives the individual direct say on where their money goes. As such you will have a demand for results from charitable organizations that you won't get with he Federal Government which, through defacto tenure and a need to maintain a desperate voting base it is in a politician's best interest to give a person enough to eat but not enough to make them independent.

[Icefire]

Found this and in a sense it's relevant.

[ParanoiA]

Very relevant. Their parents should have an excellent looking tax return for 2010 after such a donation to the public good.

[The Bear's Key]

I erred a bit for not mentioning that other donations have impressed me: thomas jefferson donating his library to establish the Library of Congress; the Mennonites when they build houses for strangers as gifts, anonymous donations, etc.

 

See, those people lead more by good examples than bad ones.

 

Unlike how Rush lashes out against the poor, or is a general douche in a anti-constructive manner.

 

Like iNow highlighted, Rush's publicity giveaways (charity) don't erase the system-wide consequences of his bad examples, lies, manufactured controversies.

 

And I'll go further to say that the harmful results of his schemes far outweigh any good his donations will ever accomplish.

 

The charity most often I admire is by those who don't use it to veil over their corrupt/ill actvities.

 

 

If you're doing something, then you're helping. My point was sitting around "caring" doesn't do anything.

But obviously a lot fewer would be posting here if they didn't give a crap and weren't trying to solve problems, including you.

 

So to ask someone (iNow) who apparently puts a lot of time into research attempting to help pinpoint and dissect the roots of many problems, what's he "doing", is to ignore the very contents of his posts and likely reasons for him writing them.

 

Rush Limbaugh is no better for having donated, especially when considered against the poison he sows.

 

 

Of all the ridiculous vanity in our culture - this is the one that offends you so much? Disingenuous charity?

Not being impressed doesn't equal offense in my books.

 

Also, you missed the point: when someone advertises their donations, it's not a sign they're a better or worse person. The same is true if a person is doing *nothing* obvious to you, it really doesn't make them a better or worse person.

 

 

Rush did good in donating. So do many others who are ideologically opposed from you.

Go ahead and find the quote where I narrowed it down to people ideologically opposed from me. You don't even know what my ideological opposition is -- but here's a clue: it's often anything pretending to be an ideology as a lure to gain the people faithful to that same ideology yet unaware the pretender's actions help destroy that very ideology. So in essence, I'm against your true enemies.

 

Another clue: it'll often be vs a false ideology crafted by those with lots of $$ for talented writers hired to gain the loyalty of good people, but with the intention of destroying good things standing in the way of their mega profits. It could be Democrats, Republicans, neocons, etc.

 

 

They do good things for our countrymen and they deserve some credit for it.

Not if their other deeds are harming our countrymen in ways that outweigh the "good" being done for them.

 

From what I can tell, he's done more good in the world than I have

Very doubtful.

 

 

TBK; Actually, most anything "they" discuss is based on others reporting, or to contrast a persons statement, almost to prevent liable action from target, as in this case.

Obviously you have no idea what I'm referrng to. It's at the link provided, which obviously you didn't check or would've had a relevant answer.

 

If Government were to send a State 100M$, to aid and assist (pick your issue) or the Red Cross 100M$, to aid and assist on the same issue and in that State, which do you think would come closer to getting the job done, most effective???

One with the best leadership.

 

It's also not the same thing as it gives the individual direct say on where their money goes.

Yeah, direct say on where their money goes Or do you follow the charities yourself and examine their bank statements, receipts, and who exactly the money got to?

Edited April 21, 2010 by The Bear's Key
little clarification

[Pangloss]

This thread reminded me of a very old personal story.

 

I have a friend who used to say, "where there's smoke there's fire". He'd say this about everything he ran across in politics. As a very extreme conservative, he would rant and rave constantly about all the liberals and their "stupid ideas", and any time I called him on any missing details he'd say, "Hey, where there's smoke there's FIRE, man! BELIEVE it!"

 

Well he's also a Catholic, so one day I asked him if the Pope was a pedophile. I mean, after all, where there's smoke there's fire, right?

 

I don't think he'll ever talk to me about politics again.

[ParanoiA]

I erred a bit for not mentioning that other donations have impressed me: thomas jefferson donating his library to establish the Library of Congress; the Mennonites when they build houses for strangers as gifts, anonymous donations, etc.

 

And Jimmy Carter who actually swings a hammer (or at least did at one time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. That man is repeatedly persecuted for his politics and his presidency, but there's no disputing his character.

 

 

 

In the interest of clarity, I wanted to add that I think it's important for people to consider the roles that are played and needed. We need money bags out there, just like we need hands-on workers. It takes people that care, but only have their hands as well as people that care, with deep pockets.

 

Each of those roles has their own associated motivations and while it's universally despised to exploit giving for vanity, it's also an exercise in resentment that completely ignores service of the social need when that becomes an objection.

[jryan]

Yeah, direct say on where their money goes Or do you follow the charities yourself and examine their bank statements, receipts, and who exactly the money got to?

 

Actually I do. If you don't then you have the right to be careless with your money as well.

 

Edit: If you want to know where to donate, try donating here: CCNV, Washington DC

 

Back when I was a social worker in the Washington DC area this charity was one of the best in providing actual assistance to the area poor. They are incredibly efficient as well. If you would rather donate more locally then I would suggest emailing CCNV and they would be happy to give you a list of charities in your area that they work with. I would trust their opinion.

Edited April 21, 2010 by jryan

[john5746]

In the interest of clarity, I wanted to add that I think it's important for people to consider the roles that are played and needed. We need money bags out there, just like we need hands-on workers. It takes people that care, but only have their hands as well as people that care, with deep pockets.

 

I would add that money bags come from the leveraging of the worker. People are fond of saying that companies don't pay taxes, people do. Well, money bags don't print money, they receive it from the value added work of others.

 

So if the wealthy are not taxed appropriately, they are obligated to give to charity, no need to thank them. Obviously, some will do more than others and some may go beyond the norm. This can be recognized, but should not be confused with real sacrifice, IMO.