$369 by whozit

America loves a winner!

Mitt gave more away in charity than he paid in taxes.

I'll give him props for one thing, he walks the walk, while others just ... well, they don't even talk the talk, do they ? They instead just blame the successful, and the promise to make their lives worse, while doing absolutely nothing for the " little folk " .

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:48 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Mitt gave more away in charity than he paid in taxes.

...Charitable donations are tax deductible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Mitt gave more away in charity than he paid in taxes.

...Charitable donations are tax deductible.

Somebody didn't tell Joe ' BFD ' Biden, huh?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 3:17 PM

HERO

I think Democrats have a pretty low bar for their leaders.

They want them to pay their taxes...most of the time. Aside from that its all good.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:07 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'll respond to the first post; beyond that it's a waste of time.

Quote:
So the rich not only pay their fare share they give to those who have nothing.

Gosh, you mean ALL the rich? Wow, I'm impressed. Not. We've been all through this one before...I think more than once?

Quote:
For decades, surveys have shown that upper-income Americans don’t give away as much of their money as they might and are particularly undistinguished as givers when compared with the poor, who are strikingly generous. A number of other studies have shown that lower-income Americans give proportionally more of their incomes to charity than do upper-income Americans. In 2001, Independent Sector, a nonprofit organization focused on charitable giving, found that households earning less than $25,000 a year gave away an average of 4.2 percent of their incomes; those with earnings of more than $75,000 gave away 2.7 percent.

This situation is perplexing if you think of it in terms of dollars and cents: the poor, you would assume, don’t have resources to spare, and the personal sacrifice of giving is disproportionately large. The rich do have money to spend. Those who itemize receive a hefty tax break to make charitable donations, a deduction that grows more valuable the higher they are on the income scale. And the well-off are presumed to have at least a certain sense of noblesse oblige. Americans pride themselves on their philanthropic tradition, and on the role of private charity, which is much more developed here than it is in Europe, where the expectation is that the government will care for the poor.

But in the larger context of “the psychological culture of wealth versus poverty,” says Paul K. Piff, a Ph.D. candidate in social psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, the paradox makes sense. Piff has made a specialty of studying those cultures in his lab at the Institute of Personality and Social Research, most recently in a series of experiments that tested “lower class” and “upper class” subjects (with earnings ranging from around $15,000 to more than $150,000 a year) to see what kind of psychological factors motivated the well-known differences in their giving behaviors. His study, written with Michael W. Kraus and published online last month by The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that lower-income people were more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth. They were more attuned to the needs of others and more committed generally to the values of egalitarianism.

“Upper class” people, on the other hand, clung to values that “prioritized their own need.” And, he told me this week, “wealth seems to buffer people from attending to the needs of others.” Empathy and compassion appeared to be the key ingredients in the greater generosity of those with lower incomes. And these two traits proved to be in increasingly short supply as people moved up the income spectrum. More at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 24, 2012 6:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Whozit and rappy? If not sockpuppets then made from the same cloth. Yanno... too many facts!. Makes small heads hurt! But thanks for trying Niki!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:32 AM

America loves a winner!

Mitt gives away 3 million, Joe a few hundred. It's really NOT that complicated, yet Niki is a typical Lefty, spinning the story every way but accurate, interjecting a completely separate issue, as if it some how addresses the matter, at all. It doesn't. .

Unbelievable.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:48 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Actually he does not mean ALL the rich. Based only on the comparison of Newt, Mitt, President Obama, and Old Joe...only rich Republicans give substantial amounts to charity, Democrats don't.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
"I agree with Hero." Niki2, 2011.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:40 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gosh, you mean ALL the rich? Wow, I'm impressed.

Per the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, it's conservatives who contribute most to charity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 5:13 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gosh, you mean ALL the rich? Wow, I'm impressed.

Per the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, it's conservatives who contribute most to charity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Yeah, but when Republicans give 3 MILLION dollars, it's only for tax purposes.

When ol' Joe gives 300 bucks, it doesn't matter, because he's from a blue collar background and he really CARES about the little guy.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nah, Sig, I might as well not have wasted the time, just couldn't pass up the "Rich give more..." bullshit, because whenever that's looked at closely, it's debunked. Had my say; responses were predictable and it didn't waste much time, so no biggie. I know better than hoping any facts would bother them, really put it up for any who've heard the tired cliche and bought into it without knowing the facts. Did find it amusing that rather than "rich give more", they focused on "REPUBLICANS give more"...there are, of course, no rich Democrats who give more than poor Republicans (IS there any such thing?). On to more worthwhile endeavors...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:07 AM

America loves a winner!

So Niki, if the "rich" gave nothing, or only say... $ 360, you'd be ok with that ?

You really have no logical point here.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:32 AM

The government has already had their hands on that money three times. They taxed it the first time when the company Romney worked for earned it. They taxed it again when Romney's employer paid him. Romney invested it, a gamble, and when he profited from that gamble they taxed it a third time. If Romney's investment had gone bad would the government have refunded him 15% of his lost money? No. If Romney had screwed up at his job and not done well, or gotten fired, would we be having this conversation? No.

Basically the only reason we're hearing whining about this is because Romney is wealthy and successful.

Oh, and the top federal tax bracket is 35% for people earning more than $388,350 in wages. Investments get a lower tax rate to encourage investment. Raise the tax rate for investment and that money will go overseas and be invested where the tax rate is not as usurious. No investment money means no entrepreneurship, wages or jobs. Look into the history of the great depression for a real world example.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:54 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gosh, you mean ALL the rich? Wow, I'm impressed.

Per the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, it's conservatives who contribute most to charity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well, golly, then, that makes their abuse of the middle class a-okay.

Douche.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 9:59 AM

America loves a winner!

Anus face.

No one is 'abusing' the middle class.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:23 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anus face.

No one is 'abusing' the middle class.

Don't feed the trolls, Rap.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:03 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Well Geezer, now we see what you really are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:26 PM

Auraptor, there's no call to be rude.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 6:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yea, rap gacks up "anus face" and geezer thinks everyone else is a troll??? Whoa there, old buddy! Where's that "objectivity"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

As I think abut it though, this happened last election cycle.The more it looked like Obama was going to win, the more unhinged the right-wing-nuts became. They did b4 and this looks to be more of the same. Rather than blame themselves for fielding pathetic candidates (really guys, is this the best ya' got?) they go nuts over the 'other side'.

Which pleases me no end. I just smile watching them impotently foam and forth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 3:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Wow.

Three trolls with one bait.

Didn't get a rise from the big one though. Looks like Storymark got away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:16 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yea, rap gacks up "anus face" and geezer thinks everyone else is a troll??? Whoa there, old buddy! Where's that "objectivity"?

Name calling has become such a staple for some on here, and nothing gets said. I RESPOND, once, after Story blurted out 'douche', and suddenly the objectivity nazis come out of the wood work.

Unbelievable.

Point is, I only sank to that level as a direct response to the one who started it, to show just how ridiculous they sounded. Bravo for noticing how juvenile it was, but your selective vision on this matter is telling.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:00 AM

I believe I've also asked Kwicko to keep his language civil. Lack of civility is either a symptom of or the cause of the polarization of our political system. With strongly polarized parties there can be no compromise. I believe we tried that in the 1860's and it didn't work so well then.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:33 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Wow.

Three trolls with one bait.

No trolling. That is my genuine, honest, unfiltered opinion of you.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by CaveTroll:
I believe I've also asked Kwicko to keep his language civil. Lack of civility is either a symptom of or the cause of the polarization of our political system. With strongly polarized parties there can be no compromise. I believe we tried that in the 1860's and it didn't work so well then.

Like Kaylee said, the point of swearin' is that it's not appropriate.

But my issue is, if that's ALL you can come back with, like blurting out 'douche', and that's the sum total of your ability to converse, then you're a 7 year old, and not worth my time.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:16 AM

STORYMARK

Shit, son, you were deemed unworthy of anyone's time many, many, many years ago.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 8:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, goody; if we're not worth your time, does that mean you'll go away?

Rap is so DAMNED predictable; here comes the "no YOU'RE a child!" bit.

Yeah, Kiki, what little I watch of it makes me smile, too; neither Gingrich nor Romney stands a snowball's chance in hell (actually, NONE of them did, tho' I still think Huntsman could have given Obama a run for his money), so I'm not bothered by them, except to shake my head sadly at how many totally blind jerks there are in the Republican party these days. They're SO damned easily manipulated! But after a while, they get as predictable and

as Rap and his goons, which Geezer has finally flat-out allied himself with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:38 AM

America loves a winner!

And yet , here I am. The focus ( yet again ) of y'alls attention , as you keep on NOT ignoring me.

Crassic!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:59 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I routinely find it amazing that people, especially Niki, get soooooooooooo angry at Raptor, if he can make you that irritated then he's the one with the power, and I know you don't want him to be the one with the power, but you give it to him on a platter when you guys freak out about his presence and his comments.

Its all rather humorous. Sometimes he makes me angry too, but its pretty rare, most of the time when I don't agree with him it does't bother me or effect my day. I can only think of one time when I was genuinely upset by something he said. Otherwise I just don't care either way. Occasionally, shutter, he and I agree on something.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:04 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire: I can only think of one time when I was genuinely upset by something he said.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Sowwies, Riona.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:22 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I got over it fast enough. One thing about me is that I get over online disagreements way faster than I do with regular ones in real life. Online everything moves faster and we all move on easier.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Sh*t, son, you were deemed unworthy of anyone's time many, many, many years ago.

Why do you feel it's appropriate to curse?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Lack of civility is either a symptom of or the cause of the polarization of our political system."

Symptom. Otherwise that's like saying lack of civility caused the little brouhaha in the 1860s, and the whole SLAVERY thing apparently had nothing to do with it.

BTW - the current system is stalled due to the rise of the angry while southern male who wants to make sure that everyone NOT like him is, once and for all, finally legally, financially and socially inferior to his greatness. The fact that he and those like him will sell themselves like whores to the wealthy (the wealthy who are and will remain the owners) to get the needed $$$ is an irony lost on them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:59 PM

America loves a winner!

I was unaware that Herman Cain was 'white'.

Huh.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Per the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, it's conservatives who contribute most to charity."

But only if you count church donations.

I'm going to repeat that a few times b/c we've been through this before and you, apparently, can't learn from actual information.

But only if you count church donations.
But only if you count church donations.
But only if you count church donations.

And church donations do not always go to help the poor. In fact, the donations rarely go to help the poor. They go to building temples. Running radio stations. Paying the hierarchy and their staff and the staff that maintains the properties.
From the last time, Rue linked a actual church books showing income and expenses to show that, indeed those donations DON'T go to helping 'the poor'.

And the middle class gives to things that don't necessarily count as charities, but which nonetheless make for a better world, like environmental groups.

So those religious 'charitable' donations don't help anyone. While those godless donations to support causes do. "He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him." Which do you think shows more charity? The pious donation for show? Or the donation to help?

Not that I expect you to learn from actual facts, b/c, just like little Rappy, you don't know what they are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:48 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I was unaware that Herman Cain was 'white'."

Is he in Washington grinding the system to a halt?

Is he even in the race anymore, or was he voted out by a bunch of rednecks?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:58 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I was unaware that Herman Cain was 'white'."

Is he in Washington grinding the system to a halt?

Is he even in the race anymore, or was he voted out by a bunch of rednecks?

Yeah, I can see you're really up on current events.

Most 'white rednecks' wanted him to stay IN the race, and would have preferred him to lily white Mitt or Newt.

And last I checked, Allen West wasn't all that light skinned either. The TEA party isn't about race. Sorry.

And the system NEEDS to be ground to a halt, before we chuck ourselves off the cliff , and become Greece on steroids.

Obama had both houses for the first 2 years. Blame him and the Dems for not getting more done.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You didn't answer the questions ... and they're simple. But I can understand why you can't. It's OK. Not everybody can be smart.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You didn't answer the questions ... and they're simple. But I can understand why you can't. It's OK. Not everybody can be smart.

The questions were too simplistic to bother with answering. Not 'simple' , as in easy to reply to , but too simplistic, as in 'not worth a serious answer ' .

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 26, 2012 7:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

^^^^^^
| | | | | |

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... yeah, we've seen that tack before - 'it's beneath me to answer'. Little Rappy, by the quality of your posts, we've all concluded NOTHING is beneath you.

So, Geezer, I'll be awaiting your reply to my post. But don't worry if you don't reply this time. If you dig out your dead smelly argument back here, again, in the future, I'll refute it ... again, in the future.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 3:17 AM

America loves a winner!

Zzzzzzz.....

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 5:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Per the book "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur C. Brooks, it's conservatives who contribute most to charity."

But only if you count church donations.

I'm going to repeat that a few times b/c we've been through this before and you, apparently, can't learn from actual information.

But only if you count church donations.
But only if you count church donations.
But only if you count church donations.

Well, you're wrong four times, then.

I got the book right here, and the best table to figure liberal vs. conservative giving seems to be Table 13, extracted from the General Social Survey (page 196, if you'd like to run down to the library and check). It's titled "Average Annual Giving Levels and Opinions About Government Income Redistribution."

It asks for categorizations, 'Agree Strongly' to 'Disagree Strongly', to this statement, "The Government Has a Responsibility to Reduce Income Inequality". Seems a pretty good selector of Liberal or Conservative to me.

For contributions - divided into categories 'All gifts', 'Secular gifts only', and 'Religious gifts' - contributions increase as categorizations move from 'Agree Strongly' to 'Disagree Strongly'.

In a breakdown of 'Secular gifts only' into 'Health', 'Education', 'Social Welfare', 'Environment', 'Arts', and 'International aid', the Conservative 'Disagree Strongly' class always outgives the Liberal 'Agree Strongly' class.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 5:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

double.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 6:21 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Riona, you've got it totally wrong. Raptor has NEVER made me angry, honest to gawd. The things he says are entirely to insane to do that...long ago, yes, frustrated sometimes, but no, he doesn't bother me. I post to and about him, as does Mike, to point out the truth to OTHERS rather than let his lies stand, and other than that, only to mock him and remind others how futile it is to try and actually communicate with him. I'm amazed you haven't picked up on that, since I've said it numerous times. I don't spend anything like the time and effort Mike and others do, but now and again, it's entertaining.

So no, Raptor has no impact on me at all, except occasionally some amusement and as a reminder that he's a troll who's playing a game to get attention. NOBODY on line has had any negative effect on me for years, once I got past taking any of it personally...even that guy, can't remember his name, who was truly obscene to and about me a while back. Words can't hurt, especially from strangers on the internet! Rolls off my back like water.

Kiki, you forgot to mention that Herman Cain went on to be a joke (not that he always wasn't) by doing that gig with Stephen Colbert. Just showed him to be the ridiculous figure we'd all recognized him as being.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 5:55 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Who Really Cares about Arthur Brooks pt. II

I don't know why I don't read the Volokh Conspiracy more often. Heck, it's in my blogroll. Maybe it's because I don't like the font. Maybe it's because the subjects broached there only occasionally interest me. Or maybe I just put it in my blogroll to have a token conservative site in order to present the false impression that I'm balanced.

Whatever the case, this morning I chanced upon a critique of Arthur Brooks' Who Really Cares which I wrote about previously. Not to my surprise, Jim Lindgren finds some statistical jimmying:

I am skeptical of basing so much on the SCCBS, in large part because it reports that liberal families make more money than conservatives (it is not clear from Brooks’s book whether the survey is of a representative national sample). In the 2000, 2002, and 2004 General Social Surveys, which are representative samples of the US, conservative families make $2,500 to $5,600 a year more than liberal families in each one. Although I don’t have the ANES data handy, my recollection is that the economic differences between conservatives and liberals are usually in the same direction and even larger in the ANES than in the GSS.

Note that Brooks is assuming that liberals earn 6% more than conservatives when most of the data show that conservatives in fact earn significantly more than liberals. Thus when he controls for income, he's moving his numbers in the opposite direction from which they should move. Perhaps even worse, as far as I've been able to tell, Brooks doesn't control for cost of living. Liberals are more likely to live in urban areas where cost of living is high, and conservatives more likely to live in rural areas where cost of living is low. That means that disposable income can vary widely even if gross income is the same. There's more:

This problem comes to a head in Brooks’s probit and regression models analyzing SCCBS data (pp. 192-193). After controlling for a lot of things that you might not want to control for (i.e., being religious or secular), Brooks concludes that “liberals and conservatives are not distinguishable” in whether they have made any donation in the last year. This is literally true, but he fails to note that in the model liberals give significantly more than moderates, if a traditional .05 significance level is used, while conservatives do not differ significantly from moderates. Yet in Table 6, the significance level used as a threshold for identification with an asterisk is .01, not .05, as he uses in some of the other tables. In one table (p. 197), Brooks even reports significance at the .10 level, as well as at the .05 and .01 levels.

I can’t rule out the possibility that Brooks changed his reporting of the significance level so he wouldn’t have to explain why, after lots and lots of controls, liberals were more likely to have made a donation than moderates, while conservatives did not differ significantly from either liberals or moderates.

Although I don't have the book and am unlikely to take the time to go through Brooks' arguments with a fine-toothed comb, I'll repeat what I said before: Brooks is highly disingenuous and should not be taken seriously.

Posted by Steve Reuland at 12/05/2006 10:01:00 AM

I'll >personally< get back to you later when I have more time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 27, 2012 6:58 PM

America loves a winner!

Niki

Anyone who disagrees w/ you or has their own opinion is a troll, huh?

Just add that to the pile of fantasies and lies that's been said about me and others on this forum.

I know it helps you to sleep through the night, pretending that I'm here for some sort of attention seeking game. Because the truth of the matter is, you can't stand the thought that anyone might actually believe what I'm saying, and your little world would some how come crashing down if you had to open your eyes, looking past that smokey pot haze, and SEE the world as it truly is.

" It's time to wake up " - Neo

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:11 AM