hmmm... I'm not allowed to use a catchy title i guess... Here are some FACTS about the RED states.

Originally posted by dawnstar

sorry, businesses should be taking care of their own, those they rely on to produce their profits, before they worry about the rest of the world.

I agree 100%!! Those that have figured this out prosper, those that don't spend all their capital and profits training new hires constantly. You know how people advance in industry these days? They change employers. Are they selfish for doing this rather than waiting on a promotion from within? Hell no. That promotion never comes because all these companies now believe that to fill a higher position, they must hire from outside to get someone qualified instead of promoting within. This logic usually cost them in the long run as they end up hiring away an employee who was done the same way by his or her employer. This is a costly trend that has been around for at least a decade and was enacted so no employer kept and employee long enough to earn their retirment or advance to higher pay. When we look at it, however, its a business practice wrought with falicies being spurred by those not wise enough to realize it. To them, someone new is someone better when the person under the person who just left because they weren't promoted could have easily stepped in and not missed a beat.


I'm usually all for business but this is one practice I have to disagree with.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Which proves my point... Democrats can't give money away, it had to be pried from their hands by the government. The Republican states are the truly generous ones.

The truth hurts doesn't it?
[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]

You have yet to prove anything. Answer my questions please.

The way everything seems is that when someone calls the view too narrow, you just say no it isn't and hit post. Defend your position on it not being too narrow. Refute my points on other type of charitable things that can be done without paper trails/tax write offs. I'm begging you. Please answer these or withdraw/alter your claim. Right now as it stands, your assertion is inconclusive by the lack of sampling that is in your evidence.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Which proves my point... Democrats can't give money away, it had to be pried from their hands by the government. The Republican states are the truly generous ones.
[edit on 16-11-2004 by LostSailor]

That isn't fair grouping all the Democrats in a ball like that saying that they can't give their money away. Blanket statements like that tend to be dangerous since they usually are not true for everyone in that group. This applies to any statement made about Republicans or Democrats or any group of people for that matter.

*Edit* I did a little google searching on how this index is created. And appearently it is slightly flawed. Excerpt from: www.samueljohnson.com...
(Note to the mods, sorry for the long quote, but I felt it was needed.)

The estimate of a state's donations: to derive the ranks on a state's giving, the Generosity Index procedure extrapolates from all those in the state who itemized their charitable donations on their tax returns to all the taxpayers in the state, as if they gave just as much even though they didn't itemize their deductions. This procedure cannot be justified. In the case of South Dakota (where 15% itemized their donations), it means extrapolating to the remaining 85% � using an average of $3,746, or in Wyoming, where you'd be taking the average itemized claim of $6,356 and extrapolating from 17% to the other 83%. (You'd be saying that 83% of the taxpayers in Wyoming donated over $6,000 to charity without claiming it as an itemized deduction.)

Read that whole page, it has some other interesting tidbits as well.

[edit on 11-16-2004 by Sarcasimo]

Originally posted by Sarcasimo

*Edit* I did a little google searching on how this index is created. And appearently it is slightly flawed. Excerpt from: www.samueljohnson.com...
(Note to the mods, sorry for the long quote, but I felt it was needed.)


[edit on 11-16-2004 by Sarcasimo]

Thanks for digging into that Sarcasimo. Now if you could just explain the difference between biased and unbiased to LostSailor

--Saerlaith

Originally posted by LostSailor
Yeah right... I knw this was going to happen.... whenever you people have some factual data thrown at you you shrug it off as right wing ageda.

All I am saying is that it is VERY likely that your 'facts' are biased. Next time, pick an organisation that isn't so goddamn right-wing. Its very easy to find facts to support your claims written by groups that share the same viewpoint as you. Try looking a little deeper next time.

Sailor, you still did not answer my question.......How do you know the donations in the Red states were made by the Red people????

I read the site you referred to in your original post---I didn't see where they offered proof of which people within each state gave what.....There was a predominance of southern states at the top of the list, maybe southerners in general are more generous than yankees!!

Maybe there's just more need for charity in the red states???

I don't see the conection between Political ideoogy and Personal ideoogy. I can think of plenty of people who cross the line from either side. Are you simpally out to prove the sterotype is wrong?

I use myself as an example, I'm an independent. I'm a Special Ed major in college and I work with children that have disabilities. I'm also a scout leader that devotes a lot of time and effort to community servics and helping others. I voted for Kerry because I thought that he is more down to earth, and a better leader then Bush. My example seems (in my oppinion) to contradict your point. If I'm wrong forgive me! I don't fallow your logic.

It appears to me that you are trying to make a connection that doesn't exist! Beware of Sterotypes! They can get you in a lot of trouble, even if your intent was noble and honorable!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Originally posted by Saerlaith

Originally posted by Sarcasimo

*Edit* I did a little google searching on how this index is created. And appearently it is slightly flawed. Excerpt from: www.samueljohnson.com...
(Note to the mods, sorry for the long quote, but I felt it was needed.)


[edit on 11-16-2004 by Sarcasimo]

Thanks for digging into that Sarcasimo. Now if you could just explain the difference between biased and unbiased to LostSailor

--Saerlaith

That doesn't tell me anything that I didn't already know... The read states although they may be poorer give more of their average income to charity. BTW samueljohnson.com is a biased site

Lost, are you going to answer me. Is it because you can't? Is it because the argument is a barrel with a hole? Knock it off with the biased rant. Get to the real problems. Otherwise, please withdraw it.

It is something to debate actual ideals, but you are making claims that your statistics do not completely support.

Fact: This does not take into account man hours in other charities. (Adopt-a-highway, Greek philanthropies, etc.)

Fact: It fails to take into consideration of cost of living vs average income of that area. (That is extremely important)

Fact: These "charitable donations" are sometimes used for tax write-offs at the end of the year.

Assertion: This report does not prove anything other than it is incomplete and is only usable for pissing contest like we have here. Is my assertion correct?

No.. this is incomplete only because it isn't what you want to hear.

You would be usuing it yourself if the blue states were at the top of the list. I think this really does show that the government doesn't need to tax the hell out of people to set up government programs that DON"T WORK!!!

Right...

I have told you how it is incomplete and you ignore the reasons for it. You claim that because it is what I want to see. No it is incomplete for a reason. It is sampling such a tiny portion of actual charity. And besides, that type of charity cannot claim that it was all done with the best of intentions. Again, let's go back to tax write off.

Also, it does nothing nothing with available money. Places like New York and California, many people only make enough money to live off of. Most of the bottom half is comprised of more densly populated places. And in more densly populated places, the cost of living is higher. The average income does not go up proportionally to the cost of living. Now, I believe that if you take into account available money to donate, the list would look very different. Shoot, the first big place on the list comes in at the 12 spot. But Texas has a huge amount wide open spaces. Florida is the same as well. The bottom half includes every state that is a part of the Megalopolis. Sure, there are a lot of outliers in this, but generally, this is true. It is my assertion that the Denser the population the lower available money to donate.

Like I said, this information is only good for a pissing contest. And this is all this argument will amount to.

Lost Sailor: and the blue states, what do they do? Nothing?

Just because they're the obvious smart ones doesnt mean they did not contribute.
That's what its come to. Red, vs Blue.

bah humbag!

I dont need to remind you that the United States, as a whole, is a very giving nation. This means all of it. Not just the red states.

Your America
My America
Bush's America