Seems to me that between a very ineffecient government and what we are giving to existing charities, it is keeping the needs of those in need satisfied. So should we give more so they not only have their needs filled - but their mercedes Benz as well? Not all of them Doc. there are a lot of people, spe
In the year 2005, individuals, corporations, and foundations gave $260 billion in charitable contributions to nonprofits If you combine what we voluntarily give with what the gove
it appears that this argument could go on an on. There's obviously a bias against the poor here. All poor people are lazy, no good, thieves. if you save twenty bucks per week I hate to admit that QOD, but i am afraid you may be right. Saving $20 a week, i.e. about $80 per month seems very easy to most. I wish it was for people who make $1200/month 600 of it for rent, 100 for utilities (is that really en
I agree that people should be compassionate and charitable. But forcibly taking money from people at the point of a gun is neither compassionate or charitable You still missing the point that you agree with. "people should" doesnt make it happen. i said not enough of us are willing to do that on their own. what do you do if that is the case, which is the existing reality? It is like saying someone is just a little bit
Since your argument is basically that we should take from the capable to give to the incapable I don't see any reason not to take your position to its logical conclusion. Isnt that what we call extreme? there is always a good-for-all middle grounds. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center
People need to be responsible to themselves and their families. Why should my wife and children go without simply because we live responsibily so that someone else who didn't save for retirement and whose family is either too incompotent or too greedy to help support them can live better? I dont know
I wonder how much people like ThinkAloud and others actually do for other people each year. Perhaps he has a website that lists the foundation he started or something. It's easy for someone to argue that OTHER people should carry the burden I didnt mean to get personal Draginol. And i really hate to say
Wow. I mean, WOW. So the answer is socialism. By your reasoning, the Soviet Union should have gone great. But..wait no, it didn't did it. Maybe it's because your rationale is bogus. OOOH Boy, How did you get from SS to USSR? the tax bite must be very stinging this year ..... but please dont take it on
I consider myself pretty moral, thinkaloud. I have no doubt that you are Draginol, "Moral" in the question (and the reply) was meant for the society at large. and i said "not many of us will do much". i didnt say non of us.the problem is that not everyone is like you. or like Bill Gate <img src="../imag
Morally how? From where do you get this idea? Remember, the main question was: what balance is to be struck between the two as a moral society moral was the key word. i did not inject it into the discussion. how morally this is comes from the principle that no one achieves anything alone. others and the society contributed to your achievements whether you realize it or not. Morally, you MUST contribu
but I think saying *owe* is taking it too far. i said "Morally" not technically. How much you Morally owe anyone, depends of course on how you feel about your obligation to others and to the society in general. That is exactly why charity is not the answer. many of us dont feel that we owe anyone anything and at the same time believe that we are entitled to use ALL the resources availble which is generally provided by those same others and that same so
The only issue to decide is whether you think that people at or above the median income in America owe a retirement to those who live below it or to those that cannot work at all. In essence it is Capitalism vs. Socialism and what balance is to be struck between the two as a moral society It is not Capitalism Vs Socialism. It is Moral Capitalism Vs Selfish Capitalism. Technically, no one ows anything to others. But morally, the Haves owe a lot to have-n
Is it that hard to just act like a man and open your mouth?? No, it is not hard at all. But men generally think (we could be wrong, and pls correct me if i am wrong) that saying no to a girl who is interested in them is very humiliating. We really are much more sensitive to women's feelings than women think we are. The reason we think that is we know the feeling, we get rejected much more than women do, and it is humiliating to u
"Wow! It just missed the highway!" very observant ,...... what is your problem?
There are a lot of people who simply look out and don't see all that much evidence for God's existance. to "simply look" with no thinking or appreciaition of the magic of what they see is just looking. it is the desire to know and understand that derives the mind to start thinking about what you looki
If someone can believe in something that is wrong, just as strongly as a Christian’s belief, that means that Christian’s could be wrong too. God hides the truth from the wise and intelligent and gives it to babes. Look at the Apostles. None were elite, none were scribes, none were preachers, n
Good think that correct speak is not a law You see what i mean ..... .... , think is also a word. <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF394 cla
I mean, to hold this kind of agenda secret for 100 years is a pretty neat trick. First, thanks for the correction, i appreciate that. i spell-checked it but concur is a word too. but lousy spellers are also lousy checkers . i
I wouldn't cry if tomorrow it was decided we were through in Iraq and my husband was coming home I cant begin to tell you how i feel about you and your husband and all the rest like you both. my wife turns the house almost to a funeral every time we hear a casuality there. for
Neither the Democrats NOR the Republicans are working for the people That is a Given for sure. I was talking about the relative position of both regarding Iraq in particular.
I know that stupidity has no limit. One of my colleagues where i worked years ago had a sign on his desk that read " Stupidity is an Achievement .... Sometimes". i find it to be very true in cases where the people involved are normal educated humans and still do strangely stupid things. They can't just be simply stupid. they must have worked at it hard to reach that l
I want to see them come home, of course, but I want to see it happen the RIGHT way, without leaving a country in shambles The tragedy is : there is no right way to do that. period. like trying to put the hornets back in the hive after you hit it with a stick. can you do that? ask brad ... he recently wrote a piece about that. your feelings, and of all tho
But they did envision the need to protect against a tyrannical government do i see the seeds of a an armed rebillion in this interpretation? then we wonder why someone who thinks that the government (or the society in general) is tyrannical starts shooting everybody in sight because, in their opinion, those people are part of that government and that society? I dont think this is what they intended. protection against foreign enemies is what the
Reason will not be able to take him or anyone there I am not really trying to take anyone anywhere. i am just stating the facts of science as it is known to all. and it always amazes me when people who know how science work just forget all the rules when it comes to God and religion. If someone doesnt like to believe, it is their choice, just please dont say it is because it is not logical. in fact, logically, it is the otherway around. <b
The Big Bang is not really a theory for the creation of the universe, but rather a period of massive expansion of the universe (leading to the universe as we know it today). very true. and just by looking at this makes any one with no bias against anything think how did that happen? what or wh
JoeUser Forums