Equality?

[DuncanONeil]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[Lion]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

[DuncanONeil]

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.

I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:


With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

[Lion]

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.

Still don't get what you mean


Anyhow, onto term limits and such. I was reading the transcript from an interview Colin Powell had with Face the Nation, at the end, the interviewer had this to say about elections:

Finally, when the amateurs ask me -- and by amateurs I mean the good citizens outside the circle of professional politics, when they ask me why Washington doesn't seem to listen, when every poll shows that people hate partisanship and want compromise, I tell them the professional politicians always listen. They listen to the people who gave them the money to get to Washington.

American politics used to be an amateur sport. But somewhere along the way we handed over to professionals all the things people used to do for free. So an enormous cottage industry sprang up. Consultants, gurus, strategists, pollsters who discovered it was easier to win elections by driving wedges between people than bringing them together.

Politics got nastier and worse. It came with a price. did it ever. The Center for Responsive Politics says the 2008 campaigns cost $5.3 billion. Good money if you can get it. And full disclosure, TV got a lot of it. It cost an average $8.5 million to win a seat in the Senate. In Minnesota, Norm Coleman spent $20 million and lost.

On average, a Senate candidate had to raise $3,881 a day for every day of a six-year term. Only those willing to do that won anymore. So to raise that kind of money, candidates must promise so much to so many before they get to Washington that once here, they can't compromise on anything. Their positions are set in stone.

So they're listening, all right, but like the loyal country girl, they're just listening to them that brung 'em.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02...ce-the-nation/

Made a lot of sense to me. One thing that I love about DC is all the glitz and glamour that can be found. There are so many high priced hotels and restaurants that survive on patronage of so many lobbyists.

But a friend of mine, who is an aide to a senator told me that there are no set rules in terms of what is really acceptable. A lobbyist can pay for a $80 Kobe steak, and with the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations can also donate to campaigns, politicians really need the support of the rich.

A two term limit, in my mind doesn't really fix a lot of problems. With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

Anyhow, before anyone starts misquoting what I said, my point of this post is that with billions spent on campaigns each year, I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors. You could say that a person who doesn't have to worry about re-election for the third term can shake of any external pressure. But seeing how deep party loyalties seem to exist, I doubt that outgoing politicians would want to hurt their party's incoming stream of donations by ignoring the rich lobbyists. Nor would they want to hurt their chances in the professional field by harming their reputation.

In Canada, elections are called at a whim. There is no set date (elections have to be at least every 5 years). Often, successful campaigns for parlimentary seats are won with a budget of $10k. Not saying Americans should follow Canada, and that Canadian politicians are immune from greed, but if an election can only be won with 100s of thousands, or millions of dollars, then there is a problem, and a term limit might not be a full solution.

[Thorne]

With the expense of a campaign, corporations often donate to both sides. Lobbyists with their fat wallets need to simply write a campaign donation check to ensure a favourable vote.

I was shocked when I read the number that is spent on campaigns each year. How is it possible that it can go in the billions?!? I mean you could enact a law limiting the amount spent on a campaign, but then what about private groups that want to support a particular candidate (Swift boat, moveon.org)?

I think the problem has more to do with backroom deals with large donors.

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

[DuncanONeil]

Now that is interesting! And it does appear to solve a whole host of problems. But are we not then removing the choice of the people to support the candidate of their choice??

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

[steelish]

I wonder if we couldn't require that ALL donations to political organizations be pooled into a common fund, with each candidate dipping from the same pool. You eliminate the lobbyists and you minimize the corporate influences on politicians. The potential for bribery goes up, but it would obviously be illegal, with both the receiver and briber being liable for criminal penalties. As things are now, corporations give their candidates boatloads of money for reelection, but it isn't considered a bribe, even though that is in fact what it amounts to.

This is interesting, however, given the current trend towards unpunished bribery within the federal government (and likely everywhere else too...state, local) I highly doubt it will discourage corruption.

The final votes for the healthcare bill were bought. That much was obvious.