V
- Status
B
BamaRider
Guest
No Ribo, it doesn’t. I was just kidding But the more ya hang around you’ll see most libs don’t have a sense of humor.
I dunno why feel like you can’t contribute, because I don’t know ya personally. But apparently you spend alot of time in liberal think tanks, and none of those rags do anything to inspire anybody, they just moan and groan about how bad stuff is.
I suggest, you go back through all these posts and threads of folks like Vern, Etesbob, The Ridgerunner, Rig et al and contrast them with the the different views and decide for yourself which line of thinking is inspirational, and which will give chance you at a better life.
It will NOT be easy, but nobody ever said it was.
You’re only 18, you can be ANYTHING you want to be, NOBODY is gonna hold you back, I hope you don’t buy into that line of thinking. For sure it is harder to be optimistic, to get up from the computer and go out and actually do something. Because one thing you gotta realize in this country, if you don’t do it, somebody else will, so might as well be YOU.
You’re gonna have folks in this world tell ya, “Yo Ribo, you ain’t never gonna be anything but a burger flipper.” “Well maybe, but I’m gonna be the best there ever was, and that will get me to the top of McDonalds someday.”
And thats my :twocents:
R
ribozyme
Guest
So George Soros worked harder than those people who work two jobs near minimum wage? I do not see how working harder is significantly correlated with income (although I do expect a positive correlation.) I am not saying that being a hedge fund manager is a sinecure (as it isn’t and requires one to be clam when taking huge risks), but there are many people who work hard and barely make ends meet.If you work hard enough.
The myth that hard work and income are significantly correlated is necessary for conservative ideology. I do not think the Horatio Alger myth applies to a significant portion of people.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Didn’t Armand Hammer also work two jobs? Or was that just an urban myth?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
yup.
Clearly you don’t understand what “hard work” is.
Once again, you don’t understand what hard work is.
Shoeing horses is not hard work – because I can do it, and have done it.
Putting down roof tar in the summer is not hard work – because I can do it, and have done it.
Marching for miles and miles through triple-canopy jungle while carrying heavy loads is not hard work – because I can do it, and have done it.
Developing the Theory of Relativity was hard work – because I cannot do it.
Developing and running Wal-Mart was hard work – because I cannot do it.
Writing a best-seller is hard work – because I cannot do it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I was with you until this one. OBJECTIVELY shoeing horses is terrifically hard. Never done it, but I’ve watched it. I’ll defer to your subjective judgment of it, but to me, that’s killer work. The guys I’ve seen do it all have arms like corner posts and thighs like concrete pillars, and I’m sure they didn’t get them working out in the gym.
I rest my case.****
G
geraldffff
Guest
Amen Amen Amen
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
E
estesbob
Guest
Its the law of supply and demand. If I could consistenly hit curve balls 500 feet I would be working a lot less and makng a lot more.
G
geraldffff
Guest
Wow! It seems you equate wealth with money no wonder you radiate misery. Jesus is the only answer for the poor, which at times, has included myself. Soro’s would take this hope from them and replace it with the tyranny of hopelessness and security which soon fades and rusts away. I feel sad for you
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s the concept of value added. If you could consistenly hit curve balls 500 feet, you would add a lot of value to the team for which you played – and some of that would come back to you in the form of salary and other benefits.
If, on the other hand, you simply could not hit the ball at all, and had no other abilities in the game, you wouldn’t even be considered for the team.
C
cynic
Guest
so you equate hard work only with things that are mentally demanding, that which requires a high IQ?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, I equate hard work with things I cannot do.
C
cynic
Guest
so you you’ve never worked hard
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Nope – I’ve only worked as hard as*** I ***can.
But it was enough to provide for my wife and children and give me a comfortable life in my old age.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I am not a biblical scholar or a theologian. But until being corrected by anyone who is recognized as such, I will offer the following.
Never should anyone feel inadequate because his/her contribution to charity is small. Never should anyone feel he/she has failed as a Christian for that. I think Jesus talked about that in the story about the widow’s mite. It’s not a matter of how one gives. It’s a matter of THAT one gives. It’s a matter of whether one gives from one’s surplus or from one’s need. Jesus was unimpressed by the ostentatious gifts of the big money guys; the pharisees, and praised the widow who gave the insignificant coin, because it was all she had.
All Catholics have an obligation to be charitable. It’s a serious obligation. How one carries it out is peculiar to the individual. Is a man who is struggling to feed his family obligated to starve it so he could make a big gift to the poor? Well, no, he has a double obligation to his family both because of their need and because of his responsibility to them as breadwinner. Does he have an obligation to work in order to keep himself off the dole if he can? Well, of course. St. Paul talked about that in fairly harsh tones.
But for sure, charity is “charity” only when it bites. “Giving out of one’s need”, I think it’s called. Need is relative to the time and place; to family obligations and the obligations of each to “eat his bread in the sweat of his brow”.
Possibly this person can donate time. Possibly that one can teach in a Catholic school and be rather poorly paid rather than in a public school where he would be better paid. Such a person is “giving from his need” and I think we have seen posts by a couple of teachers who are doing just that.
Possibly some guy or gal who knows how to lay bricks and make stable earth banks can redo some of the ground upon which the church, or perhaps a group home sits. He or she could be earning money doing the same thing, and bricklayers do not earn princely sums, so he or she is “giving from his/her need”. Such a person should, without taking bread from the mouths of his/her children, but perhaps giving up all hope of an ATV, also give money, short of giving the rent money or the mortgage money.
I am totally unimpressed by some billionaire who gives a few million here and a few million, or even billion there, yet remains wealthy. Such a person is not “giving from his need”. If it’s to worthy causes, then sure, I’m glad he did it. But I have no belief at all that it equals the gift of the guy who gave up on his long-suppressed desire to own an ATV and even gave up a few meals himself (not his wife or children) in order to give to the poor. Such a man would even make excuses to his wife or children: “Oh, go ahead and order whatever you want. I’m feeling a bit of indigestion. A dish of ice cream would be just what I need.” (while his stomach is screaming “steak!” “steak!”) His wife never knows. His kids never know. (likely they’ll suspect some day and learn much thereby what a real man is) But God knows.
For sure, there are some things the government is likely to do best. Unfortunately, government has been in the “taking care of the poor” (badly) business so long we really don’t even know any more how else it could be done. Once there were huge Church charitable institutions. Orphanages, hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, on and on. They are now just vestiges of their former selves, largely secularized and take money from the government to boot. (of course there are no more orphanages and mighty few homes for unwed mothers now, thanks to the Supreme Court who, no doubt, felt very noble in what they did with the lives of others). When those institutions existed, people knew how to donate their charity, and had the money to do it with, because their taxes were lower.
I’m not an economist. I don’t pretend to know what all government does best or not so well. I do think it does a terrible job in providing for the truly needy. And it even “hides” them. We now no longer even know who they are or where they are. We don’t know what they don’t have or do have. Not in ubrban areas in this country anyway.
I do know there are people who play the system. That I know for sure. And I have known a lot of them in my time. And all the while, the government asks for “more”, “more”, while not really providing for the truly needy.
So what to do? There are some things we know, or think we know, will be worthy causes that won’t simply be fronts for scammers. We do know that at some point we have to opt, politically, for the truly needy. That’s hard to do, because we ought to know by now that most politicians buy votes with a lot of what they collect from us, and won’t do a thing for the needy with it. But supporting or voting for politicians who talk a lot about taxing and helping the poor but do nothing to really help the poor and are seen shipping the pork to those who don’t need it at all, is not the answer. And voting for people who take money from the killers of the unborn, and enable them to keep the killing going for the sake of keeping that cash flow going, is as wrong as wrong gets.
Never should anyone feel inadequate because his/her contribution to charity is small. Never should anyone feel he/she has failed as a Christian for that. I think Jesus talked about that in the story about the widow’s mite. It’s not a matter of how one gives. It’s a matter of THAT one gives. It’s a matter of whether one gives from one’s surplus or from one’s need. Jesus was unimpressed by the ostentatious gifts of the big money guys; the pharisees, and praised the widow who gave the insignificant coin, because it was all she had.
All Catholics have an obligation to be charitable. It’s a serious obligation. How one carries it out is peculiar to the individual. Is a man who is struggling to feed his family obligated to starve it so he could make a big gift to the poor? Well, no, he has a double obligation to his family both because of their need and because of his responsibility to them as breadwinner. Does he have an obligation to work in order to keep himself off the dole if he can? Well, of course. St. Paul talked about that in fairly harsh tones.
But for sure, charity is “charity” only when it bites. “Giving out of one’s need”, I think it’s called. Need is relative to the time and place; to family obligations and the obligations of each to “eat his bread in the sweat of his brow”.
Possibly this person can donate time. Possibly that one can teach in a Catholic school and be rather poorly paid rather than in a public school where he would be better paid. Such a person is “giving from his need” and I think we have seen posts by a couple of teachers who are doing just that.
Possibly some guy or gal who knows how to lay bricks and make stable earth banks can redo some of the ground upon which the church, or perhaps a group home sits. He or she could be earning money doing the same thing, and bricklayers do not earn princely sums, so he or she is “giving from his/her need”. Such a person should, without taking bread from the mouths of his/her children, but perhaps giving up all hope of an ATV, also give money, short of giving the rent money or the mortgage money.
I am totally unimpressed by some billionaire who gives a few million here and a few million, or even billion there, yet remains wealthy. Such a person is not “giving from his need”. If it’s to worthy causes, then sure, I’m glad he did it. But I have no belief at all that it equals the gift of the guy who gave up on his long-suppressed desire to own an ATV and even gave up a few meals himself (not his wife or children) in order to give to the poor. Such a man would even make excuses to his wife or children: “Oh, go ahead and order whatever you want. I’m feeling a bit of indigestion. A dish of ice cream would be just what I need.” (while his stomach is screaming “steak!” “steak!”) His wife never knows. His kids never know. (likely they’ll suspect some day and learn much thereby what a real man is) But God knows.
For sure, there are some things the government is likely to do best. Unfortunately, government has been in the “taking care of the poor” (badly) business so long we really don’t even know any more how else it could be done. Once there were huge Church charitable institutions. Orphanages, hospitals, homes for unwed mothers, on and on. They are now just vestiges of their former selves, largely secularized and take money from the government to boot. (of course there are no more orphanages and mighty few homes for unwed mothers now, thanks to the Supreme Court who, no doubt, felt very noble in what they did with the lives of others). When those institutions existed, people knew how to donate their charity, and had the money to do it with, because their taxes were lower.
I’m not an economist. I don’t pretend to know what all government does best or not so well. I do think it does a terrible job in providing for the truly needy. And it even “hides” them. We now no longer even know who they are or where they are. We don’t know what they don’t have or do have. Not in ubrban areas in this country anyway.
I do know there are people who play the system. That I know for sure. And I have known a lot of them in my time. And all the while, the government asks for “more”, “more”, while not really providing for the truly needy.
So what to do? There are some things we know, or think we know, will be worthy causes that won’t simply be fronts for scammers. We do know that at some point we have to opt, politically, for the truly needy. That’s hard to do, because we ought to know by now that most politicians buy votes with a lot of what they collect from us, and won’t do a thing for the needy with it. But supporting or voting for politicians who talk a lot about taxing and helping the poor but do nothing to really help the poor and are seen shipping the pork to those who don’t need it at all, is not the answer. And voting for people who take money from the killers of the unborn, and enable them to keep the killing going for the sake of keeping that cash flow going, is as wrong as wrong gets.
G
goofyjim
Guest
All these statistics only take into account reported donations to charity. Charity can include giving to your next door neighbor or friend in need. As a slight liberal I tend to give just as much as conservatives. I just don’t go for the glorification of itemizing it on my taxes and therefore having the government subsidize my charity.
E
estesbob
Guest
This is the most telling part:
People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
G
goofyjim
Guest
Once again. Just a general statement. Doesn’t apply to me because as a percentage of my income I give as much as you suggest the rejecters do. It just isn’t documented on paper because I prefer not to let my left hand know what my right hand is doing. We shouldn’t get to itemize charitable donations at all. People should give out of the goodness of their heart to whomever they want to give.
E
estesbob
Guest
Who said it applied to you?
- Status