Eraser wrote:

DanielSan wrote:

Eraser wrote:

"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ru%Se.3492$Di4.1590@trnddc07...

Eraser wrote:

<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:duGSe.2947$Di4.1801@trnddc07...

DanielSan wrote:

osprey wrote:

So my point has been proven, liberals really do want their tax
cuts.

I sent my tax cut straight to the Red Cross.

...and you lack the humility to do so without bragging about it.

This is untrue, of course.
It is not bragging to make apoint to refute a false point.

<restoration of unacknowledged snippage>
"You (Daniel San) could've made the same point by saying that you
personally knew a liberal who sent his tax cut straight to the Red
Cross." It certainly IS bragging when gratutitously calling attention
to
your good deeds while the capacity exists to make the same point with
humility.

I could've said that, but I felt it would've carried more weight than
"I
know someone who..." It officiates things, y'know? Besides, the point
is
made. Liberals who could afford it (like myself) did send their tax
cuts
to charity.

What you've done is to make Osprey's point for him.

Not really, no.

The fact of the matter
is that liberals DO want their tax cuts (as osprey said), even if it is
to
ultimately send them to charity.

No. I didn't want a tax cut. However, since my letters to congress
fell on deaf ears, and I received a check in the mail anyway, I sent it
away to the organization I felt would best handle it.

Which means that you accepted the tax cut, despite your protestations
otherwise. As I said, if you really didn't want a tax cut you could've
prepared your tax return in such a way as to keep the funds in the
hands of the federal gov't. There are certainly a multitude of ways to
accomplish this, but instead you accepted the cut.

Irrelevant. I did accept the tax cut, but I didn't want it. It was a
begrudging acceptance, in acceptance of a fiscally unsound policy, but
giving it to fiscally sound organizations. It is my small contribution to
fixing that which is fiscally unsound.

As I said in another post on this thread,
had you wanted to refuse your tax cut, you simply needed to refrain from
taking certain exemptions, deductions and/or credits in order to offset
the
amount of the tax cut.

I take as few exemptions as possible; I take no deductions and receive
no credits.

Well, that's not entirely true. Everyone takes a standard deduction at
minimum, so your statement that you take no deductions is simply not
true. Now, if you take the standard deduction, you could simply
itemize your deductions in order to arrive at a lower figure and
effectively refuse the tax cut. If you already itemize, you could
simply neglect to report a few items in order to achieve the same
outcome.

True; but it is my fix.

In this way you would've kept the funds in the
federal coffers. Instead, you took the tax cut, and gave it to charity.

...only after my letters to my congresspeople fell on deaf ears.

...and you did nothing to refuse the cut...you simply accepted it.

Yes. Yes I did. And used it for more fiscally sound policies than simple
hand-outs. I doubt that "conservatives" would do that. They sit around
complaining about "hand-outs" while accepting them hand-over-fist.

In
reality, you have wisely set up personal future tax reductions via the
deduction for charitable contributions. If you continue to give your
tax
cut to charity, and also give the resultant money garnered from the
charitable contribution deduction on your federal taxes, you have set up
a
growing annuity for the charity of your choice. Congratulations, you
are a
fiscal conservative.

Of course I am. It is why I find Bush's tax cuts disgusting. It is not
conservative at all.

That is certainly a legitimate point which is open to debate. In terms
of this thread though, you responded to Osprey's point about liberals
wanting their tax cuts by saying (in so many words), "Well, this
liberal didn't want it. I gave it to charity". But now you claim that
fiscally you aren't liberal at all, but conservative. I guess, as I've
been saying all along, his point stands unrefuted as it was a
conservative (you) who accepted the tax cut and gave it to charity.

"Conservative" is a limiting term. I am a fiscal conservative, and a
social liberal. Therefore, I'm a liberal, since the limiting "liberal"
terminology that folks use usually represents fiscal conservativism.

There are fiscal liberals, but usually, they do not fit within the term
"liberal."

Know what I mean?

You have effectively employed traditional conservative
economic principles by keeping the funds out of the public sector and
within
the private sector where they will be used more efficiently.

It shows how little you know about me. I am a fiscal conservative and a
social liberal.

How little I know about you!? The point that I've been making all
along is that while you may think of yourself as liberal (as per your
response to Osprey), that you are acting in a fiscally conservative
manner.

Osprey was referring to "liberals" as "fiscal liberals," and I was showing
that "liberals" can also be "fiscal conservative."

The fact that you are a social liberal is irrelevant to the
discussion of tax cuts. In this case, we are not talking about social
policy, we are discussing fiscal policy. As you now admit, you are a
conservative....as I've been trying to say.

Therefore, Osprey's terminology is needlessly limiting. Had Osprey said
"fiscal conservative," I would not even have responded, but Osperay just
said "liberal" as if that means "social AND fiscal liberal." It was
implied, y'know?

And I was just letting people know that "liberal" does not necesarrily
mean "fiscal liberal"

I wonder who many conservatives did it...

(I'm assuming that you meant "how" and not "who").

Yes. Typo. I am dyslexic IRL.

I'd like to think that
liberals and conservatives give to charities in equal measure. However,
much to my surprise, a bit of research shows that the red states are far
more charitable than the blue ones.

I would like to see the results of that research. From my research, red
states take in more money from the federal government, in the form of
"hand outs" than blue states.

In fact, the rate of giving in
Massachusetts is near the bottom of the 50 states, while the rate in
Mississippi is the highest. Las Vegas has a much lower rate than Provo.
Atheists have a lower rate of giving than Christians.

Assertions. Now, please, back them up with evidence.

Sorry, but you are not my teacher. You don't have the privilege to ask
a question and then say that "you get no credit unless you show your
work". You asked the question, I answered it. I couldn't care less
whether you accept my answer to your question. You have the same
ability as I to do research. It sounds like you already have your mind
made up about it anyway. I gave you my answer, if you wish to dispute
it, have at it.

Therefore, you will allow your assertions to remain unsbustantiated. You
are not my teacher, either. I do not need to believe unsubstantiated
assertions.

Your skepticism of
conservative giving is very easily researched...just do a little
homework.

You are the one making an assertion. Show me your homework.

Not simply making an assertion, but answering your question.

...with an assertion.

As I said
above, you asked a question which is easily investigated. I tried to
help by digging into it a bit. In essence, it is your homework that I
have done. Everything that I have examined shows that conservatives
give more to charities than liberals...

And everythihng I have examined show that more conservatives take
advantage of charities than liberals; that is, red states take in more
money than they give out, while blue states give out more money than they
take in.

and as I said, this fact
surprised me to some degree as I thought that the results would show a
more uniform rate of giving between libs & cons.

Yes. Cons seem to be more for accepting "hand-outs."

I'd appreciate it if
you can show me where liberals are more generous (or at least equally
generouse) than conservatives (the group with which you now admit to
identifying in fiscal matters.)

As soon as you show me your support. My evidence will remain in escrow
until I get your evidence.

Eraser wrote:

Which means that you accepted the tax cut, despite your protestations
otherwise. As I said, if you really didn't want a tax cut you could've
prepared your tax return in such a way as to keep the funds in the
hands of the federal gov't. There are certainly a multitude of ways to
accomplish this, but instead you accepted the cut.

Irrelevant.

begrudging acceptance, in acceptance of a fiscally unsound policy, but
giving it to fiscally sound organizations. It is my small contribution
to fixing that which is fiscally unsound.

As I said in another post on this thread,
had you wanted to refuse your tax cut, you simply needed to refrain
from
taking certain exemptions, deductions and/or credits in order to offset
the
amount of the tax cut.

I take as few exemptions as possible; I take no deductions and receive
no credits.

Well, that's not entirely true. Everyone takes a standard deduction at
minimum, so your statement that you take no deductions is simply not
true. Now, if you take the standard deduction, you could simply
itemize your deductions in order to arrive at a lower figure and
effectively refuse the tax cut. If you already itemize, you could
simply neglect to report a few items in order to achieve the same
outcome.

True; but it is my fix.

In this way you would've kept the funds in the
federal coffers. Instead, you took the tax cut, and gave it to
charity.

...only after my letters to my congresspeople fell on deaf ears.

...and you did nothing to refuse the cut...you simply accepted it.

Yes. Yes I did. And used it for more fiscally sound policies than
simple hand-outs. I doubt that "conservatives" would do that. They sit
around complaining about "hand-outs" while accepting them hand-over-fist.

In
reality, you have wisely set up personal future tax reductions via the
deduction for charitable contributions. If you continue to give your
tax
cut to charity, and also give the resultant money garnered from the
charitable contribution deduction on your federal taxes, you have set
up a
growing annuity for the charity of your choice. Congratulations, you
are a
fiscal conservative.

Of course I am. It is why I find Bush's tax cuts disgusting. It is not
conservative at all.

That is certainly a legitimate point which is open to debate. In terms
of this thread though, you responded to Osprey's point about liberals
wanting their tax cuts by saying (in so many words), "Well, this
liberal didn't want it. I gave it to charity". But now you claim that
fiscally you aren't liberal at all, but conservative. I guess, as I've
been saying all along, his point stands unrefuted as it was a
conservative (you) who accepted the tax cut and gave it to charity.

"Conservative" is a limiting term. I am a fiscal conservative, and a
social liberal. Therefore, I'm a liberal, since the limiting "liberal"
terminology that folks use usually represents fiscal conservativism.

There are fiscal liberals, but usually, they do not fit within the term
"liberal."

Know what I mean?

You have effectively employed traditional conservative
economic principles by keeping the funds out of the public sector and
within
the private sector where they will be used more efficiently.

It shows how little you know about me. I am a fiscal conservative and a
social liberal.

How little I know about you!? The point that I've been making all
along is that while you may think of yourself as liberal (as per your
response to Osprey), that you are acting in a fiscally conservative
manner.

Osprey was referring to "liberals" as "fiscal liberals," and I was
showing that "liberals" can also be "fiscal conservative."

The fact that you are a social liberal is irrelevant to the
discussion of tax cuts. In this case, we are not talking about social
policy, we are discussing fiscal policy. As you now admit, you are a
conservative....as I've been trying to say.

Therefore, Osprey's terminology is needlessly limiting. Had Osprey said
"fiscal conservative," I would not even have responded, but Osperay just
said "liberal" as if that means "social AND fiscal liberal." It was
implied, y'know?

And I was just letting people know that "liberal" does not necesarrily
mean "fiscal liberal"

I wonder who many conservatives did it...

(I'm assuming that you meant "how" and not "who").

Yes. Typo. I am dyslexic IRL.

I'd like to think that
liberals and conservatives give to charities in equal measure.
However,
much to my surprise, a bit of research shows that the red states are
far
more charitable than the blue ones.

I would like to see the results of that research. From my research, red
states take in more money from the federal government, in the form of
"hand outs" than blue states.

In fact, the rate of giving in
Massachusetts is near the bottom of the 50 states, while the rate in
Mississippi is the highest. Las Vegas has a much lower rate than
Provo.
Atheists have a lower rate of giving than Christians.

Assertions. Now, please, back them up with evidence.

Sorry, but you are not my teacher. You don't have the privilege to ask
a question and then say that "you get no credit unless you show your
work". You asked the question, I answered it. I couldn't care less
whether you accept my answer to your question. You have the same
ability as I to do research. It sounds like you already have your mind
made up about it anyway. I gave you my answer, if you wish to dispute
it, have at it.

Therefore, you will allow your assertions to remain unsbustantiated.
You are not my teacher, either. I do not need to believe
unsubstantiated assertions.

Your skepticism of
conservative giving is very easily researched...just do a little
homework.

You are the one making an assertion. Show me your homework.

Not simply making an assertion, but answering your question.

...with an assertion.

As I said
above, you asked a question which is easily investigated. I tried to
help by digging into it a bit. In essence, it is your homework that I
have done. Everything that I have examined shows that conservatives
give more to charities than liberals...

And everythihng I have examined show that more conservatives take
advantage of charities than liberals; that is, red states take in more
money than they give out, while blue states give out more money than
they take in.

and as I said, this fact
surprised me to some degree as I thought that the results would show a
more uniform rate of giving between libs & cons.

Yes. Cons seem to be more for accepting "hand-outs."

I'd appreciate it if
you can show me where liberals are more generous (or at least equally
generouse) than conservatives (the group with which you now admit to
identifying in fiscal matters.)

As soon as you show me your support. My evidence will remain in escrow
until I get your evidence.

--

****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "If God had intended us to walk, he wouldn't *
* have invented roller skates." --Willy Wonka *
****************************************************