Right wingers better people says research

[Ben Kenobi]

What a nice thing to say.

Anyway, the OP fails the "I believe"/"I think" standard for objectivity. I'm also a bit curious to see how badly his data was skewed to fit his results.

And both Fun and Kid are right. There's plenty of nice people on both sides, but I've seen the niceness of the Right wing crowd fade pretty fast when it comes to non-whites, gays, or political disagreement.

I guess my point is the Oklahoma folks were kind enough to pick him up. They would likely all roll their eyes at someone from CA doing politics. That to me says everything about the kind of people they are, not the fact they were suspicious of his politics.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

http://www.act.org.nz/node/25550

This presents a less rosy picture then Aggie's utopia.

You do know who ACT are, don't you.

It's far from a utopia either, but isn't everywhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

That's rather part and parcel of being deceased.

She was terrible when she was alive. I wish the people who worship her would worship Nozick instead.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Again, guilt by association. I could just as easily say that all Marxists were thieves, and you would have to admit that is just as astute an analysis.

No. I'm sure you could find a few Marxists who are the analogues of Coulter. George Orwell used to complain about them, but I doubt there are that many left.

Human beings are limited creatures. That means we have to make prudent judgements based on limited evidence.

Coulter has her role. Her role isn't to sit on the sidelines and pick apart arguments, there are plenty of folks who do that. Her job is the quick and dirty, she likes to take the liberals tactics and use them on the liberals. Which, of course is very volatile.

Which liberals would these be?

According to whom? I would argue more dollars get in the pockets of those who need help through private charities. Less bureaucracy.

Then you would be wrong. You do know that a lot of money you give to charity is spent on advertising to solicit further donations, do you not?

Do some research on collective action problems and externalities. You won't understand my argument until you understand these basic economic concepts. The problem is that people think about welfare in the wrong way.

On public property, I would argue there is a good case for no parking tickets at all.

Do you seriously believe this? Can you imagine the chaos?

1. Is the lack of homeless people due to the fact that you do not live in an area near where they are? Up until I was 19 I'd never even seen a homeless person ever in my small town up here, but in a few years down in Vancouver, I had seen quite a few. Is it because there is more welfare up in Prince George, or is it just because I was closer to where they were? I'm not sure.

No. There just aren't any.

2. New Zealand is isolated. They won't have significant numbers of people moving in from other areas in order to take advantage of the benefits. That isolation serves as a check on the number of people you have there, and also makes it easier for the state to follow up on people.

Sure they will. People move from rural areas to Auckland all the time.

3. The welfare comes at a cost of the overall competitiveness. How is New Zealand going to deal with the demographic crunch that is coming up? Are they going to cut costs to remain solvent, or just keep things going as long as they can. I don't believe the current system is sustainable.

This is a myth. New Zealand was until 2006 the most business friendly country in the world. It's now second. That's is according to that notorious Communist institution The World Bank. It is more business friendly than the United States or Canada.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/06/business/compete.php

4. I noticed you dodged my question about the administration. What percentage of the total dollars collected for social services actually go to the people? What percentage of the dollars are consumed in welfare fraud by those who are not entitled to collect?

You can look it up yourself. Statistics are difficult to find. There is welfare fraud, but there is also tax fraud. In any institution involving money there is going to be a certain amount of fraud. It isn't that much in either case, since New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Oh sure, but then do they provide assistance to the community to compensate? This is what you don't see Agathon. There are so many private volunteer organisations including the church that provide for the poor. The problem with charging them property taxes is that the money comes directly out of the donations to the poor, and instead goes to the city coffers. It's not in the benefit of the city to take the money.

A church doesn't have to provide any assistance to qualify for tax breaks as far as I know. If they do, there will be additional tax breaks as well. Churches in New Zealand aren't much different from sports clubs in this respect. Both enjoy lower taxes and special benefits because it is believed that the market undervalues these institutions.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


California, land of fruits and nuts eh? I don't see why that's a notch against the folks in Oklahoma.

I know you want people to work for less money, and you think that makes you superior.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun
The bull**** in the OP doesn't make sense to me, as being liberal or conservative does not determine whether or not you're a nice person.

There are nice people who are liberals, and there are conservatives who are nice people.

I think they're only arguing a correlation.

[Theben]

Found the problem; slight typo in the title. Should read:

Right wingers bitter people says research

Glad to help clear things up.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know you want people to work for less money, and you think that makes you superior.

I work for less then you do, so why are you preaching to me the value of the working man?

[Ben Kenobi]

Which liberals would these be?

Michael Moore for starters.

Then you would be wrong. You do know that a lot of money you give to charity is spent on advertising to solicit further donations, do you not?

I used to work in a charity. It really depends. There are a variety of creative ways to solicit donations without paying anything for the advertising. Word of mouth can be very effective.

Where I worked used to hit something around 85 to 90 percent.

Do some research on collective action problems and externalities. You won't understand my argument until you understand these basic economic concepts. The problem is that people think about welfare in the wrong way.

Oh, I understand your point. There are many things which don't operate well under free markets, generally those requiring significant capital investment. Those tend to be better managed by the state.

Where we disagree is over whether welfare should be included in this category. I think that while there are negatives associated with charity, they counterbalance the problems associated with welfare.

Do you seriously believe this? Can you imagine the chaos?

It depends. You would still police the lot, but there wouldn't be a need to pay a parking fee.

This is a myth. New Zealand was until 2006 the most business friendly country in the world. It's now second. That's is according to that notorious Communist institution The World Bank. It is more business friendly than the United States or Canada.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09...ess/compete.php

Interesting. I stand corrected. Thanks.

You can look it up yourself. Statistics are difficult to find. There is welfare fraud, but there is also tax fraud. In any institution involving money there is going to be a certain amount of fraud. It isn't that much in either case, since New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Oh for sure, but welfare fraud is a fact of life and is a problem inherently associated with the program.

A church doesn't have to provide any assistance to qualify for tax breaks as far as I know. If they do, there will be additional tax breaks as well. Churches in New Zealand aren't much different from sports clubs in this respect. Both enjoy lower taxes and special benefits because it is believed that the market undervalues these institutions.

Interesting. I have to agree with this enlightened support for charitable organisations. A significant portion of the time and cost associated with one is in navigating the regulatory bodies.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I work for less then you do, so why are you preaching to me the value of the working man?

I don't believe that you work for less than I do. And obviously you've always had liberal boses, because liberal boses pay more than conservative boses. That's by definition. If you've ever worked for a conservative you know they never pay for anything that they don't absolutely need to get by, including wages. They won't pay people what they are worth. They will just let them quite and find some stupid sucker to work for less.

[Kidlicious]

Also Ben, consider that charities exist because of conservatives, so why should liberals be condemned for not giving to them. It's not our fault.

[chequita guevara]

How nice Southerners are to you depends on the color of your skin. My wife and I have completely different reactions from strangers, and yet anyone who spends fie minutes with us agrees my wife is one of the sweetest people on Earth, while I'm hard pressed not to be described as a curmudgeon. Yet, white Southerners treat me far, far nicer than they have ever treated my wife.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
You do know that a lot of money you give to charity is spent on advertising to solicit further donations, do you not?

A whole lot of it also goes to those who make the financial decisions also. I know this from experience.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Also Ben, consider that charities exist because of conservatives, so why should liberals be condemned for not giving to them. It's not our fault.

This doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael
This doesn't even make enough sense to be wrong.

Whether you understand it or not has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.