Just because you claim it not as evidence doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.
No, it's really not evidence. It doesn't mention CM. It cites to a worker survey from a decade ago. And it defines terms. That's not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM.
The fact that favoritism is "always a complaint in government service" is not evidence of favoritism in dealings with CM. The study you cite is about employees who think that government departments play favorites in their promotion practices, not that the Dept. of Energy plays favorites in its dealings with outside businesses. It's a huge leap for you to say that one survey citing worker complaints of favoritism means that all of government is acting out of favoritism. That would be like me saying that because I know a conservative who once made a racist joke, all conservatives must be racists. Logic doesn't support that kind of an argument.
You did not show a pattern. One instance is not a pattern. You pointed to one instance where a campaign contributor got funding. How many loan applications were there, how many were granted, and how many of those were campaign contributors? Show a pattern.
Now, you have cited a news investigation that questions whether there is favoritism in government lending practices. So there's a question as to whether there is favoritism. But a question that there has been favoritism is not proof of favoritism, and it's certainly not proof of favoritism in dealings with CM. You've got evidence to raise the question, but it doesn't prove your point.
Your SCU stuff wasn't evidence of favoritism, it was just a definition of various kinds of favoritism (and a pretty good one) and an assertion that favoritism is always a problem in governments. That doesn't provide any evidence for whether the CM loan is an instance of favoritism.
Really - show me a pattern here, and I'll agree that maybe it smells like a rat. You clearly try to stay informed on the topic of government lending. You've got one example where a contributor got funding and a non-contributor didn't, but absent the hard evidence of favoritism (like there's some big news expose with government documents and I just don't know about it), you're going to have to provide enough evidence that I can infer that this is an instance of favoritism. So can you show a pattern?
Actually, I don't think that the comment about the quality of debate is elitism. It's not elitism to say that a sophisticated level of debate involves people who are educated on the issues presenting well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence, which is what I am used to in debating, and which sadly is not something I see much of 'round here. Unless it is "elitism" to say wow, you guys can't present a well-reasoned argument worth a sh!t, nor can you even be bothered to read one. I guess that does give me some insight into why conservatives are so easily led around like sheeple, though. (Was that elitist of me?)
Right, but what I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that this particular instance is an example of government favoritism. All you've presented is evidence that the folks who aren't getting $310 mil are complaining of favoritism.
I'm not asking you to produce impossible evidence, just to present some evidence. Is it out there? Point me at it.
You say that favoritism is always something of a problem in government, ok, but again that's neither here nor there when it comes to this particular example of the CM loan.
You say it's favoritism; I'm just saying ok, show me evidence of that.
No, I think it's just that I'm used to a much more sophisticated level of debate, where the debaters are highly educated individuals who research the topics of debate and present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence; whereas a large percentage of the people here just like to rant.
Not at all. I welcome you to read it. I have given the subject serious consideration and responded to it in the hopes that others would do likewise because that it what makes debate interesting. Please, by all means give a well-reasoned rebuttal.
You did. And I have presented evidence that your point is debatable. You are welcome to read it and to argue against it. Until that point, since you have asserted that you have no intention of doing so, you have conceded the debate. Sorry, but that's how debating works.
No, you conceded, which means you lost. You said, in effect, "I am not going to rebut any of your arguments." That means you conceded, you lose.
I find it very immature that you would get on a debate site and then refuse to read the arguments made by other debaters. Why would you even be here if you are not interested in participating in debate? I have made an argument, and you have conceded; but if you would like to re-join the debate, the burden is now on you to rebut my arguments.
then the definition of government is beyond your understanding
That would be sort of surprising, because I have a law degree from a top-tier school.
You did proceed to state your point about government budgets much more clearly, though, so now your assertion is much more comprehensible. I will agree that government budgets are "political" in the sense of "pertaining to the body politic." That's neither here nor there on the issue of government favoritism, though.
You have also presented a bit of evidence, which is that Solyandra contributed to the Obama campaign whereas CM didn't. That's potentially relevant, but it's not enough to show me that the government acted with favoritism. Can you show a pattern of loan approval to campaign donors, or evidence of conversations about a secret "deal" between Solyandra and any government official? One incident where a campaign donor got a loan, plus one incident where a non-donor didn't, isn't enough to show that there's government favoritism at work.
OK. What you've really got there is one source, because they all cite to this new Arthur Brooks book as the basis of the assertion that conservatives give more to charity. Still, ok, seems to be a valid enough source. (Not that I necessarily agree with Brooks' conclusions, mind you.) It supports your assertion that "conservatives give more to charity." It does not support your assertion that "liberals want freebies," so you still need to present evidence on that point.
But let's look at the point you have presented evidence to support, which is that conservatives give more to charities. There are a number of relevant talking points about Brooks' conclusions, like (a) what charities are these folks giving to, (b) what exactly constitutes "charitable giving," and (c) what's the motive for it.
Notably, the judge who reviewed the book observes that "The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism . . . is religion." So I think it is very relevant to inquire what percentage of charitable giving was attached to a religiously-sponsored charity, and most especially which of those charities also has a political agenda. It would appear from your sources and mine (cited below) that a substantial amount -- although by no means all -- of conservative charitable giving is attached to religious causes. (I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing -- only that it speaks to both the motives for charitable giving, and the likely recipients of conservative largesse.)
"Consider a typical family living in Searcy, Arkansas . . . The kids go to camp run by the Church, and they play basketball every day after school on the courts behind the Church. The mom is a member of a Church book club. The dad goes there to hear lectures on one or another topic. Part of family entertainment includes Church fairs, Church-sponsored trips to Little Rock to watch the Arkansas Travelers minor league ball team or up to Fayetteville to watch of the U of Arkansas Hogs play football, the occasional Church play, and of course, Sunday services. From what I can tell, when they pony up money to the Church for each of these activities, they’re engaging in tax deductible charity. Now, consider a family of Godless heathens in pagan Los Angeles. The kids play soccer in some league… league fees are not tax deductible, and not charity. The mom is a member of a book club… none of those costs are considered charity. The dad shows up at the occasional lecture series for one or another local university… nothing charity related here. And going to Disneyland, watching the Galaxy or the Dodgers or the Lakers, or going to the beach are not considered to be Charity." (Angry Bear blog, http://www.angrybearblog.com/2006/12/
So, it bears considering just where those "charitable donations" are going and what they're going for. In the example above, what Brooks considers "charitable giving" could be just as aptly be described as "family entertainment."
"When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires . . . if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes." (N. Kristof, New York Times op-ed, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/
Okay. So Brooks argues that even when religious giving is excluded, liberals give more in total dollars than conservatives, but conservatives give a higher percentage of their income than liberals do. (If that's true, then the average income of a liberal household would have to be higher than that of a conservative household, or else the math wouldn't work. I'm not entirely certain that census data would back that up, and I've seen a few sources that criticize Brooks' statistical data -- particularly on this point.)
It might also be relevant here to consider how giving relates to wealth, rather than percentage of income. For example, we might assume that most charitable giving comes out of the higher income brackets, because they've got more cash. And no doubt if we're talking about forking over a few million to set up some sort of foundation, that's true. But 20/20 suggests that the stronger correlation with giving isn't party politics, it's poverty. The 20/20 report says that poorer Americans give more because they have a personal understanding of what it's like to be in need. (J. Stossel and K. Kendall for ABC's 20/20, http://abcnews.go.com/2020/
When we think about this correlation, it's probably not surprising. The rich can afford to give. The lower income classes know what it's like to be really in need, and many of them don't have what we would think of as middle-class aspirations. (For example, a large number of poorer Americans don't expect to ever buy a house, so that goal isn't part of their budgeting. ) The middle class is also trying to budget for the future, which means devoting income to future needs (like planning for mortgage payments, maintaining a credit rating, getting a retirement plan, putting aside money for the kids' college and orthodontics and whatnot, etc.) The poor don't have the option of budgeting for the future because there's just no money for that sort of thing, and for people who have been in the lower-income brackets for their whole lives, that type of future budgeting might not even be a part of how they think about money because that's just not something that the people they know ever do. So we are likely talking about a middle class that -- especially in the current economy -- doesn't perceive itself as having "leftover" money for charitable giving. (I'm not saying that's a correct analysis or that it's a morally "right" position, just that it's probably what's going on.) So with that in mind, it's also worth asking how conservative and liberal views correlate to income class. If the answer is that conservatives tend to be mostly in the top and bottom classes, and liberals in the middle class, then it's likely that the factors relevant to charitable giving have a lot less to do with party politics than with perceived economic pressures on the different income classes, particularly in the current crummy economy.
It's also relevant to ask if there is an urban/rural correlation with charitable giving, especially on the issue of volunteering. As a general rule, urban areas tend to be more liberal and rural areas tend to be more conservative. But what Brooks has not told us is how those two environments differ in terms of motives and opportunities for charitable giving and volunteering. Take, for example, a town of 700 people where the annual Fireman's Fund drive is a huge community deal. That's not because these are 700 people who are unusually charitable and civic-minded. It's because these are 700 people who are bored. Also, there may be a stronger incentive to donate time or money because there is a stronger sense of community belonging and participation. If everybody shows up for the Fireman's Fund carnival, and everybody has a friend or a relative who works for the Fire Department, then there's a strong personal incentive to give your time and money. People are aware of volunteer activities because there's a lot of local attention on the event and a lot of community participation. So much like the folks in Searcy, Arkansas whose main entertainments are church-related, in this case the main entertainments are civic-related. Again, that's not at all a bad thing, but it is definitely relevant to the questions of why people give to charities and what charities they give to.
Psychology Today also expounds on the point that charitable giving does not necessarily correlate directly to "altruism."
"Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes." (S. Kanazawa, Psychology Today - The Scientific Fundamentalist, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/
It is also worth considering that many altrusitic activities fall, as one writer puts it, "below the radar":
"[M]any forms of charity fall below the radar, especially when they are the types of activities more likely to be engaged in by city dwellers. I am kind of reluctant to discuss myself in this context, but here goes… every morning, I spend 30 minutes doing some rounds feeding a few colonies of feral cats. It doesn’t make me Mother Teresa, but I feel good doing it . . . I mention this [because] As far as the government is concerned, most people who feed stray animals are not engaging in charity… there is no write-off occurring." (Angry Bear blog, http://www.angrybearblog.com/2006/12/
This brings up another point worth addressing -- write-offs. If you give to a recognized 501(c)(3) charity, you can get a tax write-off. If you buy breakfast for the homeless guy on the corner -- no write-off. Now, I am not going to point a finger at either party here, but I am confident that a significant amount of high-dollar charitable donations by individuals and businesses -- regardless of the party they back -- is done on the advice of a tax analyst. So this is also a significant issue to consider in looking at why people are giving to charities and what charities they're giving to.
Brooks' ultimate analysis is this: the religious right gives more, but the reason for this revolves around religion, not political ideology. The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more "charitable" than secularists from either political side. The most "uncharitable" group is conservatives who are also secularists.
With these things in mind, while you do have one source that argues that conservatives give more to charities, I am not at all certain that it speaks either way to the question of whether either party is willing to "share" or refusing to "admit" to such a refusal. It seems to me that your evidence is more demonstrative of a difference in conservative and liberal lifestyles than it is of a difference in willingness to "share."
Or maybe it simply begs the question: share with whom?
