Latest Comments

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • I answered everything you wrote. I implore you, to answer your next post with numbers backing up your assertions. You have stated a lot of absolutes about what you know about charity and welfare.

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • Jimmy Splitting hairs I may be doing. There is a purpose to it. Don't believe the hype and study the numbers. Challenge your beliefs and you might just find out that you are mistaken with a lot of things you believe.

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • No I'm commenting on the whole meme that I have read that conservatives are "more generous". Furthemore, the statistics don't lie. When we have relied on private charity, coverage for the needy was spotty, inconsistent, and unfairly distributed.

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • Actually yes. Government can do it more effectively. The majority of charity is spent in church tills to upkeep the church itself. Not much good goes to the poor.

• Best Cities For Young Professionals

  Sun Jun 24, 2007
  • Hm, I'm curious about the salary to cost of living score. Austin apparently got dinged on it, and it's true that salaries in Austin aren't spectacular, especially compared to costs like rent/propery costs.

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • Of the chart you linked:

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • If we left helping the poor up to private charity alone, then redistribution of that charity, will be underprovided for the obvious reasons. Thus, government action, while inefficient, is still more efficient, and is the best possible institutional response that achieves this goal.

• Welcome to the Republican Party

  Wed Jun 13, 2007
  • Sticks n stones does not make a compelling argument. Facts and figures do. Can you show how charities do the job better with the least amount of waste? Or that they serve all people?