-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Why would you think that? With more money going to charitable organizations, surely more charitable organizations would exist to compete for those dollars, and so they'd in fact have to advertise more, not less.
Well, sure. The premise that private charity could cover what the government does is ridiculous in itself. But there are also other nits to pick.
TheQueen'sOwn
insert blank space here
Am I missing something or is the same guy that wrote 2010: Take Back America?
Dude is nuts.
EDIT: I've been trolled.
Where is the photoshop of Obama and Cinton jamming in the elevator???
Disappointed, GAF.
makingmusic476
Member
Trolls, all of 'em.
NullPointer
Member
Nothing to worry about.
That part doesn't happen until the white slavery plan is fully implemented. Lets not go around putting the carriage before the horse.
That is some pretty interesting fanfiction.
heliosRAzi
Banned
I doubt that charities will decrease their advertising or their overheads if the federal government didn't tax us.
These two things have nothing to do with each other.
I'll ask you this: If the only option for the needy was charity, and your check was suddenly larger, and it was commonly known that the only way to help was to support whichever charity had proven most effective....people wouldn't donate more to them? As a nation, we'd say "welp, safety net is gone. Youre fucked." I have more faith in my fellow man.
heliosRAzi
Banned
I believe that our fellow man will consider themselves to be worthy of charity
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If Dick Morris isn't enough to convince you, then how about this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soh6cwFwcXo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soh6cwFwcXo
makingmusic476
Member
I'd say, if pressed, most would opt to do so. If pressed. Considerably pressed. I also think that most people are really damn busy and absent-minded, and if they don't get around to it, they don't get around to it.
If it doesn't happen discreetly in the background, I think for many people it simply wouldn't happen. Not because they're jerks or assholes, but because other things took up their time, attention, and money.
EatinOlives
Member
I'm off to bed.
I've lurked this topic since it was started and Poligaf for ages. I've posted very few times, but I still feel like I'm part of the discussion simply by reading the back-and-forth both here and there.
All's I want to say is, it's been a ride. I haven't kept up with an election as much as this one, as I've been reading up on it since the challengers on the GOP side had been conjured in the beginning. Odd and neat that it all ends tomorrow (hopefully, at least. We could get a '00 election in our hands if we're "lucky"), so whatever happens and whoever wins, I find it's gonna be MASSIVELY interesting seeing reactions on either side. Some crazy shit might even go down in some remote corner of the country.
Hold on to your butts. Shit's gonna get good tomorrow.
I've lurked this topic since it was started and Poligaf for ages. I've posted very few times, but I still feel like I'm part of the discussion simply by reading the back-and-forth both here and there.
All's I want to say is, it's been a ride. I haven't kept up with an election as much as this one, as I've been reading up on it since the challengers on the GOP side had been conjured in the beginning. Odd and neat that it all ends tomorrow (hopefully, at least. We could get a '00 election in our hands if we're "lucky"), so whatever happens and whoever wins, I find it's gonna be MASSIVELY interesting seeing reactions on either side. Some crazy shit might even go down in some remote corner of the country.
Hold on to your butts. Shit's gonna get good tomorrow.
Who will give money to a poorly run charity? Do you have zero confidence/understanding of how the free market works? Poorly run means death (without bailouts).
I, like many others, am giddy with excitement. I can't wait to see the unfettered rationalization and excuse making that will simply overwhelm my senses tomorrow. It will be an empyrean experience.
makingmusic476
Member
As am I. Have to work tomorrow, cast my vote last week, can't wait to see the results.
Goodnight people!
People give money to poorly run charities constantly today?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. Give it a few years and people will forget. Unless of course they get advertised to do it. But then we are back to the problem of most of our charity money going to advertisements.
GremlinFool
Member
Yeah, nobody gives money to the litany of horribly-run charities like the American Red Cross today. Yep, not a single soul.
I think people randomly give money to charities sometimes because its insignificant. I think people would be more discerning if those funds were all that counted.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I have no reason to believe that enough of the population would give enough money to charities that it would become an effective safety net.
Like another poster said, it may not be out of greed or malice, but simply that most people wouldn't even think about it
Not only that, but I doubt many charities would be able to operate efficiently on a national scale, which is really the only way to guarantee that no one slips through the cracks.
Trusting in people's generosity does not seem like a good bet when people's livelihoods are on the line.
They definitely take advantage of the propaganda effect: People are more likely to claim something is true the more they hear it, even if they know it is false.
Poorly run as in what? Operational efficiency? Marketing itself? Raising money? Actually distributing its resources efficiently to its intended beneficiaries? Success in any of these specialties are not adequate metrics to measure success in others. Nevermind free markets, do YOU have an understanding of how an organization works?
That's why I'm per gaming Fox News now. Ever person who has been on so far is certain Romney is going to crush Obama, polls be damned.
Why do they have to operate on a national scale? Youd think local charities uniquely qualified to help at that level would thrive.
TimesEunuch
Member
The article headline is actually pretty misleading. In the body it explains that the Gingrich campaign's mailing list was rented out to a marketing firm (apparently this is fairly common practice), and that the email actually came from one of the firm's clients.
Yea and RR still has a shitload of right wing nutjobs supporting them here in Youngstown.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Then how would you deal with the problem of the inevitable disparity between areas when it comes to quality charities? You'd have people hard on their luck flocking to the areas supported by good charities, causing those charities to be overwhelmed.
You have to have equal coverage or else the whole thing just isn't realistic.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
If romney becomes president I will never forgive you Americans!
Looks like a pretty legit electoral map to me.
Xplatformer
Member
I'm worried.
Do people not know about Bain and KB Toys? Or do they simply not care?
Is that from the Onion or something?
It's a standard part of libertarian dogma, but it's not actually true. I've seen several articles that went into the actual numbers and made a pretty convincing case that private charity could not possibly, under any realistic scenario, replace government welfare. I'll see if I can track those down tomorrow.
What are you talking about? People do it all the time.
Again, this works when the people providing money are also the ones receiving services. This is not the case with charitable donations. The free market does not optimize for efficiency in charities.
A Black Falcon
Member
Nope, that's a real Dick Morris map he released in '08.
Yeah, I was gonna ask what Morris's prediction was the day before the election or so in 2008. I figure he, like many pollsters and analysts, tries to sway and rally voters by being overly optimistic about his side when the election is far away, but as it gets closer to election day they start making more realistic predictions, because they don't want to be wrong.
So, what was Dick Morris's 2008 prediction the day before or so election day?
I tried to look into that myself and I couldn't find it, (didn't look that hard to be fair)
All I found was that he did accurately predict an Obama landslide, but missed on particular states in an embarrassing way.
edit// if that's his actual map above, apparently he actually overestimated Obama a little bit.
I don't think calling that map above a prediction is entirely fair. It was from October of that year, and was sort of just saying "here's where things stand." I mean, he wouldn't predict that Texas would lean towards Romney. The first thing any of us do when making a prediction is put California blue, then Texas red.
It was a prediction since the polls never showed anything like that map. He basically looked at the high water mark of the Obama campaign in 08 and decided to draw a crazy map so if he was somehow right he'd be praised and if he was wrong he could say look how far we have come.
Sounds like some sort of silly fear mongering. He is young enough that he could try to get back into the Senate though, but few presidents return to politics at all once their terms are up.
Unknown One
Member
Forget or forgive?
A Black Falcon
Member
The idea is that the map is completely crazy. Arkansas, dark blue? Tennessee, light blue? Texas, light red? Arizona (McCain's home state!) light blue? Etc. And he calls himself a serious analyst? :S He obviously either had no clue about the state of things, or was intentionally making a crazy prediction...
Rocket Punch
Member
Welp, Bams had a nice run. Good night, sweet prince.
Everything - Except the Polls - Points to a Romney Landslide
Everything - Except the Polls - Points to a Romney Landslide
- Status