Studies and articles, even by the left, which acknowledge that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. On things like I posted on post #43 of this thread.
I addressed that point, but I will address it again later on in this post.
When one is perfectly willing to SOUND good by ranting that the government should do more, but won't help the needy HIMSELF, that's being a skinflint. When one presents himself as 'compassionate" but only with OTHER PEOPLE'S money, that's being a skin flint. When one A: doesn't contribute himself, B. presents himself as being more compassionate about the needy than the conservative who DOES contribute, and C. advocates that the government take all the money the conservatives have to support the liberal's pet cause (but not the cause the guy with the money would prefer) I call that being a hypocritical skinflint. For some reason the most loudmouthed liberals all seem to think that only conservatives are wealthy. (shrug)
Well, if you're using those surveys in post #43 as your sole basis for saying this, then even your own surveys say that liberals do give
something, even if it's not as much as conservatives. So, you can't say that liberals do absolutely nothing.
But as I said, it's also about attitude and what policies they support or oppose. I already explained that above, and your only response was a single word: "Obviously." So, unless you have something more, my point stands.
Don't have to do that. One can eliminate private charities in several ways, and making them illegal would be a very bad move, 'optically.' However, one can eliminate them very efficiently if one removes the funds that allow them to work, and having the government force would be contributors to hand over the money in taxes does that quite handily. Not that I've actually thought about that one a whole lot, but it is true; where taxes are very high, private contributions tend to be low. There is only so much money to go around.
Are there studies which show that where taxes are high, private contributions are low? From what I can tell, states with higher taxes tend to have higher standards of living, better social services, better education, etc.
Baloney. One thing that can be absolutely guaranteed is that the government does things badly, inefficiently, and when they get the money, they WILL do stuff the taxpayers don't want. Private contributors can (and absolutely should) investigate private charities before they contribute, and make certain that the funds they send go where they want 'em to go.
If the government does stuff the taxpayers don't want, then the people have the option of voting them out and replacing them with different people. If the voters don't do that, then that's on the voters.
In the case of private charities, voters don't have that option. All they can do is simply not donate, but then you might accuse them of being "skinflints."
There are MANY charity watch organizations that allow people to do that. This is why I know that contributing to Kids Wish is a very bad idea. only .8% of your contribution will go to help kids.....and why I know that contributing to the Red Cross and/or Catholic Charities is a pretty good one: almost all the money goes to the programs they support. It's why I contribute to the LDS welfare fund; 100% of my contribution there goes precisely where it's supposed to go. They have helped me in the past, I contribute to them.
If the contributor is too stupid to investigate the charity, that's his problem....but at least he CAN, and can make his own choice about where his money goes.
Yes, I'm aware of these charity watch organizations, and I agree that people would be wise to investigate charities before donating. That's just good common sense.
He has no such choice for the government
Except that pretty much every eye of the media is focused on government and one can get much more information on the government than they can about any private sector organization.
Also, people get to vote for those who run the government, so there's plenty of choices there. (Granted, they're generally not very good choices, but that's our political system. We, the People, can change it if we want.)
Mind you, I have NO problem with taxes when they go to infrastructure, law enforcement and the like: that's what we have government for. However, the private charities I contribute to are far more effective and efficient than the government is, and if one does the research, one can make certain that one's money only goes to those which are more efficient than the government.
Well, by the same token, one can also research the issues and the politicians they vote for. But if the voters are too stupid to do that, then I guess that's the way it goes.
I don't put much stock in the notion that the private sector is always more efficient or that government is somehow always inefficient. I think it varies, depending on what task either is doing. One difference with government is that, in many cases, they are mandated to help all who qualify for aid. Private charities have the option of being more selective and focused.
Both the private and public sector are susceptible to corruption. People are still people, after all, no matter if they work in the public or private sector.
And if the liberals would do that research and contribute the way the conservatives do, personally, there would be far less need for the government to take over.
If the private sector could carry the weight of all the poor and needy in this country, there wouldn't be any need for government to do it at all.
That's one of the things that I've noticed conservatives routinely overlook in these discussions. They seem to believe that government social programs, the welfare state, "free stuff from other people's money" just happened out of the blue for no reason at all. All of these things were introduced and implemented slowly, mainly in order to fill a need which had not been previously fulfilled - or was done very poorly. All our labor laws, minimum wages, Social Security, and other programs implemented by government - they were non-existent in the 19th century.
Any conservative who can do the research into our nation's history would understand that all of these programs they criticize have a historical basis for their initial implementation.
Care to show me where I've said that? Because I haven't, y;know.
The most I've said is that liberals figure that they'll be out less money if the government grabs taxes from everybody than if they had to contribute personally.
Yes, I'd be happy to show you. In post #45, this is what you wrote:
but is still advocating not only taking the conservative's money by force, but being in charge of where it goes.....all the time he (the liberal) figures that HE isn't going to have to hand over anything, tax laws being what they are.
You say "taking the conservative's money by force," but as I keep saying, taxes apply to all. It would have been more accurate to say "taking the Americans' money by force," since all of us Americans are subject to taxation by the US government. But you didn't say that. You just said "conservative's money." Your exact words are quoted above.
By using this phraseology, you're clearly implying that only conservatives have their money taken by force through taxation, while non-conservatives (by implication) are not forced to do so, apparently.
Well, you go on and argue against a point I didn't make. I'll go get a hot chocolate. Let me know when you are done....
In the same quoted portion above, you stated that liberals want to be in charge of where conservatives' tax money goes. This implies that conservatives would have no say in our government, that they would be somehow blocked out of the process and that liberals would run everything. This suggests some kind of "liberal dictatorship" where conservatives would be some kind of victimized underclass, at least from the way you're portraying the situation.
Ah, there you go...telling us that because of their choices, they aren't really giving anything.....because you don't approve of those choices.
I never said I didn't approve. What's that you were saying about arguing against points one didn't make?
I'm only suggesting that there could be other motives involved, or other possible explanations as to why those studies show that conservatives give more than liberals, since much of your line of argumentation seems to rest solely on that.
Other than that, most of what you're arguing is anecdotal. Within any group, you'll find good ones and bad ones. I absolutely believe you when you say there are generous and compassionate conservatives, and I also fervently believe there are skinflint, heartless liberals out there.
But you can find both types within both groups. I don't know that that actually proves anything, since liberals and conservatives are mainly judged and evaluated according to their political views, not necessarily their personality traits - unless we're talking about a public figure. If we're talking about Average Joe Liberal or Average Joe Conservative, it's more of a mixed bag. Not everyone goes straight down the line "liberal" or "conservative" every issue. Some might be more liberal when it comes to domestic policies while being more conservative when it comes to foreign policy. Some might be more liberal when it comes to social causes, while still being more conservative when it comes to economic and fiscal policies.
Well, that does go for the 'secular' charities supported by liberals, which they are so proud of, saying that contributing to churches doesn't count (never mind that MOST charities that actually help people are run by churches).
Yes, and as with anything, many are reputable, but some are not.
One point of difference between liberals and conservatives is not so much about who spends whose money on what. It's about looking at the sources and roots of the problem and attacking it in that way, not just the symptoms.
At least in terms of the overall debate between liberals and conservatives as I've seen all my life, that seems to be a key difference. I'll concede that liberals in recent years have gotten a bit superficial and flighty, but at least in a more traditional sense, liberals have advocated looking at problems rationally, determining the cause, and advocating solutions by attacking the source of the problem.
Conservatives typically don't do that. Oftentimes, they don't recognize the same "problems" that liberals might see - or they may not understand them until it's too late. They're slow and resistant to change, and they tend to take a "these things happen" approach to problem solving.
That may be another reason why liberals donate less to charities, since charities only really deal with symptoms, while the liberals may be more focused on finding long-term solutions.
