I'm not a TP member - I find many of their views a little scary. I did, however, find this article interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 11064.html
I have Democratic pals who are all for giving tax money to the needy, but they NEVER contribute their OWN money to charities. Do you think that's because they expect the government to take care of it? What if the people I described don't even pay income taxes? Do you think they're being hypocritical, or are they just following the income redistribution strategy? If these people don't have the money to donate to charities, should they at least donate their time?
Who knows. I have only known one hard core liberal that was a big giver. She gave of her time and money. She was very wealthy. She was constantly helping needy children in her own community. She routinely re-decorated her home and gave the old stuff to the needy.
What she told me is this. Conservatives give more money. Liberals give more time. Conservatives give to the world, Liberals give to the community. It was her take on the issue. She was extremely distrustfull of large charitable organizations.
I do think that on the whole, center right people give more money than center left. I do think that for the most part liberals do believe that it's up the government to ensure the welfare of the citizen. They see income redistribution as a vehichle to achieve that. Of course the conservative sees this as robbery and encouraging irresponsibility. I believe it's a little of both. There will always be those who need help. The key is help, not a hand out. Liberals would do themselves a favor by encouraging responsibility and honoring achievement. Conservatives would do themselves a favor by becoming more involved in the community and therefore more understanding of those in need within the community.
Good analysis, CJ! We seem to have similar ideas - I'm a right-of-center moderate on most issues. I also know some liberals who are very generous, along with some stingy conservatives.
I don't trust a lot of large charitable organizations, either. I mostly contribute to local charities. I like to know where my money is going and who is helped.
I think this is a pretty accurate assessment. In my experience, many liberals distrust the ability of private charitable organizations, especially religion-based ones, to fairly distribute money. We also are aware that a good percentage of private charitable organizations are fronts for their founders to rake in money.
Well said, CJ! I think there's an awful lot of truth in that post.
How about Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, George Soros, Bono and plenty of others?
If only the majority of the ultra-wealthy - and I'm talking over 250 of folks in the Fortune 500 list - were like Bill and Melissa Gates. They have not only committed most of their huge fortune, but their considerable management skills to finding the projects worth doing , and recruiting the right people to make those projects work.
Though the Gates' have company, most people who commit themselves to making huge fortunes are unwilling to part with any significant portion. These misers are not tea party folks - they are the top 1 percent and they OWN 38% of net worth in this country.
Why is it so hard for you to recognize that the "redistribution" has been going mostly one way--from the middle class and the poor to the very richest Americans?
The Wall Street Journal article doesn't seem to address the fact that conservatives tend to be older than liberals, and that affects their ability to give. A young adult just starting out in his career of choice likely has student debt higher than a full year's salary. That's probably going to prevent that person from making a considerable donation to charity. Although they might not give monetarily, I see plenty of liberals (almost all of whom could be described as modern "hippies") working at the local food bank.
Good point, DB. I hadn't thought about age. BUT...I think I read somewhere that as a group, liberals make slightly more money than do conservatives. I need to find that.
Conservatives donate a larger % of their income, according to this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … r=1&hp
Of course, if they earn more, they have more disposable $.
The Salvation Army Kettles are a more insidious plot to separate you from your money than the IRS. They waste a much larger percentage of the money given to them freely than the federal Government does of the money it compels from you. Who honestly thinks that the insulated, distant, bureaucratic federal government is more compassionate, more connected, more efficient and more "charitable" than a private organization but the delusional.
Time and again, story, report and study demonstrate that the typical, Mid-westerner with those out dated middle American values that have come to be called conservative and religious and intolerant give more of everything than those who willingly call themselves liberal or even moderate.
I am puzzled how we have come to despise the values embodied in our national foundation. Perhaps what frightens people about conservatism, religion, the tea party, Constitutionalism is that all of these espouse a standard.
I am puzzled by those who quake in fear that there maybe a real standard for living a good life.
We reject those things because they don't work, are intolerant, impede progress and have brought misery to millions. Those seem like good reasons to me.
A wonderful demonstration of no shared universe of discourse Thank you for your continued contribution to my contention that conservatives and liberals live in worlds.
We do live in different worlds and we truly detest the others views.
Fortunately those of us at the extremes don't matter. The vast, muddling middle is who actually determines our course,
You misinterpret my attitude toward liberalism. I don't despise the views of liberals. The liberal perception of the world makes me sad. For exactly the same reason that schizophrenia, alcoholism, poverty, cancer and communism all make me sad. What ever makes the full realization of our nature more difficult saddens me.
The conservative view makes me far more than sad - it frightens me.
However, on the "rights" issues, I do recognize that your views might be 'right" if we define that as bringing general happiness to the most people. If we consider individual rights (as I do), then one persons misery is far more important than a little discomfort and accommodation by the majority.
Individual rights? Isn't liberalism predicated on the "we" not the "I?" Isn't it collectivism, the direction of an elite, the power of centralized government that all mark liberal notions of how a society is to be run. Aren't personal property, individualism, the citizen as sovereign all antithetical to liberal notions of society? Isn't the pinnacle of liberal politics and economics the subsuming of all personal, individual property, effort, endeavor to the "common good?"
Aren't you the one who said that personal property only exists because "WE"(my emphasis) say it does? Liberalism is poisonous to personal, individual liberty and there is yet another reason that it saddens me.
You don't even begin to understand a liberal pov.
You are so far off base it isn't worth a response. There isn't anything in your paragraph that represents ne or any liberal I know.
And THAT is a large part of why we detest conservatives. You complain bitterly about nonsense that isn't even close to truth.
So why not vent your spleen and tell me all the horrors to which the conservative, that you so despise, would subject the world. It is as I said, there is no universe of discourse.
There are no "the conservatives", just as there are no "the liberals". My objection to your characterization of liberal thought was that it doesn't represent ANYONE. Some communiist groups may wish for some of the things you pasted on liberals, but otherwise it was just nonsense.
The things I object to in conservative philosophy concern human rights and the role of government. Not all conservatives are anti-gay, or want to force other religious beliefs upon us and not all are even close to anarchists, but if we want to talk about irrational fear, yes that is it: a country run by the religious right is my worst nightmare and my second worst is one in which power is returned to the States to follow any ignorant policy their uneducated citizenry deems sensible.
This isn't 1850. I believe we need MORE Federal '"interference" in your life in order to make a better world for everyone. The interference is not in who you marry, what church you attend or anything else to do with your personal life, but rather to prevent you from interferfering with other people in those regards. Interference with business is not to destroy capitalism, but rather to prevent dangerous products, unsafe working conditions and monopolistic control that could prevent you from succeeding in your business.
That last paragraph is the general creed of every liberal I know. We may differ on particulars, but the general idea is right there, and what we fear from conservatives is the opposite of that.
It isn't federal interference you are espousing. By its nature a "federal" government is answerable to the states not the other way around. We have long since destroyed the federal system and supplanted it with a national system that every day makes strides toward a unitary government.
You fear monopolies yet no monopoly has ever existed without government support. A free market works against not for a monopoly. The most dangerous monopoly is a monopoly on political power - ask the North Koreans, German Jews, Soviet Jews, Indonesian Catholics, etc.... Devolving power from the central government to the state is a protection against not an aid to tyranny.
If California's citizens (ignorant as they maybe - your attitude not mine) vote to destroy a millenia old social institution by majority vote why should every other state be forced to do so - despite their woefully ignorant citizen's cherished notions about societal and "civilizational" institutions and stability.
You attempt to refute the position that I offered by using language that reflects precisely said position. You betray an elitist attitude toward your fellow citizens. You mock religion as if the position of conservative political philosophy is to impose religion despite the overarching history of that same thought embodied in the Constitution.
You embrace, fully, the centralization of political and economic authority mistakenly calling it federalism. You adopt the attitude that your fellow citizens are too ignorant to run the affairs of their own states but would willingly trust all our fates to national politicians as if they were angels.
The economic and demographic size of many states is as great or greater than entire nations, including nearly all European Nations(excepting Russia - which arguably is neither Asian nor European) yet you would relegate those states to a position subservient to the national government.
Let's see. Anti-federalism, elitist, anti-religious, economic interventionist - sounds like liberalism/utopianism/quasi-socialism to me. Guess I was wrong after all
Wrong again TK...
But you're used to that.
People tend to get more liberal as they age, not more conservative. Churchill didn't know that, of course.
Conservatives tend to be more religious; their charity includes donations to churches,. Take that out and they are miserly.
Not true, PQ:
"According to Google’s figures, 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."
Conservatives still donate a larger % of their income, even to secular causes.
Wonder how moderates rate??
Well, my side still gives more. That's because we are smarter and make more money
(please do note the smiley)
Lol, PQ! Wish i cud be smarrt lik yu librals!
Merry Christmas, PQ. Good to see you back and in good form!
Liberal families earn 6% more, on average, than conservative families.
...working within the charitable sector...social services...the people who donate come from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds....all i see is that people in general are very generous whether it is time, money or products such as food and clothing....i don't look or try to figure out what their beliefs are....for me, it doesn't really matter....as for age...i'm always amazed at how thoughtful children are...comes from their parents/teachers influence....
...on Monday a group (about 20) of mentally challenged adults (downs syndrome, etc) dropped by to donate food and gifts...it was amazing...everyone was so happy to bring some good cheer and drop off donations...it made my day...and brought a few tears to my receptionist...she was overwhelmed by the spirit of those folks....i see these acts of kindness all the time....and it always warms my heart about how people are generally good, kind and thoughtful....
Merry Christmas all!
A Gallup poll concluded that religious people make less money than non-religious but they give more to charity. It also found that religious people make more of an effort to help a stranger or volunteer at local charities.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111013/World … thers.aspx
I'm not sure I completely agree, but they do have data to back up their conclusions.
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been in many controversial political discussions on hub pages. I consider myself a centerist. I believe we need both some components of socialism to provide the things that we can't do as individuals and...
by Holle Abee6 years ago
Some (not all) liberals are always bashing conservatives for not caring about their fellow man, but guess who donates more money, more time, and more blood to charities and causes? Conservatives! Even though...
by Charles James6 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by Eric Newland5 years ago
Myth: The Republican Party is the party of the rich.Fact: Conservative-headed households earn 6% less than liberal-headed households, on average.The flip side: Granted, an average doesn't tell the whole picture of...
by crankalicious4 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
by Ralph Deeds6 years ago
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.