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 wealth distribution. Many wealthy people are conservative (although 12 of the 20 richest Americans are Democrats). However, for the average to still come out lower there must be an awful lot of poor conservatives to balance out the rich ones.
Myth: Conservatives don't care about the poor.
Fact: Conservatives donate 30% more to charitable causes than liberals. They also volunteer more time and give more blood. People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
The flip side: Some predominantly liberal demographics, such as homosexuals, give a lot more than the national average.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html (from a conservative website, perhaps not immune to bias)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … istof.html (a liberal columnist confirms the facts)
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=268 … 16hK3mt-So (don't know the views of the writers, so I'll call this one somewhere in the middle)
This begs the question: Who cares more about the poor? The people who try to make the government take care of the poor? Or the people who give more of their own personal money (the poorer party, mind you) to help them? It would seem to me that those who believe it's the people's job to help the needy actually practice what they preach.
I hope you give, regardless of your political affiliation. If you are a generous liberal then hey, good for you. That's awesome. But you might want to know that a lot of your fellow liberals are giving you a bad name.
But in the end, you can make of these facts what you will, and I'm sure you will. Cheers.
Yeah it upsets me that my fellow leftists don't give as much, one of the main reasons is far fewer liberals go to church and church encourages charity and passes out a bowl and has charity drives etc. But I don't believe relying on individuals charity solves anything, there have been times in history (example being the industrial revolution) when charity was the only thing that helped the poor (the government playing no part in it) and it was a time of massive destitution and time when the average life expectancy of the lower class was more than a third shorter, in the end as a leftist I would like to see a world where this bread to the masses sort of charity isn't necessary because people are provided for, I guess that's the difference.
"Myth: The Republican Party is the party of the rich.
Fact: Conservative-headed households earn 6% less than liberal-headed households, on average."
There may be a few misinformed people who think that the Republican party is made up SOLELY of the rich. They couldn't win elections without garnering a lot of poor people. However, they are the party of the rich INTEREST. Democrats are too, but not to the extent that Republicans are.
"Myth: Conservatives don't care about the poor.
Fact: Conservatives donate 30% more to charitable causes than liberals. They also volunteer more time and give more blood. People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."
I think this is true. The problem is conservatives have vast misconceptions about people on welfare, such as being lazy or drug addicts. Conservative politicians are the ones who usually want to cut benefits that feed poor children. There is really no defense of this. Liberals support more welfare programs and universal health care. Conservatives believe you don't even have a right to it, or the more moderate want it to just be strictly reduced.
Furthermore, this is what modern psychology EXPECTS. You are going to take this as a personal attack, but it is very well documented in psychology. http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases … ics.shtml. Inequality is seen as something that is not problematic.
It's also pointless to defend a system that consistently produces mass amounts of poverty. It would be like feeding your kid sugar and salt, thereby making them diabetic, and then taking them to the doctor and getting them insulin, and talking about how great of a parent you are, when you were the one who caused the diabetes! In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. , "Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary." Giving 500 dollars a year and donating every weekend you have will not ensure people have adequate access to medical care, or that pollution will not continue making them sick. Pointless wars are also supported that kill massive amounts of PEOPLE, who come predominately from the lower classes.
"This begs the question: Who cares more about the poor? The people who try to make the government take care of the poor? Or the people who give more of their own personal money (the poorer party, mind you) to help them? It would seem to me that those who believe it's the people's job to help the needy actually practice what they preach."
Liberals that vote for Democrats who support social programs are not fulfilling the "people's job" to help the needy? Isn't voting, theoretically anyway, about choosing representatives that will make the most just society possible? Are liberals not people? Is the government not made up of the individuals of the nation? Has Medicare and Social Security not helped the elderly immensely? I'm rather confused by what you mean here...
"There may be a few misinformed people who think that the Republican party is made up SOLELY of the rich."
Very true There are plenty of middle class Americans who are duped by social conservative wedge issues into voting for the GOP against their own economic interests. Not many African Americans or Mexican Americans have fallen for this scam.
It would be better if we had a society where charity was not necessary....and THAT the R's will never allow.
IE: tax cuts for rich will make it all better: NO it does not.
Living wage, corporations OUT of necessities~! Not for profit everything under the sun.
Changing the system is what is needed, not more charity.
The inherent problem with government/human "aid" is that it removes the human factor. The decisions are made by paper and forms. The mandates are handed down by some bigwig who never actually interfaces with the needy, just like in those big corporations you hate so much.
The result? The genuinely needy don't get helped. And those lazy people? They do exist, and there are a lot of them. I've met plenty, and I'm related to one or two. There's an entire American subculture of learned helplessness and dependency. Kids that never grow up. They're popping out babies because that gets them more "income." They're spending our tax dollars on cigarettes and beer.
And guess what? They're stealing not only from us but from the genuinely needy, which there are also a lot of. But the government, because it is by definition impersonal, doesn't care as long as all the forms are filled out correctly.
More government aid isn't caring. It's abdicating our responsibility to care, and I think those charity numbers prove it. You don't have to give a rat's ass about your neighbor when you've handed that job over to the bureaucracy. It's funny that it's called communism when it destroys what little sense of community we have.
And for the most part private charity decisions are made in the bench level. I'd respect government programs more if they were built the same way. Each case needs to be evaluated individually to decide whether there is a genuine need or if you're dealing with someone who refuses to even try to work because sucking on a money teat is easier.
Every parent needs to feed their children, but you'd call them irresponsible if they spoiled them. If you really care about someone then you accept that you need to know when to indulge them and when to show them tough love so they can learn from their mistakes and grow up. Why should the way we care for the poor be any different?
"The inherent problem with government/human "aid" is that it removes the human factor. The decisions are made by paper and forms. The mandates are handed down by some bigwig who never actually interfaces with the needy, just like in those big corporations you hate so much."
Like my Uncle who was in and out of the hospital every month the last year of his life, and required expensive medications due to his diabetes and heart disease. The government (taxpayers) covered all of his medical bills. It helped immensely, and it was very human. There are bureaucratic problems, but government programs aid millions of people.
"The result? The genuinely needy don't get helped. And those lazy people? They do exist, and there are a lot of them. I've met plenty, and I'm related to one or two. There's an entire American subculture of learned helplessness and dependency. Kids that never grow up. They're popping out babies because that gets them more "income." They're spending our tax dollars on cigarettes and beer."
15 million children live in poverty in the United States, and that is WITH food stamps. You're partially correct that the needy people don't get helped, because the capitalist system of exploitation is designed that way. It always produces massive amounts of poor. If government aid didn't exist, people would be rioting in the streets. But ask all the senior citizens who are on Medicare if the government "doesn't help." My grandma had dementia at the end of her life and wouldn't eat. One hospital stay cost 60,000 dollars...
"And guess what? They're stealing not only from us but from the genuinely needy, which there are also a lot of. But the government, because it is by definition impersonal, doesn't care as long as all the forms are filled out correctly."
Corporations having control of our natural resources isn't stealing? Why would they have the right to them, instead of everyone owning them? Furthermore, corporations are constantly STEALING by not compensating people for their labor. Executives enrich themselves.
""More government aid isn't caring. It's abdicating our responsibility to care, and I think those charity numbers prove it. You don't have to give a rat's ass about your neighbor when you've handed that job over to the bureaucracy. It's funny that it's called communism when it destroys what little sense of community we have."
Giving people money to buy food when they currently can't find a job is horrible huh? Or paying for the medical bills of poor people? Damn government trying to help everyone. Don't forget about environmental regulations that, theoretically, give us clean air and water. It's all just a communist plot to take over America!
"And for the most part private charity decisions are made in the bench level. I'd respect government programs more if they were built the same way. Each case needs to be evaluated individually to decide whether there is a genuine need or if you're dealing with someone who refuses to even try to work because sucking on a money teat is easier."
I'd like to see some stats to show there is widespread fraud in the system.
"Every parent needs to feed their children, but you'd call them irresponsible if they spoiled them. If you really care about someone then you accept that you need to know when to indulge them and when to show them tough love so they can learn from their mistakes and grow up. Why should the way we care for the poor be any different?"
According to this, we should let people starve to death, or be poisoned by pollution as an act of "tough love." Government better not stop in, it would just be enabling people!
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr once said, "There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalist economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which producers beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, Who owns the oil? You begin to ask the question, Who owns the iron ore? You begin to ask the question, Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water. These are questions that must be asked."
Besides, liberals ought to be aware that whatever leftist utopia they're trying to create, right or wrong, hasn't come to pass yet. The poor need help today, not whenever our lawmakers get around to doing whatever magical thing they need to do to fix everything.
So the simple fact that fiscal liberals are not marked by increased private generosity, to my mind, dilutes their cause and implies hypocrisy.
Well, I'm just the opposite.
These people who give themselves more money through tax policies, while taking it from lower incomes are robbers.
These big ceos who make millions, while paying their employees 8 an hr, and passing on all cost of business to consumers are the robbers.
The fact that they give to charity, take a tax break for it, and call themselves generous human beings makes them the hypocrits, IMO.
Hey! pay your employees 12 and hr, and make 40 mil instead of 53....how's that?
Let me ask you a question . . .
Why aren't more businesses taking advantage of the cheap labour?
Don't you think it might be because the government is creating the monopoly through regulation and taxes? My Dad cannot afford to hire a single person - not because he's a greedy capitalist, it's just not sustainable with the heavy health and safety regulations and other hidden costs associated with government intervention. Your 'living wage' would make this ten times worse. Create an environment that benefits all kinds of businesses and then labour will be in huge demand, upping the price, CEOs will be encouraged to put more of their money into customer retention since there is so much competition. If you're serious about giving people more and better paying jobs, you have to be a better capitalist!
And I believe that charity is much better than welfare because there is an element of choice in it. It is much more moral to be able to choose where your own money goes, and how much, than somebody else choosing for you. That's not to be debated, unless you happen to be a control freak. Welfare creates a permanent slave class that actually restricts the receivers rather than galvanises them.
Eric: I find this statement very interesting: "Some predominantly liberal demographics, such as homosexuals, give a lot more than the national average"
Would you please reveal: 1. Where such giving is given? (I'm assuming that this is some "traditional" charities such as churches, Goodwill and the like...), 2. HOW are the recipients determining that they are receiving "charity" from homosexuals? (I've given oodles of stuff to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and the like.... and nobody has ever asked me if I were gay, when I made the donation.)....
This is an interesting detail,.... and I'm just curious.... not seeking to be confrontive or controversial....
I believe that was mentioned in the NY Times article I linked; all three articles also talked about the same book that reported findings about different demographics and how much they give. I don't recollect if that statistic is from said book or some other study.
It went on to say that maybe gay couples give more because they are less likely to have dependents than traditional households and thus have more excess income they can donate. I included it mainly because I wanted to give a balanced view in the OP.
Here's the thing. I don't think government aid should be cut, per se. But the ultimate goal of any government aid program should be to get the recipients off government aid. Welfare doesn't do this. Food stamps and WIC don't do this. Barring any other change the recipients of those programs will be just as poor when they die as they are today. Some of them have been trained to think that's okay. Some of them will teach their children that's okay too. Learned helplessness. The only people who should receive this type of help forever are the permanently disabled.
Welfare-type programs need to be combined with programs that equip instead of enable. Education. Mental health (which I actually think is vastly underfunded). Job training and placement.
And anyone who is perfectly capable of working and refuses to cooperate with programs designed to make them independent because they'd rather live off the state their whole life should eventually be given an ultimatum: get with the program or lose your aid. That's what I mean by tough love.
It would definitely cost more in the short term, but it would be an investment. The end result would be fewer people sucking on the government teat and more people paying taxes. Less deficit, more to either spend on other programs or give back to taxpayers. Everyone wins.
"Welfare-type programs need to be combined with programs that equip instead of enable. Education. Mental health (which I actually think is vastly underfunded). Job training and placement."
Why don't you take some time and see if you can find out if these programs already exist, and also which members of Congress are supportive of them.
Well actually no, more people in work would mean lower pay and therefore lower taxes.
There isn't enough jobs to go round as it is, imagine what would happen with a few more million people desperate for work!
And your inferred answer to this is higher taxation of those who do work in order to support those who choose not to work? And it is a choice for the vast majority on the government teat who have been weaned and learned on the baby-making way of life for their living, that is a simple fact and it's been growing exponentially since what I would consider the welfare 'enlightenment' of the 70's. I will always recall the pregant classmate of mine in the late 70's telling me that her mother said she could have 2 or 3 more and it would be okay. How many kids per unwed mother do we all support just cuz?, and the government sanction, in 2012? How many are we up to now before the maximum support is reached?
And still we have to as well provide free lunches at school they are so inept at managing their full government support? And I'm speaking from the position of being a child in a divorced family who received, with great recalled chagrin from my Grandma, government paid breakfast and lunch from time to time in the very early 70's, it was a big and embarasing deal for her and us. In between, I much preferred my 4 hour old scrambled egg sandwiches and mock apple pie made with ritz crackers, today who makes an egg sandwich for a brown bag lunch to be eaten a few hours later? The parent would probably be thrown in jail.
What would be your policy solution/answer to 'there isn't enough jobs to go round as it is'? That's a hopeless future that can't be part of any policy decisons, too think and project failure -- is to fail.
No, what is your answer to "there is not enough jobs to go round as it is"?
Don't answer a question with a question, it moves nothing on.
And don't say "lower wages" either, that's part of the reason why there are so many unemployed at the moment.
Eligibility for unemployment compensation requires the applicants to be available for and seeking work. Also, they are required to participate in programs which assist them in their efforts to find a job (In my state this program is called Michigan Works.) They may also sign up for training programs in fields where jobs are available or are expected to be available--e.g., health care, information technology, construction trades and the like. In recent months hiring has increased, especially at the automobile companies and their suppliers.
Yes, unemployment is the right kind of program. It does require one to have been employed at some point, though, so it's usually collected by people who are eager to get back to work anyway.
Not so good for, for example, a young man who recently came into the emergency room where my dad works and, on top of whatever complaint he had, asked my dad how he could get on his own relief because he was about to get kicked off his dad's relief.
The idea of actually making his own way had never even occurred to him.
Many Many also love love love the program and for a fact refuse jobs that aren't signicantly higher than their unemployment 'wages' that allows them to sit on their butt on the government dime when they choose and work odd jobs off the grid when they choose to supplement their guv't dole. When this ends, there will be a significant rise in employment.
There has always been the requirement for "available for and seeking work" and I can recall too far back to even ponder hearing how that very system was worked then, and for sure is worked like a profession now by very many Americans who have come to see it as a 'right' or a 'given' or a 'stupid gift'. Certainly there are many who need this, but the current system does not differentiate between the deadbeats on the dole and the doers.
Pretty it up all you want, facts are facts in the real world, which likely may not filter to the big cities and folks fairly removed from realities, hard to say being from rural areas most of my adult life and witnessing first hand the embracing of maximum government aid as a lifetime goal.
I've been working in the unemployment compensation field for nearly 10 years, on the State of Michigan Appeals Board and more recently as a claimant advocate in hearings before administrative law judges. A few people "work the system" but they are a small minority. Most of them are looking for work and would prefer to get back to work ASAP. The benefits are a small fraction of what they were earning before being laid off. They aren't to blame for unemployment between 8 and 20 percent, depending how you define and count it.
(1) Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are huge givers to charity - I suspect they alone more than even the statistics.
(2) Conservatives who give are following their poliyical perspective. Liberals who think the state should pay are following their political perspective.
I sure wish he was on the air instead of Rush.
I'm with you, chris.
The difference between Carlin and Limbaugh is that Carlin KNEW he was being a clown.... and interspersed a bit of social/political comment within his schtick.... Limbaugh purports to be a social/political commentator when, in reality he, too, is a clown... but NOT A VERY FUNNY ONE!!!!!
Um...not all charity work is volunteer work. Non-profits still hire employees. They still pay them.
But congrats on your hard-hitting stance on not doing the right thing just because it's right if there's no moolah involved. That sounds way better than being a greedy conservative.
I volunteer as a greeter at my local library..... without pay..... but, largely because it's a great way to meet women who know how to read!!!.....
Nice jujitsu of the actual point into your distorted conclusion, Eric.
"What's the difference between a fertilized egg, a corporation + a woman? One of them isn't considered a person in Oklahoma." -@TheDailyShow
"A proposed law in Arizona could give employers the right to fire women who use birth control. The bill, which sailed right through the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, grants employers the right to ask for proof that contraceptives are being taken for non-contraceptive reasons."
Does it surprise you Arizona would propose another crazy bill?
May we assume that there will also be a law to assure that ED medications WILL ONLY BE TAKEN TO ASSURE PROCREATION?..... and NOT for "recreational" (non-procreative) s*x??????
I don't know what's going on here.....it almost feels like some sort of hoax to distract or something....they Can't be serious??
"Breaking: The Wall Street banksters who're robbing you love it when you spend all your energy in a tizzy over non-existent Marxism"
maybe something like this??
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 days ago
Yes, humankind is becoming more educated, aware, & evolved as a species. Congruent with these components is liberalism, even progressivism. Conservatives, reactionaries, & other retrogressives...
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 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 GA Anderson20 months ago
this is the discussion I have wanted for a long time. Greetings, Old Poolman and when I am done I hope to get the frog out of the prince's throat. _______________________________________________--Excerpt from the link...
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...
by Josak4 years ago
Romney is intent on painting Obama supporters as poor and lazy what he forgot is that liberal households are on average wealthier than conservative households by a whole 6%. The error highlights conservative thinking,...
Copyright © 2016 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.