Conservatives donate more than Liberal

[peezey 0]

So you didn't actually watch the show, then. The liberal city was San Francisco, and I hardly think you could have forgotten this since they went into great detail about the demographics of the city & its history as a liberal icon.

Interesting -- I did not see the show but I had a hard time seeing chicago as some sort of bastion of liberalism. What was the so-called "conservative city"

I'm not going to guess since I don't remember off the cuff, let me go look it up. It was in front of a Walmart, and there were discussions about % of people in the town who attend church regularly vs. SF, something like a 4:1 ratio.

ETA: there are some interesting comments to John Stossel on the 20/20 page about why/when people do/don't give.

ETA2: it's a "rural" town in South Dakota, not named.

Here's a quote from someone responding to Stossel on the 20/20/ page

"Dear Mr Stossel,

You pride yourself on solid information and good research and often expose those who mislead the public. What a diservice you did last night on 20/20 comparing the generosity of people in rural South Dakota with those in San Francisco by how much they fill a Salvation Army bucket.

Please choose a neutral "charity"! Salvation Army has notoriously been against gay people and is a church- related organization. You mentioned in your show 14% of San Franciscans are church goers --- pick something humanitarian that both South Dakotans and San Franciscans would contribute to. Donations to the victims and devastation caused by Katrina would have been a fair choice -- one that all Americans care about and give to.

Shame on you for being misleading and creating a sensationalized story; just the type of story you would have discredited. Give me a break!"

Whatever you think of gay stuff, this writer is correct that the charity chosen isn't something generally known to be a cross-cutting one. Katrina certainly would have been a more honest choice to get honest numbers.

Edited December 1, 2006 by peezey

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

It would not really be accurate to compare a big city with a small rural town anyway since there are many factors that would influence giving. I'm sure more people say good morning to strangers in a small town in South Dakota, but the same would be true in Northampton, MA.

Anyways, I don't equate "religious" with "conservative" -- I was raised Catholic by very devout parents who are both registered Democrats. A lot of the positions and teachings of the Catholic church are completely at odds with the conservative agenda as it exists in this country.

[peezey 0]

It would not really be accurate to compare a big city with a small rural town anyway since there are many factors that would influence giving. I'm sure more people say good morning to strangers in a small town in South Dakota, but the same would be true in Northampton, MA.

Anyways, I don't equate "religious" with "conservative" -- I was raised Catholic by very devout parents who are both registered Democrats. A lot of the positions and teachings of the Catholic church are completely at odds with the conservative agenda as it exists in this country.

Well, there was just sooooo much wrong with the whole thing. The only decent part was the bit about billionaires giving away a lot of money. It was interesting to hear some rich people talk about the good that money can do, especially if you build schools/libraries/fund scholarships/research/buy vaccines, etc.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I wonder if the tables would have turned on the whole experiment if it was for an AIDS charity

I have the utmost respect for the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of this world

[peezey 0]

I wonder if the tables would have turned on the whole experiment if it was for an AIDS charity

I have the utmost respect for the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of this world

We'll never know with that guy running the "experiment".....did you know Buffet doesn't even give to his kids or grandkid other than paying for college? He's a toughie!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does anyone else get tired of the "here be dragons" mentality around political labels?

But the general argument made here was that Conservatives want charity to be voluntary and now you're saying short term help (charity) from the government isn't wrong. I agree that it should be a short term thing. What gets me is the intellectual dishonesty here that suggests that it's simply an issue of voluntary vs. mandatory (in the form of taxation).

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

Interesting point of view considering your opinions on a quite a number of issues involve the words "People should be forced....".

Edited December 1, 2006 by erekose

[peezey 0]

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

I don't expect the government to give to charities, I don't know where you get this idea from. If you mean that we want the government, which WE employ via tax dollars, to take care of it's citizens by regulating health care and insurance costs, among other things, then yes, we do want the government to do that.

Edited December 1, 2006 by peezey

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue here is that liberals expect the government to donate to charities, while conservatives prefer to donate their own time and money..

I don't expect the government to give to charities, I don't know where you get this idea from. If you mean that we want the government, which WE employ via tax dollars, to take care of it's citizens by regulating health care and insurance costs, among other things, then yes, we do want the government to do that.

Seems reasonable to me

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

We'll never know with that guy running the "experiment".....did you know Buffet doesn't even give to his kids or grandkid other than paying for college? He's a toughie!

I really hate John Stossel and his porn star mustache -- he pretty much sums up why people don't trust men with facial hair.

I read that about Warren Buffet -- he's an interesting guy. He also seems to believe the amount of income tax he pays relative to his secretary is unjust.

[peezey 0]

We'll never know with that guy running the "experiment".....did you know Buffet doesn't even give to his kids or grandkid other than paying for college? He's a toughie!

I really hate John Stossel and his porn star mustache -- he pretty much sums up why people don't trust men with facial hair.

I read that about Warren Buffet -- he's an interesting guy. He also seems to believe the amount of income tax he pays relative to his secretary is unjust.

I remember that, too. Ted Turner was interviewed for a while, he's a bit wacky, but actually he challenged billionaires to give more in the last interview he had with Stossel, and they actually did.

Where did all the fighters go once the evidence and the real show was revealed here?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does anyone else get tired of the "here be dragons" mentality around political labels?

Yes! ...but consider the source. Our very own resident 'conservative'.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still find it suspicious that many of the same people who are deeply suspicious and resentful of government involvement in their personal finances - as it pertains to higher taxation and spending public money, are prepared to trust the government without question with their democratic freedoms, and civil liberties. Never quite figured that one out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I still find it suspicious that many of the same people who are deeply suspicious and resentful of government involvement in their personal finances - as it pertains to higher taxation and spending public money, are prepared to trust the government without question with their democratic freedoms, and civil liberties. Never quite figured that one out.

Shhh...that's nonsense talk. It's those they label as 'liberal' who are the only ones capable of hypocrisy.

Serious though...this is worth reading on this very issue.

... remembering Emerson's famous line from "Self-Reliance" that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," we ought to follow it to the conclusion, "to be great is to be misunderstood... Fear never but you shall be consistent in whatever variety of actions, so they be honest and natural in their hour." Or take Whitman's famous paean to democratic pluralism, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; (I am large—I contain multitudes.)." Inquiry, even at its most exquisitely brilliant is always fallible. If it were not, we would be gods or demons or static bores, all of whom inhabitat the same dour pantheon of a heaven where nothing ever happens. Emerson's lines return us to a different form of trust - that we're truly engaged in genuine inquiry about what is right and wrong, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. What do we do?, we ask. The question has to be asked with pedestrian practical constraints and policy tools and metrics in mind, but also with an insouciant greatness that disdains the demand for perfection. In politics especially there is no such thing as perfection, although the demand for it is ubiquitous.

Bill O'Reilly, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, and the many others with minds geared towards monistic repetitions of self-inflating intellectual mire are insignificant microbial waste in this splendid Emersonian world. They, unfortunately, have a market of angry, distrustful people. They are soothsayers, not inquirers. The further misfortune is that that market is a creation of cynicism itself.

http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2006/03...olitics_12.html

Edited December 1, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[peezey 0]

I still find it suspicious that many of the same people who are deeply suspicious and resentful of government involvement in their personal finances - as it pertains to higher taxation and spending public money, are prepared to trust the government without question with their democratic freedoms, and civil liberties. Never quite figured that one out.

Shhh...that's nonsense talk. It's those they label as 'liberal' who are the only ones capable of hypocrisy.

Serious though...this is worth reading on this very issue.

... remembering Emerson's famous line from "Self-Reliance" that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," we ought to follow it to the conclusion, "to be great is to be misunderstood... Fear never but you shall be consistent in whatever variety of actions, so they be honest and natural in their hour." Or take Whitman's famous paean to democratic pluralism, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; (I am large—I contain multitudes.)." Inquiry, even at its most exquisitely brilliant is always fallible. If it were not, we would be gods or demons or static bores, all of whom inhabitat the same dour pantheon of a heaven where nothing ever happens. Emerson's lines return us to a different form of trust - that we're truly engaged in genuine inquiry about what is right and wrong, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. What do we do?, we ask. The question has to be asked with pedestrian practical constraints and policy tools and metrics in mind, but also with an insouciant greatness that disdains the demand for perfection. In politics especially there is no such thing as perfection, although the demand for it is ubiquitous.

Bill O'Reilly, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, and the many others with minds geared towards monistic repetitions of self-inflating intellectual mire are insignificant microbial waste in this splendid Emersonian world. They, unfortunately, have a market of angry, distrustful people. They are soothsayers, not inquirers. The further misfortune is that that market is a creation of cynicism itself.

http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2006/03...olitics_12.html

I have a slightly different take on Emerson insofar as you reference the wind bags....sometimes idiots are misunderstood, too, because they are idiots.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still find it suspicious that many of the same people who are deeply suspicious and resentful of government involvement in their personal finances - as it pertains to higher taxation and spending public money, are prepared to trust the government without question with their democratic freedoms, and civil liberties. Never quite figured that one out.

Shhh...that's nonsense talk. It's those they label as 'liberal' who are the only ones capable of hypocrisy.

Serious though...this is worth reading on this very issue.

... remembering Emerson's famous line from "Self-Reliance" that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines," we ought to follow it to the conclusion, "to be great is to be misunderstood... Fear never but you shall be consistent in whatever variety of actions, so they be honest and natural in their hour." Or take Whitman's famous paean to democratic pluralism, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; (I am large—I contain multitudes.)." Inquiry, even at its most exquisitely brilliant is always fallible. If it were not, we would be gods or demons or static bores, all of whom inhabitat the same dour pantheon of a heaven where nothing ever happens. Emerson's lines return us to a different form of trust - that we're truly engaged in genuine inquiry about what is right and wrong, good or bad, worthy or unworthy. What do we do?, we ask. The question has to be asked with pedestrian practical constraints and policy tools and metrics in mind, but also with an insouciant greatness that disdains the demand for perfection. In politics especially there is no such thing as perfection, although the demand for it is ubiquitous.

Bill O'Reilly, Peggy Noonan, Ann Coulter, and the many others with minds geared towards monistic repetitions of self-inflating intellectual mire are insignificant microbial waste in this splendid Emersonian world. They, unfortunately, have a market of angry, distrustful people. They are soothsayers, not inquirers. The further misfortune is that that market is a creation of cynicism itself.

http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2006/03...olitics_12.html

Indeed the likes of the Patriot Act for example, doesn't really seem too compatible with liberal economic "self-reliance (no social programmes, lower taxation etc.)

How can you be "self reliant" when you are allowing the government to get you by the balls. Apparently money is the highest priority and the pursuit of (more of) it the most worthy ideal.