"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Pwn3d. Liberals make on average 6% more than conservatives yet they approve of higher taxes.

I twould be rather interesting to see how much as a perecentage of annual reported income is actually paid in taxes for both groups.

[SlowwHand]

Look at the "Bleeding heart liberals", trying to explain it all away, just like the books says.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sloww believes everything he reads... better get him a Communist Manifesto, quick

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Good recap but lets add a few more:

Originally posted by Arrian
So, to recap:

Liberals (generally) think that the poor, sick and otherwise needy should be cared for (to a greater degree) by the government, which is funded by taxation.

Which implies if necessary a compulsion by force.

Conservatives (generally) think that the poor, sick and otherwise need should be cared for (primarily?) by charity, funded by private donations.

Which conservatives feel morally compelled to do in direst circumstance but also believe that the primary means to break the cycle of dependency is to encourage self reliance when and where ever possible. To the extent that people can't make ends meet private charity is a personal moral imperative but should not be a state compulsion.

Yet conservatives pay taxes into a system that redistributes wealth via government (liberal idea), and liberals donate to charity (conservative idea). The difference, of course, is that there isn't much choice re: taxes, whereas donation to charity is entirely voluntary.

-Arrian

Given compulsion vs. freely giving. Seems that might be an edge in the moral high ground no?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Sloww believes everything he reads... better get him a Communist Manifesto, quick

I've read it, and don't buy it.
So much for another of your theories.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm surprised at how accepting everyone is of this person's conclusions. The Hoover Institution is one of those neocon/libertarian thinktanks dedicated to churning out stuff like this.

It took 25 posts before we had the first look at the source comment. Must be a record.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I've read it, and don't buy it.
So much for another of your theories.

Oh well, I was trying to give you a break. Guess you are just an idiot then with no explination .

[Sandman]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Sowell is the one commenting on the study, he isn't the one who did the study. As his column mentioned, the guy doing the study expected the opposite result and was surprized by the outcome. Nice try.

The guy doing the study was Arthur Brooks, author of 'The Fertility Gap'. Most likely the 'surprise' is a facade.

[Dinner]

Yeah, the difference in "charitable" giving between the two groups likely has a huge amount to do with giving tithes to churches. That just isn't charity; it is protection money paid by the gullible. Most of it doesn't help people in need and instead is just an extortion of the faithful on pain of eternal damnation.

If we ignore such noncharitable "Charitable giving" then I'd bet the liberals actually give more. If we measured the impact those charitable givings actually have on the needy then the same would likely still be true. I know I will be getting a $1000 deduction this year for donating an old car to NPR. I think of that as my donation to help educate the ignorant masses.

[Sava]

The article is stupid. This discussion is ridiculous. It's an argument about generalizations and stereotypes.

I'll say one thing: the fact that we need charity is an indictment of our society. Government (at all levels) is the legitimate organization of public resources and power. It shouldn't even be a question of whether or not public resources and power should be used for the general welfare of the people. The question should be to what extent. I believe the most prudent answer is to give people the equal opportunity to succeed by providing education, health care, job training, and forms of assistance to unemployed individuals who are actively seeking employment. It's not the state's job to support the public, but it's in the state's best interest to give people that opportunity because a productive citizenry can produce revenue in the form of taxes, promotes stability, and can provide for themselves; thus reducing the need for such welfare.

I'm not going to comment on the origins of the conservative thought processes. Each person believes what they do for whatever reason. The fact is, if people participate in organizing government to work towards solving problems instead of abandoning the opportunity for economic prosperity, increased productivity, and social progress; then we would see real change. Unfortunately, we have a failure of leadership at all levels of government. There are too many people with their own agendas who don't care about what's good for the nation or good for the world.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Sowell is the one commenting on the study, he isn't the one who did the study. As his column mentioned, the guy doing the study expected the opposite result and was surprized by the outcome. Nice try.

Do we know the author? Are we certain that he really expected a different result?

I remember a debate over gun control a few years ago and a well known, even respected study done by a so called liberal sociologist which demonstrated a surprising benefit of "defensive gun use". Even though this study won over some political liberals, like Senator Lieberman, the study's data contained some glaring inconsistencies that to a more than glancing review easily demonstrated the study's errors.

In this instance it didn't take a few amateurs like ourselves more than a few minutes to realise that not all charities are equal. Certain many of them do not at all reflect the donors' caring or compassion.

[Ramo]

Yep, I'd bet that the difference is largely due to tithes. As for normalizing for wealth, it's important to note that liberals tend to live in places with high costs of living, so that a 6% higher income might not mean very much. Furthermore, liberals tend to live in states with income taxes. So with the higher federal income taxes, a higher chance of having state income taxes, and higher costs of living, the 6% figure is highly misleading. A pretty silly review (not that I expect anything else from the National Review) of a pretty sillly study Few hard numbers, doesn't mention the sample size or methodololgy, etc.

[Ramo]

the author's web site is pretty partisan and short on facts, and I can't find any reviews of the book in any non-bat**** crazy publication. I wouldn't put any stock into his methodology...

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/index.html

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Good recap but lets add a few more:



Which implies if necessary a compulsion by force.



Which conservatives feel morally compelled to do in direst circumstance but also believe that the primary means to break the cycle of dependency is to encourage self reliance when and where ever possible. To the extent that people can't make ends meet private charity is a personal moral imperative but should not be a state compulsion.




Given compulsion vs. freely giving. Seems that might be an edge in the moral high ground no?

All taxation is compulsion by force, regardless of whether the taxes are then spent on social programs or something else (military, for instance). Of course, taxation is decided upon by a government of the people, by the people and all that jazz. You know, "no taxation without representation." Our is a system of taxation with representation. Waaah, how awful and terrible.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Oh, and I made a deliberate choice to not question the source - just for the sake of argument. I'm actually quite suspicious of the source.

Sloww - don't be a moron, please. I know it's hard, but do try.

-Arrian