"Bleeding-Heart Liberal" is a Misnomer

[Zkribbler]

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

I've never known Sloww to be a moron . . . unlike some others around here.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

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.

While we amateurs agree in principle that not all charities are equal I dare say you'll likely find a wide set of differences in the assessment of the usefulness and inherent efficiencies of various charitable organizations. Likely along lines of charitable preference.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian


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

It is comparably to the direct decision to give to charity. As for the dangers one has in a government of representationone must always be mindful of the tyranny of the majority as James Maidson put in Federalist 10

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

[chequita guevara]

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

The CPA begins the Slowwhand project.

Commies in Texas. They don't call it the Lone Star state for nothing.

[Barnabas]

I prefer to pay more taxes than doing charity for poor people , thats why I pay taxes, so that the state takes care of poor people and not me.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This is a retarded article.

And this is an especially retarded quote:

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well.

Hurrrr, conservatives never argue that their opponents are morally wrong! Especially not those religious right guys!

[Dinner]

On the contraire, that is certainlyl the right's main arguement. That leftists hate America (becuase they don't support Bush policies), that leftists hate free enterprise (because they advocate socially responsible policies), that leftists are stupid (because they believe in the ability of the state to improve the lives of the poorest), and that leftists are morall flawed (because they support a womans right to choose or because they support research into helping the sickest get help).

[Impaler[WrG]]

I find it difficult to believe that liberals have a higher income than conservatives when you consider that blacks and Hispanics tend to vote liberal. How were these two groups defined?

My guess would be that the majority of the Lower Class (Ditch Diggers) and Under Class (Unemployed) would be Democrates, the Working Poor (Unskilled Services) and Middle Class (Skilled Services) would go Republican, the Upper Middle Class (Doctors, Lawyers) and Rich go Democrate.

Democrates on the low end of the income spectrum definatly do support programs that will result in a net positive wealth transfer to them. They are after all poor and desperate this is quite obviosly not much ideology their. Upper Income Democrates support programs that result in massive wealth losses for them as a form of philantropy ontop of what their already doing.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
My guess would be that...

Political affiliation is far more closely tied to education than economic status. I seem to recall that those with lower education (just high school, or not even that) and those with higher education (graduate school, PHDs) tend to vote Democrat, while those in the middle (bachelor degrees, professional certifications) tend to vote republican. This relates to economic status, but I would be wary about making overbroad claims on economic status specifically as an indicator.

[Ramo]

Remember that we're talking about liberals and conservatives rather than Republicans and Democrats. My guess is that we tend not to see ideological labels at low income levels (and low levels of education). The poor do tend to vote for Democrats and the rich for Republicans, but poor Dems may not call themselves liberals. OTOH, the lower end of the income spectrum for Republicans may be high enough to pass some cutoff, so more of them might label themselves with an ideology.

There's also a much more powerful conservative infrastructure than liberal infrastructure in our society, so even if poor Republicans don't learn about conservatism in political science classes, they might learn about through Rush Limbaugh or their churches, while the analogue for poor Dems, unions, have been in a sharp decline over the years.

[:) Smiley]

ok, speaking here from the left end of the country- judging purely on charitable contributions is an incomplete measure.

Charity is only one method of wealth redistribution. There are other, less patronizing forms that are more popular around here. For example, when buying stuff, one can shop at a wal-mart, or one could pay some more for union made products at a worker owned cooperative.

A system that relies on handouts eventually leads back to feudalism, whereas a system of responsible consumption helps people out as part of the modern economic system.

[Dinner]

This is also true. Many democrats will go out of their way to buy a domestic good which is made in a union shop while Republicans, on average, buy they like no matter where it is made or using what ever labor force. Then we have the mainly liberal groups which by organic, free range, or other socially concience mde good. They go out of their way to shop at places like Whole Foods or Land's End because they believe it is the socially responsible thing to do. This causes them to pay more but they support unions, sound environmental practices, and social responsibility. The two groups, conservatives and liberals, just spend their money in different ways according to causes they believe in.

That said the OP article is still **** because it counts religious extortion, I.E. tithes, as some sort of charitible contribution which helps the needy. All to often it goes supportinga religious oligarchy and their lifestyle without ever helping anyone in need. The only effective means of relieving mass need is via government programs.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

In addition to counting church contributions as charity, there's another explanation, which should be thought of as Mississippi vs. Massachusetts.

Mississippi, a deeply conservative state, is also a poor state, with a shabby tax base, low taxes (can't get blood from a stone), and few public services.

Massachusetts, a deeply liberal state, is a wealthy state famous for its high taxes and quasi-European level of social services.

Someone in Mississippi making, say, $100k, might well be inclined to give a good chunk of it to charity, because they've taken home a lot of that $100k (low taxes), need relatively little of it (low cost of living), and know that private efforts are needed to compensate for the failures of the state. Someone in Massachusetts making teh same salary, on the other hand, is taking home far less of that $100k (it's Taxachussetts, after all), needs relatively more of it (NE housing and utilities cost a fortune), but can feel more confident that their taxes are being used to actually benefit the common good, and that charity is less required (unless it's charity toward Mississippians -- but then, Federal spending already redistributes Massachusetts money that way).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The only effective means of relieving mass need is via government programs.

37 million Americans continue to live in poverty despite nearly $9 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964. That doesn't seem all that effective.

[notyoueither]

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.

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

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

I don't get the same thing you are from the article.

I don't think it says anything like your second paragraph.