Conservative Or Liberal?

[PoliticalChic]

Taking care of those who need such is neither conservative nor Liberal....it is simply the kind of thing that good people do.

I found this note in my local paper, and was heartened to find that tax money was used in this manner:


1. "To the editor,
Are you over the age of 60? If not, but if you know folks who are, here’s a thought they might be interested in — delicious lunches for a buck and breakfasts for 50 cents.

2. ...many older people are not aware of the fact that lunches for seniors are $1, if gotten in churches, synagogues, club houses, etc. The meals are tasty and nutritious. They’re funded by the Department of the Aging!



3. Two friends and I decide every morning what we want for lunch, so then we know which center to go to that day. We have a choice of four in our area in Brooklyn. The food is delicious! Today we had thick chicken cutlets, rice with veggies, mixed salad with dressing, a slice of bread (sealed securely), and a dessert of cut-up watermelon — all for a buck.

4. Many centers also serve breakfast, for 50 cents. Too early for me, but here’s an example: Swiss cheese, oatmeal, cinnamon French toast, syrup, and an orange.




5. All meals (breakfast and lunch) are served with an eight-ounce container of one-percent milk, and fruit, with a great variety of food. Substitutes are always offered. ... there’s scrambled eggs or hard boiled eggs or yogurt or turkey sausage patty, etc.

6. There are also activities — one-day trips, concerts, trips to Long Island shopping centers, bingo games, and on Fridays there’s a disc jockey from 1 to 4 pm, and most of us dance to his fine music, included with our $1 lunch. The prices are very low because it’s all subsidized by the government. The price and the food are great, and the friendliness and harmony amongst diners keeps one smiling!"
8216 Sound off to the Editor 8217 8212 a lively sounding board for the topics of the day 8226 Brooklyn Daily


Made me smile.

 

[Iceweasel]

Making someone else pay for your meal isn't how I define conservativism. Donations are fine regardless of your political persuasion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Making someone else pay for your meal isn't how I define conservativism. Donations are fine regardless of your political persuasion.

Charity is a hallmark of conservatism.

1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com

 

[Iceweasel]

Charity is a hallmark of conservatism.

Taking money isn't charity.

 

[September]

"Conservatives" are too indoctrinated for my taste.

​

 

[asaratis]

"Conservatives" are too indoctrinated for my taste.

​

...as if liberals are not.

 

[rightwinger]

Taking care of those who need such is neither conservative nor Liberal....it is simply the kind of thing that good people do.

I found this note in my local paper, and was heartened to find that tax money was used in this manner:


1. "To the editor,
Are you over the age of 60? If not, but if you know folks who are, here’s a thought they might be interested in — delicious lunches for a buck and breakfasts for 50 cents.

2. ...many older people are not aware of the fact that lunches for seniors are $1, if gotten in churches, synagogues, club houses, etc. The meals are tasty and nutritious. They’re funded by the Department of the Aging!



3. Two friends and I decide every morning what we want for lunch, so then we know which center to go to that day. We have a choice of four in our area in Brooklyn. The food is delicious! Today we had thick chicken cutlets, rice with veggies, mixed salad with dressing, a slice of bread (sealed securely), and a dessert of cut-up watermelon — all for a buck.

4. Many centers also serve breakfast, for 50 cents. Too early for me, but here’s an example: Swiss cheese, oatmeal, cinnamon French toast, syrup, and an orange.




5. All meals (breakfast and lunch) are served with an eight-ounce container of one-percent milk, and fruit, with a great variety of food. Substitutes are always offered. ... there’s scrambled eggs or hard boiled eggs or yogurt or turkey sausage patty, etc.

6. There are also activities — one-day trips, concerts, trips to Long Island shopping centers, bingo games, and on Fridays there’s a disc jockey from 1 to 4 pm, and most of us dance to his fine music, included with our $1 lunch. The prices are very low because it’s all subsidized by the government. The price and the food are great, and the friendliness and harmony amongst diners keeps one smiling!"
8216 Sound off to the Editor 8217 8212 a lively sounding board for the topics of the day 8226 Brooklyn Daily


Made me smile.

Good to see our tax dollars going to help people

 

[Iceweasel]

"Conservatives" are too indoctrinated for my taste.​

You just can't see the indoctrination of the left. In many ways it's far worse.​

 

[September]

"Conservatives" are too indoctrinated for my taste.

​

...as if liberals are not.

I never said they weren't.

I have definitely never felt the desire to identify with either group.
​

 

[September]

"Conservatives" are too indoctrinated for my taste.​

You just can't see the indoctrination of the left. In many ways it's far worse.​

"Left"... "right"...

I would instead rather be a flaming sword that points in all directions.
​

 

[Iceweasel]

I would instead rather be a flaming sword that points in all directions.

The right would say "don't point it at me". The left would say "flaming swords should be outlawed".​

 

[BreezeWood]

Taking care of those who need such is neither conservative nor Liberal....it is simply the kind of thing that good people do.

I found this note in my local paper, and was heartened to find that tax money was used in this manner:

.
tax money was used in this manner ... is neither conservative nor Liberal

really, the Rs are not just so desperate to win the Senate they will say anything, knowingly or not and knowing afterwards exactly what they will be saying as though the past never existed.


R + lying to win = sound judgement.

.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Taking care of those who need such is neither conservative nor Liberal....it is simply the kind of thing that good people do.

I found this note in my local paper, and was heartened to find that tax money was used in this manner:


1. "To the editor,
Are you over the age of 60? If not, but if you know folks who are, here’s a thought they might be interested in — delicious lunches for a buck and breakfasts for 50 cents.

2. ...many older people are not aware of the fact that lunches for seniors are $1, if gotten in churches, synagogues, club houses, etc. The meals are tasty and nutritious. They’re funded by the Department of the Aging!



3. Two friends and I decide every morning what we want for lunch, so then we know which center to go to that day. We have a choice of four in our area in Brooklyn. The food is delicious! Today we had thick chicken cutlets, rice with veggies, mixed salad with dressing, a slice of bread (sealed securely), and a dessert of cut-up watermelon — all for a buck.

4. Many centers also serve breakfast, for 50 cents. Too early for me, but here’s an example: Swiss cheese, oatmeal, cinnamon French toast, syrup, and an orange.




5. All meals (breakfast and lunch) are served with an eight-ounce container of one-percent milk, and fruit, with a great variety of food. Substitutes are always offered. ... there’s scrambled eggs or hard boiled eggs or yogurt or turkey sausage patty, etc.

6. There are also activities — one-day trips, concerts, trips to Long Island shopping centers, bingo games, and on Fridays there’s a disc jockey from 1 to 4 pm, and most of us dance to his fine music, included with our $1 lunch. The prices are very low because it’s all subsidized by the government. The price and the food are great, and the friendliness and harmony amongst diners keeps one smiling!"
8216 Sound off to the Editor 8217 8212 a lively sounding board for the topics of the day 8226 Brooklyn Daily


Made me smile.

Sounds good, being naturally dubious of everythign though my first question is where's the food coming from? Either whoever provides the meals is taking a financial loss selling them so cheaply, or the food quality is so low that it doesn't cost much anyway.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK politicalchick. We're all really proud of you for being able to read one book, (that is if you actually read it instead of just reading about it) even if most of the things said in that book are proven to be nuts. I was exceptionally impressed by the claim in #7. I laughed so hard when I read that, till I almost peed a little. I fear that this kind of thing is a large reason our country is so divided. Fruit cakes like this Brooks guy make outrageous claims about anybody who doesn't agree with those in the fox bubble, and their ditto-heads believe them. If liberals were really as vile and evil as the right wing claims, I would be a right winger too. It may be too late to save your mind from withering to the right wing level, but at least we can take comfort in the speed at which the GOP/TP is collapsing from their own infighting and ignorance.


Charity is a hallmark of conservatism.

1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com[/QUOTE]

 

[Blackrook]

Reading about old people scrounging for $1 lunches and 50 cent breakfasts makes me want to die before I ever get old.

 

[asaratis]

Reading about old people scrounging for $1 lunches and 50 cent breakfasts makes me want to die before I ever get old.

Then you should work hard, live frugally, save your money, make sound investments, and prepare for a comfortable retirement like MILLIONS of others have done. You'd likely have enough to donate to charities along the way.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK politicalchick. We're all really proud of you for being able to read one book, (that is if you actually read it instead of just reading about it) even if most of the things said in that book are proven to be nuts. I was exceptionally impressed by the claim in #7. I laughed so hard when I read that, till I almost peed a little. I fear that this kind of thing is a large reason our country is so divided. Fruit cakes like this Brooks guy make outrageous claims about anybody who doesn't agree with those in the fox bubble, and their ditto-heads believe them. If liberals were really as vile and evil as the right wing claims, I would be a right winger too. It may be too late to save your mind from withering to the right wing level, but at least we can take comfort in the speed at which the GOP/TP is collapsing from their own infighting and ignorance.


Charity is a hallmark of conservatism.

1."'Tis the season for giving—and it turns out that conservatives and like-minded welfare skeptics more than hold their own when it comes to charity. So says Arthur C. Brooks in his new book Who Really Cares?: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.


2. Brooks, a public policy professor at Syracuse University, sums up his own results thusly: Giving is dictated by "strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills--all of these factors determine how likely one is to give."


3. ...those who say they strongly oppose redistribution by government to remedy income inequality give over 10 times more to charity than those who strongly support government intervention, with a difference of $1,627 annually versus $140 to all causes.


4. Brooks finds that households with a conservative at the helm gave an average of 30 percent more money to charity in 2000 than liberal households (a difference of $1,600 to $1,227). The difference isn't explained by income differential—in fact, liberal households make about 6 percent more per year.


5. Poor, rich, and middle class conservatives all gave more than their liberal counterparts. ... "People who do not value freedom and opportunity simply don't value individual solutions to social problems very much. It creates a culture of not giving."


6. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood." Liberals, he says, give less than conservatives because of religion, attitudes about government, structure of families, and earned income.


7. ...young liberals are less likely do nice things for their nearest and dearest, too. Compared with young conservatives, "a lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love."


8. "Tangible evidence suggests that charitable giving makes people prosperous, healthy, and happy. And that on its own is a huge argument to protect institutions of giving in this country, as individuals, in communities, and as a nation. We simply do best, as a nation, when people are free and they freely give."
The Giving Gap - Reason.com

[/QUOTE]




Thanks so much for coming clean about your incontinence.

Your stupidity required no such confession.

 

[rightwinger]

Reading about old people scrounging for $1 lunches and 50 cent breakfasts makes me want to die before I ever get old.

Then you should work hard, live frugally, save your money, make sound investments, and prepare for a comfortable retirement like MILLIONS of others have done. You'd likely have enough to donate to charities along the way.

The problem was that most of our retirees did work hard, live frugally and made sacrifices

Then, when they reached retirement age, they found the bar had moved. The comfortable retirement they assumed would be there was not to be had

 

[mudwhistle]

Taking care of those who need such is neither conservative nor Liberal....it is simply the kind of thing that good people do.

I found this note in my local paper, and was heartened to find that tax money was used in this manner:

.
tax money was used in this manner ... is neither conservative nor Liberal

really, the Rs are not just so desperate to win the Senate they will say anything, knowingly or not and knowing afterwards exactly what they will be saying as though the past never existed.


R + lying to win = sound judgement.

.

Totally ass-backwards to the truth.

Democrats like living in the past and during a campaign they wouldn't know the truth if it went around cutting people's heads off.

 

[asaratis]

Reading about old people scrounging for $1 lunches and 50 cent breakfasts makes me want to die before I ever get old.

Then you should work hard, live frugally, save your money, make sound investments, and prepare for a comfortable retirement like MILLIONS of others have done. You'd likely have enough to donate to charities along the way.

The problem was that most of our retirees did work hard, live frugally and made sacrifices

Then, when they reached retirement age, they found the bar had moved. The comfortable retirement they assumed would be there was not to be had

...and who moved the bar?

I'm not sure about the "most" you claimed, but do agree that the bar has been moved.