Talking the Talk But Not the "Walk"

[Adam's Apple]

Brings to mind that old saying that actions speak louder than words. Liberals are el cheapo when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are.

Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists
By George F. Will, Washington Post
March 27, 2008

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

...Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

for full article:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html

 

[Skull Pilot]

the easy answer is that libs believe that we shouls all give to causes via taxes and income redistribution so they see no need to donate to charity

 

[Adam's Apple]

the easy answer is that libs believe that we shouls all give to causes via taxes and income redistribution so they see no need to donate to charity

In other words, they are all for helping the poor/disadvantaged as long as they don't have to pay for it personally. Empty, meaningless words, shameless hypocrisy.

 

[Diuretic]

In other words, they are all for helping the poor/disadvantaged as long as they don't have to pay for it personally. Empty, meaningless words, shameless hypocrisy.

Probably more about efficiency. If you're budgeting for a social welfare programme on a national government basis then you have a fair idea of projected income and expenditure. So you can prepare a budget accordingly and build in incomings and outgoings.

I think it's preferable to do that than to sit around hoping that the "kindness of strangers" will do the job and help out the poor. Don't you?

Your way is really stupid policy. But of course the point of the original post wasn't to discuss policy it was to mewl about "liberals" and how hypocritical they are.... oh, such bad, bad people those "liberals" who won't pay out of their own pockets and want the taxpayer to help out those in need. Oh, how terrible.

Come on you people, start posting some stuff that's got some guts to it rather than this rubbish. This is so easy to debunk I find myself wondering why I bother to exercise my mind on it. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, I'm starting to feel embarrassed. Can you get some help? I mean, get people in here that can mount and sustain an argument?

 

[Adam's Apple]

Believe what you want on this particular topic, Diuretic, but that doesn’t change the fact that Brooks, a registered independent with no political ax to grind one way or the other (independents are known to support both parties with their votes), did the research that produced the results George Will reported in his article. These are facts that are on record. Brooks' research shows that when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are, liberals are el cheapo. They like to talk the talk, but they have no intention of walking the walk if it means they have to dig into their own pockets to do so.

I think it's preferable to do that than to sit around hoping that the "kindness of strangers" will do the job and help out the poor. Don't you?

Based on my personal experience of volunteering in not-for-profits for several years now, I can tell you that this kind of work gets done only through the "kindness of strangers", particularly businesses and individuals. If we had to depend on what little comes our way from the government, we would have to close up shop. It's a fallacy that tax dollars take care of the poor. Tax dollars only make up a pittance when it comes to the time and money that it takes to do this work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To claim the Government is the best source for social programs and for the needy is ignorant. The Government wastes money, they create systems and then justify the programs existance anyway they can.

The overhead is horrible, the amount of the budget that goes for every thing EXCEPT the needy is massive.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Please name one single wealthy and successful developed country on the planet, that doesn't have some sort of public social safety net, as evidence that private charity all by itself works.

thanks.

 

[Paulie]

It's nice to care about the poor and all, and it's nice that our government is nice enough to help out, but where is the money coming from?

We don't have surplusses anymore. We even cut taxes now while not really cutting spending, and during a major war nonetheless.

We print or borrow what we are giving to "the poor", and we're going bankrupt doing so. We're devaluing our own currency to sustain a guns and butter empire.

How does robbing Peter to pay Paul help anyone? Some day, maybe soon, Peter's going to come back around with a vengence wanting his money back.