reply to post by honested3
I had to give you a star for your post. I like getting in early on a good thing, and I expect you'll have a bright career here. Good post. I'm
glad you're disagreeing.
I like to follow the money first when it comes to anything regarding politics and "philanthropy".
That's a good point and I wondered
about it, so I took a quick look. A charitable study group looked at the percentage given in the states which voted for McCain, versus those which
voted for Obama. I know that means it's old information, and one study isn't conclusive, but I found it interesting.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy's study released this week found the eight states with residents who gave the highest percentage of their income to
charity in 2008 also voted that year for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. And the seven states in which residents donated the lowest
percentage of their income that year voted for President Obama, based on 2008 IRS information.
The distribution of income (or wealth, they are different) is always a little touchy. I understand that Liberals look for a "fair" or equal
distribution. I think the Conservative concern is how that goal is to be reached.
As an example, I would much rather give $50 to our local St. Vincent de Paul's food shelf, than have $50 taken from me for the food stamp program. I
know some of the people who work at the food shelf, I understand their system and how the money is used. The staff draws no salary. When I'm short,
they let me come in and take some food. The form you fill out is one page, and you can get food the same day.
There is no way to compare that with food stamps. The program is demeaning, wasteful, expensive, and anything else a government program is cursed as.
Further, I have no choice. They take my tax money whether I can afford it or not. I don't know where the money is going. I have no sense that I
have helped anybody. I think conservatives like to give
money, but not to have it taken by Washington.
Whatever either party wants, the result will be that some will have a lot more than others. For Liberals, it is the "moral" businessman, or the
"Bread and Circuses" entertainment industry. I think that because no one is upset at the multi-millions made by Al Gore for talking, the "Green"
industry for taking subsidies, or the singers for, well, singing.
The Koch Brothers, on the other hand . . . Or the guy that runs Chick-fil-A, or Walmart, they should be condemned.
I don't want all
of the money to go to those that work the hardest, but if everyone gets a roughly equal amount, how do we reward those who do
take chances and sweat out 60-80 hour weeks?
Honestly this sounds more like the Republican man trying to justify his guilt.
Maybe you're right. I don't know, but it's certainly
On a side note, owning a Prius is not a guilt thing, its both an economical thing as well a being good to the earth thing.
I think you
probably right there. I have no way of knowing about guilt, it may be a factor or not. But the economical side confuses me a little. If
Conservatives love money, and the Prius can be shown to save them money, you'd think they'd be all over it. I don't have the numbers, but I
suspect they're not swarming the show rooms.
And I absolutely agree that taking care of the earth is important and must be a factor. I think the difference between the two groups is the question
of how large a factor it should be. Balancing that one is difficult, but I keep hearing stories about the EPA going overboard. Maybe the balance has
to be readdressed.
Great post. Thoughtful, serious, and important. Good work.