Comments on: Philanthropy expert: Conservatives are more generous

By: The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 08:02:58 +0000

Those Who Favor Income Redistribution Are Less Happy and Less Generous.–

Last fall and winter, I circulated a paper on the relationship of people’s views on income redistribution and capitalism to traditional racism and to intol…

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 05:11:25 +0000

I can’t beleive that I put that in there, I must have been so darn slant eyed tired.

It was supposed to say Doesn’t support Arthur C. Brooks.

Snooze a fella looses.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 03:29:13 +0000

This is interesting what Websters Dictionary says about the word “Stingy”

1 : not generous or liberal

Even Websters Dictionary supports what Arthur C. Brooks found out.

By: The Political Pit Bull

The Political Pit Bull — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:59:56 +0000

I Really Don’t Want To Gloat About This But…

…how can I not? Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in…

By: Marshall Art

Marshall Art — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:51:17 +0000

“Though she and her husband make more than $125,000 a year combined, she loves to say that people like them just don’t have a chance in “Bush’s America!!”

Boy. I’d love for my household to have no chance like that.

By: benning

benning — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:13:05 +0000

Steve is right! They care, thus we don’t. Or not enough. I suppose we assuage our uncaring guilt by giving.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:03:11 +0000

Friday Evening Links

Good memorial for Milton Friedman, at NY Sun – good choice of pieces. (h/t, Powerline)Who walks the walk? Conservatives care more about other people. A new book, via Sister Toldjah"The little one has a big mouth." The Dixie Chicks sing I will ne

By: Blogs of War » Conservatives Give More to Charity

Blogs of War » Conservatives Give More to Charity — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:04:03 +0000

[...] Sista Toldjah: Wha??? You mean we’re not uncharitable greedmongers afterall? [...]

By: Baklava

Baklava — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:47:57 +0000

They care about attacking and accusing others of not caring.

By: Steve Skubinna

Steve Skubinna — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:43:33 +0000

But liberals care more than we do! Therefore they are morally far superior.

By: arcman

arcman — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:12:43 +0000

This is not surprising considering many conservatives attend church regularly, and those of us who don’t, believe in the power of charity. The left, think that the government should be a nanny, so they feel like they contribute through their tax money.

By: Lorica

Lorica — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 18:20:37 +0000

I’m sorry, I always like to give Eisenhowswer credit for beginning poverty assistance. It wasn’t until LBJ was searching for a “legacy” that he fell upon the war on poverty. Then went to the Republcans to help him expand poverty assistance. If we only knew then, what we know now. So basically the Dem screwed up what was a perfectly good program. Maybe. – Lorica

The Department of Health and Human Services was created in 1953, under President Dwight Eisenhowser. This department touches the lives of more Americans than any other federal agency, serving people as infants to elderly citizens. The Department of Health and Human Services advises the President on health, welfare, and income security plans, policies, and programs of the federal government.

LINK

He expanded its programs and rolled them into a new cabinet level agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, while extending benefits to an additional 10 million more workers.

LINK

By: Baklava

Baklava — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:05:23 +0000

I'm sorry Jim, there were many tax rates in the 60's (which have been subsequently collapsed down to a lot less tax brackets) but the top marginal rate was 91% and Kennedy helped bring that down to 70% to help spur the economy back then. The funny thing about the war on poverty is we've spent 4 trillion dollars for the poor since then and it won't be won. We've moved from 14.7% poverty rate in 1966 to a 13.3% poverty rate in 1997 (5th year of Clinton) to a 12.6% poverty rate in 2005 (5th year of Bush). Trends of poverty are interesting:

In the past, the poverty rate and number of people in poverty have gone up during and slightly after a recession.

Interesting table Poverty level for 2005 (5th year of Bush) is $15,577 for a family of 3 and $26,683 for a family of 6 Poverty level for 1997 (5th year of Clinton) is $12,802 for a family of 3 and $21,886 for a family of 6

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:04:22 +0000

I’m judging by purely anecdotal evidence, but this doesn’t surprise me. I know (and work with) a lot of liberals. Oddly enough, the liberal guys I work with are all the sort of guys who will order a steak sandwich that costs $5.75 and want their change back on the $6.00. They’ve never heard of tax and tip for the delivery guy. We have one guy — no joke — who will collect money for pizza and try to pocket the tip money for himself. Ridiculous. We actually have to remind him that we’re handing him extra money to give to the delivery guy!

A good friend of mine (who is, unfortunately, one of the most liberal people I know) is also frugal to a fault. Though she and her husband (they don’t have kids) make more than $125,000 a year combined (they’re not private about salaries), she loves to say that people like them just don’t have a chance in “Bush’s America!!”

From what I can gather, the liberal motto seems to be: The rest of you should give more!!!

By: Jim M

Jim M — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:34:31 +0000

Lorica, The war on poverty started in the 60s with LBJ up until that point you actually had to work to pay the rent and for the food you consumed. Income tax rates before the war on poverty was around 2 to 5% that is one reason it only took one income for the family. Now depending on your income (Tax Bracket) it takes two working for the same income (As pre war on poverty) because one income goes to just pay the taxes.