I wouldn’t know, I’m not a Republican. I don’t think it takes a lot of courage to continue to vote for spending someone else’s money, where there is no personal or professional consequence to being wrong. The real courage is in recognizing a finite ability to spend and having the guts to prioritize what is most important. It would seem to me that those that sacrifice for our country should be at the top of the list.
I always love how people on the left frame these issues as if they hold the moral high ground. As if they would ever personally make a substantial personal financial sacrifice to support these programs, they simply militate on behalf of them.
One of the consistent findings is that Americans overall tend to be very charitable, particularly as wealth and income increases. Republicans tend to be more generous than Democrats with their time and money. The fact that the parties may disagree regarding the mechanism by which to deliver that charity, is not an indication of generosity or lack thereof.
It’s not a question of greater virtue its a recognition of the various forms in which the giving occurs. Societies that tend to tax more heavily tend to see their citizens give less privately. We see this in the US vs other nations. Domestically, we see something similar. Liberals in higher taxed areas likely view govt as the mechanism by which to distribute charity and conservatives tend to want less govt involvement and then give more out of what they keep.
It intuitively makes sense. There are several papers and studies on the issue that look at giving based on ideological bend. I don’t feel the urge to go dig them out. I don’t know of any conservative that views themselves as the more virtuous. There is simply a recognition of tradeoffs. In this case, individuals that tend to keep or expect to keep more of their wealth and income, tend to give more privately. The virtuous argument seems to be an angle of attack mostly used on the left. It’s meant to thwart discussions about the effectiveness of spending initiatives and simply focus on intent.
It’s incredibly effective. Only a cold hearted capitalist would oppose increased spending on homelessness, poverty, medical care and so on and so on.
That aside, I know people that are as liberal and progressive as they come that are incredibly generous with their time and money and as much if not more so than those I know on the other end of the political spectrum. Generosity is not owned by one side.
Yang and Liu did an analysis of 31 studies and found a statistically significant effect. They write “Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level, but the relationship between political ideology and charitable giving varies under different scenarios.”
you could do a quick google search for research on charitable giving and ideological leanings. I might start there before drawing any conclusions. Let me know what you find.
I prefer knowledge and experience over Google and personal prejudice.
After I had absurd good luck as a professional systems engineer in complex systems analysis, investing my earnings idiotically but fortuitously, I did large scale intensive fundraising for housing for “homeless” (actually overwhelmingly thrown-away) homosexual kids, for my local church, the YMCA, HIV treatment centers, and hospice care for people dying of AIDS. My personal experience taught me the penetrating wisdom of this:
he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. **2 **He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3 “Truly I tell you,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. **4 **All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
I had (sometimes strained by differences of opinion on sexual issues) good Salvation Army friends, and one of them had me stand in with her at Christmas tide in an expensive Beverly Hills location ringing the bell by the copper kettle, and watching the flow of generosity from employees catching a bus and scoffing niggardliness from the fur coat set.
You may be right in your opinion, as the human wallet is murkier even than the soul, but I urge you to more deeply consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
I was a pretty, small boned, muscular surfer boy, and was extremely successful in nailing wealthy Republican closeted regulars at closeted GOPster bars for quiet “off the book” donations to the Gay and Lesbian Community Service Center, HIV orgs, and other ‘colored’ organizations.
Who gives how much and why is and long has been a vexed topic, but I doubt your prejudiced ignorance more than mine.
I have no idea why you’ve chosen to go off track with the discussion, as it completely misses my point. I would refer to Dr Bob’s post if you need evidence. I appreciate the lengthy biography and the insight into Closeted republicans. It further affirms my belief that charity and generosity can come from anywhere and sexual preference is not a determining factor for someone’s political affiliation.
You keep throwing this crap to stop a needed tax hike. It can not be taken seriously. Your church should not be your only medical center or your only way to be fed.
We need higher taxes to incentivize economic growth.
Repeated analyses show this is true but it is entirely due to the difference in religious giving. Conservatives/Republicans give to the church - but the overwhelming percentage of those tithes go to building maintenance, upkeep, utilities, staff, faculty, capital spending (new building, organ, etc), upstream costs (synods, etc.) and relatively little to “benevolence”: food, shelter for indigents, etc.
I have a teensy bit of experience with this: my father was an Elder (Trustee) of our local church. After two years of fights he resigned because the church devoted a measly 4% of tithes to “benevolence” work, the rest went upstream or was spent repaving the parking lot or paying to paint the minister’s house or to the “building fund” which never seemed to have quite enough.
Couple things: first, the “fur coat set” probably gives by check rather than nickels in the kettle (we certainly do), and second, Salvation Army is a religious outfit and on the semi-fringe as well. They do some remarkably good things, but I don’t think they are well represented in the higher economic tiers (at least that’s my impression). I would not expect them to get a round of applause for their military appearance and beggardly approach from the upper crust.
I am reminded of the story of two guys sitting on the street corner in Rome:
Two Jewish men are sitting side-by-side on a busy street. One has a collection hat sitting in front of a large Cross, while the other sits behind a Star of David.
Throughout the day, throngs of passersby walk past. They completely ignore the man behind the Star of David, but they stop to put generous amounts of money into the hat of the man behind the Cross.
Finally, a well-meaning priest walks by, stops, and watches this pattern. Feeling sorry for the man sitting in front of the Star of David, the priest walks over and says: “My poor fellow, don’t you understand? This is a Catholic city! People aren’t going to give you money if you sit there with a Star of David in front of you, especially when you are sitting beside a man who has a Cross. Out of spite alone, they will always give to him instead.”
The man behind the Star of David listens quietly, turns to the man sitting with the Cross, and says: “Moishe, look who’s trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing!”
Your Salvation Army Friends could use some marketing help, methinks.
In order to discourage activities society finds harmful, like alcohol, smoking, tanning, gambling and sugary foods we tax them. I guess we’re now trying to discourage economic growth.
I thought this might be a factor as well. It turns out when you remove that aspect, Right leaning tend to still give more. Although, I don’t know why we need to distinguish between religious and more agnostic giving.
I do as well. Our church which is part of a much larger network raised in excess of $18mil above and beyond regular tithing from congregation members that was solely dedicated to helping young girls escape from the sex slave trade in India and elsewhere to provide housing, education and counseling.
My main point is first to recognize Americans, regardless of political leanings, tend to be more generous. But beyond that, the knee jerk reaction to suggest those on the right that oppose funding of certain programs, is a sign of indifference to those social concerns is untrue. It may be a belief that generosity should be dispensed differently or more effectively from the giver directly to the cause in need.
Capital is nothing more than saved money above one’s owns spending needs from one’s effort. When I deploy those exces funds, I’m putting those monies to work lending to or investing in other individuals or businesses that provide me a rate of return for the risk I am bearing.
My suggestion is you do the same, live below your means and invest the difference. Herein ends the lesson. Capital doesn’t magically appear. It is the toil of someone else that manages to adhere to the rules of deferred gratification.
I did not say tax the product. I said tax the corporate profits. This is simple. Pay the taxman or reinvest, factories, labor incentives and pay, and R&D.
Opportunity cost is simply the return of a competing opportunity or the risk free alternative. Capital looks for nothing. Investors deploy capital in the highest yielding opportunity that suits their risk and return objectives.