Posted on 03/27/2008 11:29:45 AM PDT by rhema
Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "G-d Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too — Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
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.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, 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:
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
ping
Doesn't surprise me in the least. Most libs I know are cheap scoundrels.
That's not a surprise at all.
Don't you realize they only do compassionate things with OTHER PEOPLE's money!
I’m surprised that the blue states give that much. All of the liberals I know give next to nothing.
Makes perfect sense. Liberals have to smear republicans with the “evil greedy” stereotype out of their own guilt for saying that they care about people without demonstrating it. Then to further alleviate their conscience, they demand to take your money and have the government spend it for social causes. Not only does this generate dependency, but it takes away any “moral credit” that the “evil republican” would have had for giving charitably of their own free will. Libs believe that they receive the “moral credit” for spending your money.
Yeah, and invariably, “liberals” will refer to conservatives as “greedy”.
What’s more “greedy”? Wanting to keep what you yourself earned through your talent, ambition, and wise investment?
Or wanting to use the force of government to confiscate other people’s wealth so that you feel good about yourself while not sacrificing anything?
The answer’s obvious, and inarguable.
Man, do I despise libs.
Many libs like to bring up the "Jesus card" or something related to religion and giving.
I always throw it back in their face that advocating socialism counts for NOTHING toward their own personal obligation to help the poor.
My lib relatives are cheapskates and mooches.
Correct! Why? To assauge their own guilt. They are cheap and bitter. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul takes the edge off their anger. A little.
Liberals try to pass themselves off as “compassionate” by voting to have government (read: conservatives) do their charitable bidding for them.
I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see the 1% contributions rate of the NObombas. With liberals, it’s all about someone else’s money.
Bringing this down to a personal level, if I ask myself the question: "Can I count part of my taxes toward my tithe?", the answer is NO!
Even though a big part of my taxes goes toward transferring money to the poor, government transfers do not help the poor. If I give to private charity, or even better through a church, the money distributed is not given out willy-nilly, but has conditions attached. Even if they are implicit rather than explicit. You must listen to a sermon before you get a free meal, that kind of stuff.
In many instances, there is significant mentoring associated with charity.
This mentoring is anathema to the liberals who think that every poor person has a "right" to help. My belief is that accepting charity means you have failed to make you own way in our world, and in addition to money, food, or rent, you need instruction in how to make you own way.
Recall some pizza delivery guy who would, for fun, ask the customer who they were voting for in the upcoming election. He found that conservatives usually tipped, libs usually didn’t.
The left at its core is about “indiscriminateness” -
to attach conditions to help would be to “judge” the behavior or lifestyle of those requesting the help.
No strings, as well, keeps them coming back, forever, dependent on gov’t and the left.
Carolyn
“Who Really Cares?” is an important book.
This probably is that study. Although Will's current column is timely in this season of overheated Democrat campaign rhetoric, the book he references came out at the end of 2006.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.