I have noticed recently that if you're against the government intervening in every possible fashion, then you're completely against anyone getting help, according to a liberal. Not every liberal. There are those that have that compassion like the rest of us to help others but are understanding that holding people accountable is the best way. Unless of course they're disabled in any way or cannot provide for themselves. The difference between these two ideologies has battled since Plato and Aristotle. No wonder why there's such controversy.
Why do conservatives donate more of their money, blood and volunteer, when liberals want government to solve such social issues? (Source 1.) Even this guy makes a good argument for both sides (Source 2)
Even then, there is heavy criticism that the study was wrong to begin with. For example, asking someone if they're Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Middle of the Road, Moderately Liberal, Liberal or Very Liberal could have a very different meaning.
Read that again. A very different meaning. Hence why the study wasn't so good in the first place. As it turns out, liberals donate to secular non-profits and conservatives donate to religious-based organizations. Even then, there are far less liberals than conservatives. Conservatives a greater in number, giving them the win of donations (because of greater numbers).
I am considered middle of the road when it comes to my politics but for those that don't even care to know the rest of what I believe in, they assume I'm "very conservative" which is not true.
Nor am I "very liberal."
Update November 2nd:
This still surprises me every time I see that ridiculous bumper sticker "Republican Healthcare Plan: Don't Get Sick" couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the GOP and a better half of the country agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but also agree (with the other half) that there needs to be a social safety net. Not a permanent safety (unless disabled, etc;) but a temporary fix. Instead, what systems were in place are no longer actually helping people in the manner that was intended.
1. http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295
2. http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf
Why do conservatives donate more of their money, blood and volunteer, when liberals want government to solve such social issues? (Source 1.) Even this guy makes a good argument for both sides (Source 2)
Even then, there is heavy criticism that the study was wrong to begin with. For example, asking someone if they're Very Conservative, Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Middle of the Road, Moderately Liberal, Liberal or Very Liberal could have a very different meaning.
Read that again. A very different meaning. Hence why the study wasn't so good in the first place. As it turns out, liberals donate to secular non-profits and conservatives donate to religious-based organizations. Even then, there are far less liberals than conservatives. Conservatives a greater in number, giving them the win of donations (because of greater numbers).
I am considered middle of the road when it comes to my politics but for those that don't even care to know the rest of what I believe in, they assume I'm "very conservative" which is not true.
Nor am I "very liberal."
Update November 2nd:
This still surprises me every time I see that ridiculous bumper sticker "Republican Healthcare Plan: Don't Get Sick" couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the GOP and a better half of the country agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but also agree (with the other half) that there needs to be a social safety net. Not a permanent safety (unless disabled, etc;) but a temporary fix. Instead, what systems were in place are no longer actually helping people in the manner that was intended.
1. http://www.newsmax.com/ThomasSowell/Conservatives-Donate-Liberals-compassion/2012/09/10/id/451295
2. http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/Spr07BRGrinols.pdf
I've heard that for every 1 job currently available in this dismal economy that there are 3 applicants. If this wasn't the case, I could swallow the "safety nets are a disincentive after a certain point" argument. But that argument only works so long as there are jobs that these people COULD be working. If there aren't, then what alternative is there for them besides the dole? Homelessness? I get the idea of reducing safety nets in a robust economy when there ARE enough jobs for everybody--that makes sense. But to cut off lifelines for people when they CAN'T work even if they wanted do doesn't seem as logical, as this congress seems bent on doing.
ReplyDeleteA word about charity. While I am a fan of charity myself, it is not a solution. In fact, charity is just a privatized safety net. Everything you can say about welfare you could say about a soup kitchen. There's no logical reason why people couldn't become dependent upon charity--at some point you're just swapping out a public program for a private one, but the problem remains. Charity also represents a redistribution of wealth. I hear a lot of people bemoan that government redistribution of wealth doesn't solve any problems. Well, how many homeless shelters are there? How many soup kitchens? How many free clinics? How many people have volunteered time, sweat, and money to various problems across this country? And doesn't hunger still exist? Homelessness? Aren't these problems reaching epidemic proportions? So couldn't one say that a private redistribution of wealth is just as ineffective as a government redistribution?
Charity--like welfare, food stamps, etc--is only a temporary fix at best. Most charity doesn't fix the real problem. I'm glad you donated warm clothing to the homeless--but that didn't solve their underlying problem. I'm glad you volunteered at the soup kitchen--but they'll just be hungry again and still without the money to buy food. It's the old "teach a man to fish..." lesson. Obviously we need safety nets--but simply gutting them won't solve any problems.
Something else interesting is that the unemployment rate does not represent those not on unemployment. The reason why that there is a lack of available jobs is for several reasons. For one, were talking about people here (which is why I love economics!): people hire people, right? Be it corporation, public, etc. There are not jobs available because people are uncertain as to what lies ahead for the future. We take risks for everything, right? Businesses are having trouble affording to hire people.... it may because they are simply over-taxed? Maybe? Or it could be that the people applying want to be paid higher and they can't afford an educated and debt ridden graduate? Which is a whole problem of itself. (Note: colleges are the ones charging the tuition, not the government)
ReplyDeleteAs for charity and government benefits. They're great. Not bashing them. In a poor economy, we can see more people applying to be on them, yes. They need them.
Part of the problem is bigger than we think. There is a lack of entrepreneurship in this country. With that, everyone is reliant upon someone else to hire them instead of the other way around.....
You are right about the underlying problems, obviously. Gutting them may not be answer either. However, implying that we need more is probably even worse. Think of culture, too. After the fall of communism, Russia is still trying to establish a sound and robust economy. They can easily do it.....but after years of dependency.....