Actually, most statistics show that conservatives donate to charity at a much higher rate than liberals. The difference being, of course, that such contributions are voluntary, where the "good" liberals want to do comes not from voluntary action, but via governmental fiat. I suppose this amounts to "generosity" if you consider it being generous to spend someone else's money.As you can see from the right winger replies, they have no intention of ever wanting to do anything that would actually help America & those that are unemployed or poor.
They are a disgusting bunch.....
Its Greed to define it as purely YOUR OWN MONEY as opposed to wealth that you cooperatively generated in the context of the society: As Ben Franklin put it:Hint 888888 - it's not "greed" to covet your OWN money...
Not all that much. And the majority of that is their donations to their church. Which counts fully as a "charitable deduction" even though only 6% of it it goes towards actualy "charitable work" - the rest on average going to "paying the dues of the club" - ie maintaining the clubhouse, paying the staff, raising membership.Actually, most statistics show that conservatives donate to charity at a much higher rate than liberals.
ALL forms of government are forms of social engineering. Our system of government was designed to maximize the benefits of General Welfare ... that includes freedom but also other things.Our system of government was designed to allow individuals to be free, within a framework of laws and rules. It's system of government, not a system of social engineering.
Um how so? You actually underscored my point.That would come as a suprise to the Second Dynasty societies of Egypt, who were focussed on their "living gods," a larger surprise to the societies in Medieval France who were focussed on serving their feudal masters and their divine-right kings, and a surprise amounting to shock for serfs living in 1870s Ivanov Russia.Our system of government is designed to support the goals of our society. ALL societies throughtout history have been primarily focussed on wealth redistribution.
No it is the very goal of society - ALL society. Because societies are formed to accomplish JOINTLY what cannot be accomplished individually. That means there is net increased wealth and that wealth necessarily has to be distributed. And since humans are different in their capabilities, their contribution to, and benefit from that distribution will NECESSARILY be assymetrical. Thus the GOAL of society is redistributionof wealth.Societies do many things, Degs. Wealth redistribution is the result in most of them, but the goal of few,
no. It means that the politics of the rule making and personal decision making are dichotomous. but how you choose to act PERSONALLY does not necessarily reflect your beliefs about the social contract and society's goals. MADD has been quite successful in its campaign against drinking and driving simply by focussing America's societal conscience on the disconnect between the action and the impact on society. That many still do so simply reflects a disconnect between pesonal perception and the perception of how one fits and connects to society. Not whether or not the goals of society are not being met. IE its innumeracy, not social theory.In a country such as ours, where the government is largely hands off of individuals, it isn't at all uncommon for the government to do one thing (outlaw marijuana or alcohol) and society to do another (drink alcohol and smoke marijuana all it wants). Attempting to link them is a false construct.
No the "goal" is to REDUCE wealth redistribution - supposedly. IOW rather than allowing laws of capital ownership to be used to extract the generative wealth of labor and transfer it to the paper owner who "creates nothing" (so goes the Marxist theory - not my notion), the wealth created by the worker is retained by the worker. So Marxists would argue that their approach has LESS Wealth transfer than what you argue forAnd the way to achieve that goal is what? To take from the wealthy owners and give ownership to the workersUm no. The ideal government espoused by Marx is a democracy in which workers own the means of production. That's not wealth redistribution.You are making up a strawman arguement that has no basis in fact
No Wealth transfer is nothing more and nothing less than that. It is the allocation of societal wealth based on laws. Particularly when it moves that wealth from those who are creating that wealth to those who are not. Slavery fits that definition. How is free manual labor not wealth redistribution?I'm not certain I agree here. "Wealth redistribution" for the purposes of our discussion has to be more than incidental.Incomplete. Our system of government enforced laws on slavery - which is wealth redistribution, on women and children as chattel which is wealth redistribution, etc. etc. Franklin underscored this as I have cited to you numerous times.
I'm sorry, but that is not the primary reason for most society's existence. Societies come together for many reasons, and the benefits to all that result from residing in a given society are usually incidental to that residence.ALL Societies exist primarily to redistribute wealth. HOW they do so is what the social compact is all about. a 2 person consesnsus society is going to be different than a divine right monarchy than a constitutional democracy than a polytheistic theocracy.
Right - because you have a BELIEF rather than an analytic approach to this.You apparently see a design for wealth redistribution written into the United States' governmental system -- I see no such design, at least none written into the plan describing that design.
So, when you take some of that wealth, where are they going to get it from? Do they keep it under a mattress? Can you tell us how much wealth will be lost through the transfer, and how many jobs that represents?Right now today we could afford to put 5 million people to work at above poverty wage jobs.
Those 5 million jobs would provide for the hiring of another million or so people.
Well since the Fiscal Multiplier for the REAGAN tax cuts to the upper quintile was 0.7. And the average government domestic spending in a HEALTHY economy is 1.5 (and even conservative economists admit that in a struggling economy in recovery the FMs ARE HIGHER) then we can easily conclude that WEALTH WILL BE CREATED...So, when you take some of that wealth, where are they going to get it from? Do they keep it under a mattress? Can you tell us how much wealth will be lost through the transfer, and how many jobs that represents?