Why are you conjuring up so many negative images? The most parsimonious answer is that he simply thinks the government shouldn’t force us to do things that we are perfectly capable of doing ourselves.
Re-write your example substituting “feed your children” with “homeless shelter”, and you make the argument that in a country where children are all fed via government action, a person who wanted people to be able to feed their children would be acting like a big shot.
Problem is, I know myself well enough to know that I’d use a far lower fraction of my income on charity than the amount I pay today in taxes which I others benefit from. Even if I sincerely believe what’s the right thing to do in a society. I am that short-sighted and selfish.
By taking a sizable chunk of my - and others’ - income, the government is able to provide a social safety net for people less fortunate than myself, and those people won’t have to rely on rich people’s need to feel superior. Hell, I might even benefit from that safety net myself the day I’m rushed into the ER with a difficult and expensive diagnosis. And my employer will probably have a better chance to survive since even poor bright kids can afford a proper education through public college funding and student loans and contribute to society by getting a job at my place and doing well for my employer.
But but… That’s socialist! And therefore by definition, evil.
And Freedom is good. Because it is free. And if you are in favor of socialism, you are therefore against freedom. And you are evil.
That’s about all you need to know about some folks reasoning.
I don’t know about that. There’s another thread discussing shoes, and how people are willing to spend upwards of $500 on Ebay for a pair of runners because they have some guy’s name on it. I think “It’s my money and I don’t wanna!” might be more accurate. Not necessarily better, but more accurate.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you on that. Opinions about the proper role of government, IMO, tend to form to accommodate other attitudes one already holds. They make for much pithier sound bites than unvarnished selfishness.
What I was trying to get at is that in our hypothetical country where the homeless always have access to shelter and children never go hungry (neither of which is true of any real country of appreciable size), you can’t say, “Look how generous I am, I take care of the homeless.” any more than you can say, “Look how generous I am, I take care of my children.”. It would also be strange to say, “Look at what a generous country we are, we take care of our homeless.” or, “Look at what a generous country we are, we make sure all of our children are fed.”. It doesn’t matter whether either need is met by charity or social spending; it’s not going above and beyond their minimum standards of human decency. If someone from this country were to meet a foreigner who boasts about how generous he is for donating to homeless shelters, they’d probably smirk. If the foreigner were to insist that he’s more generous than the locals because of these donations, he’d sound a bit silly. He may be going above and beyond his own culture’s baseline of decency, but it’s a relatively low baseline.
And you need the Big Daddy Government to tell you what to do, you shorted-sighted and selfish child.
The thing is, he has the freedom to vote for those who would use his tax dollars to help those less fortunate. Why do you want to take away his freedom?
And which is the cause, and which the effect?
Personal insults aren’t allowed in this forum. I’m giving you a warning for this.
“I am that short-sighted and selfish.” - 2square4u
I think it’s even worse than that. I think the Random American is secretly gay, a self-loathing fundamentalist. So not only does he look to destroy gay rights, he’s a hypocrite. On top of that, I suspect he probably molests puppies.
The Random Foreign guy is also probably donating body organs to strangers in need–hell, even to strangers not in need, just in case. Additionally, he works at a shelter for molested puppies. And none of this is captured in the results.
Yep, I too have serious concerns with this survey.
Funny. I don’t see any references in his post to needing a “Big Daddy” or to being “a child.” Using another poster’s self-deprecating words against him might be acceptable in some contexts, but couching those words in a way that makes them obviously insulting is clearly over the line.
If you have any further comments on your behavior or the Warning, please take them to ATMB and out of this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Which, by the way, is exactly what I try to do.
I would like to propose an extended metric for a people’s generosity: The fraction of their income used for helping others, including not only direct charity, but also tax dollars going to foreign aid, social services etc. Accomplished not only by how they spend their disposable income, but also by how they vote to get the necessary tax regime to provide help for others.
Of course. Because forced charity is the best kind.
Matthew Ch 6, International Standard Version
Are you offering up the Christian Bible as an objectively true source to determine appropriate behavior?
No, I’m saying it’s wrong to thump your chest and boast about how wonderfully generous you are.
Is it? The only proof you’ve offered is a quote from the Christian Bible. Many of us here are not Christians.
And it’s not clear that the OP is boasting. This is a debate.
I’ll also note that your Christian Bible tells you not to cast stones. 
Forced? My “charitable” tax money are a consequence of my - and others’ - free and voluntary votes for the system we have. Nobody’s forcing me to vote for the system we have.
Besides, I too find the “we’re the most generous folks in tha wooorld” OP slightly nauseating. And that even without any biblical references.
That’s how taxes are collected - by force. Try not paying them.