This is a key point. “Conservatives” as a group are often painted as uncaring of, or contemptuous of, the poor. In reality, however, this often stems from a fundamental disagreement over which policies actually benefit the poor and which don’t. Pre-reform welfare is one example: it’s a check in the mail every month, but is it actually helping the recipient?
I could be wrong but I believe most Americans are close to center, a little right or a little left. I call myself conservative yet I am liberal in healthcare and education, I am liberal in same sex marriage. I am conservative with welfare believing it is not sustainable if we don’t invest in getting people back to work and not making it too easy for them not to work. Like most other conservatives I know I believe in keeping the business here in my state or country and giving them an incentive to do so.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) gave all of $600 last year (he is a billionaire). VP Joe Biden did less-he is credited with $370 in charitable donations.
My church has separate donation categories for ‘upkeep and expenses’ and specific causes. The basket is passed twice and the second collection varies weekly. It has a little sign on the basket saying what it is for.
In addition there are associated charities such as the food pantry, the homeless shelter, etc. These are also separately funded.
I liked the post about how conservative volunteers are more realistic and stick with it longer. It is more complex than that though. The Occupy movement, mostly fueled by the young and idealistic, did and does a great deal of good work in an alternative-to-the-System way. Energy, originality, and goodwill in abundance there.
I also see that in my church there is a lot of quiet patient charity work done without any fanfare, and this is mostly accomplished by older women, probably mostly conservative but certainly not all. Visiting the homebound and people in jail, helping immigrants, feeding and sheltering the homeless, etc. This kind of work lacks glamour and can be dispiriting – a sense of moral and religious duty can keep you going through the hard parts.
IMHO, a “liberal” mindset of large-scale community projects beneficial to the less fortunate, and a “conservative” mindset of personal charity are both needed and are complementary.
The check is not intended to help the recipient do anything except keep their family off of the street in times of dire need.
After the economy crashed, I was unemployed for two years, and not for lack of looking for work. I filled out hundreds of applications and made countless phone calls. I managed to secure about six interviews out of all of that searching, and in every case, there were 10 times as many applicants as positions to be filled.
I eventually found work and was rapidly promoted to management. I am not a leech on society.
During my unemployment period, I looked for work nonstop and did not accept a welfare check. At least, at first. I lived on what savings I had for over a year before accepting help, reluctantly. And the help I received was the unemployment insurance** I was entitled to** (because I paid for it out of my paycheck every week) and the company I used to work for (Wal-Mart) did not follow their own company standards with regards to terminating employment.
So during that two year stretch, the welfare I was given was precisely the sum of the insurance I paid into the system since working since I was 15. And that got me 6 months of paychecks.
Since I’ve never accepted government assistance before (and really, this “assistance” is the assistance I provided myself since unemployment insurance comes out of payroll) and the entire country was in the shitter, and there weren’t any jobs that didn’t also require relocating across the country, I do believe in the deepest philosophical sense that I was entitled to some help.
But what did I find, the very same “fiscal conservatives” who advocated wars of choice put on credit cards and decades worth of tax giveaways to the richest of the rich, who broke the budget to begin with, suddenly finding their moral scruples regarding the budget.
Certain senators throwing hissy fits about extending unemployment insurance benefits to people who, for lack of such benefits, will lose their place of residence, will not be able to eat. There are already harsh limits to benefits in our system, and they were about to be cut off in the worst recession any of us can remember, over abstract fiscal principles that only appear when the poor need a break.
As such, elected conservatives, as a group, don’t give a shit about the poor. And they are full of vile contempt for them. You can hear it when they talk. You can REALLY hear it when they talk amongst themselves and they think no one is listening.
And they can collectively kiss my ass.
It’s time to jack up the tax rates. The rich “job creators” were also the idiots who gambled away people’s pensions, futures, and created ponzi schemes with simple mortgage agreements, who crashed the economy and DESTROYED jobs.
And lower taxes didn’t fix it. In fact, the taxes were lowered before the economy crashed. It didn’t stop the crash. Didn’t make the recovery happen faster.
You know what would have made the country recover faster?
Ensuring that those who were out of work could still pay rent and buy groceries in a time of record unemployment. Because that kind of “stimulus” goes right back into the economy. The recipient buys groceries, gasoline, and pays rent. It does not go into a savings account where it sits doing nothing. It does not go out and buy more stock in failed companies. It does not create the next big economy-ruining ponzi scheme with a group of rich buddies.
The moment hundreds of thousands of people who had jobs can no longer pay rent is the moment lots of property owners see their properties earning less money. The moment hundreds of thousands of people can’t spend money on anything but bread and peanut butter is the moment grocery stores see their bottom lines impacted. The moment you have massive amounts of unemployment and people desperate for work is the moment you see wages deflate due to demand. Everyone in our society suffers. And for what?
To cut off the unemployed, and teach them a lesson, those evil money-grubbers who want so much that they do not deserve, the ability to not have to sleep on a park bench every night and beg people for change and food for a living?
All to save so much money from the budget. That’s where we need to make the cuts first. We couldn’t, say, suspend funding for some of our more frivolous giveaways to pharmaceutical companies, oil industries, corn producers? We couldn’t, perhaps, let temporary tax cuts expire for those who were so rich they didn’t need any help to begin with? We couldn’t, perhaps, decide not to engage in decades-long wars that cost us way more in lives and treasure than any terrorist attack could possibly hope to achieve?
Any of those things would save a lot more money than we might spend keeping John the former fry cook from being hungry. And the moment the economy recovers, he’s going to want an actual paycheck, not 400 bucks a month. Because he’s got bills to pay.
Conservative generosity amounts to giving to causes that directly benefit themselves. Their own churches. Their own political action groups. And occasionally, perhaps, the odd donation here and there to a bona fide charity.
Liberal generosity accounts for ensuring that grandma has the medication that keeps her alive. Even if it means we all pay into a system that allows for such a thing. It accounts for ensuring that she has a roof over her head after working for 55 years of her life. It accounts for making sure that people who lost their homes, pensions, insurance, and a lifetime of savings due to their former corporate overlords pissing away their futures (and escaping on a golden parachute) actually can continue to feed, educate, clothe, and provide for their kids.
It means ensuring there is a safety net. It means making payments into such a charity every single day that we go to work, not when we’re “feeling generous”. it means making charity mandatory, and thankless. Not for those odd moments when we want to feel like a big shot for giving money to a worthy cause, and expecting to be treated like a saint for it.
It means generosity every single day. For our entire lives. To ensure that people we never meet, and who will never thank us, continue to be able to eat and get medication that they need.
That’s liberal generosity. And we pay into it ourselves, and expect others to do the same. it’s called duty to your country. It’s called patriotism. It’s called having a conscience.
Those who subscribe to a conservative viewpoint often find this kind of duty to your fellow man distasteful, want to abolish it, and promise to replace it with a completely voluntary system where you give what you wish, whenever you want.
That’s a great idea. Let’s make sure grandma gets her medication only if the rich asshole in the mansion who orders pizza all the time and never tips the driver is going to decide to feel generous today. Oh, and let’s also make sure that these charitable contributions he may or may not make come with a bible and an invite to come to a church, because after all, it’s only charity if we can also teach about Christ at the same time.
Liberal versus conservative generosity. One is real, one is a duty that we ourselves perform and expect everyone else to perform, for no personal gain, and the other is a laughable facade, a whimsical fancy done purely for the purpose of feeling less like a monster for ruining people’s lives on Wall Street, and even then, only if I feel like it.
Like the difference between a guaranteed salary and a tipping system. One is a fair and equitable form of payment, and the other is considered a donation and I’m supposed to thank you for being generous enough to pay me for my time when you hired me to do a task. The entitlement society does exist. It exists at the top. The rich feel they are entitled to whatever tax breaks they can get, regardless of the state of the country, and they also feel entitled to fire whoever they please without consequence and not have to bother with the fallout of millions of unemployed people. And making sure they can eat sure is a real drag, could we possibly stop all such payments? It’s breaking the budget you know. Thanks very much.
nm
Would you rather people donate to charities or enact social programs that helps those in poverty?
What it doesn’t do, if you’re a conservative, is Build Character. Character means taking whatever work is offered you at whatever wage the employer deigns to give. You don’t question whether it’s too low to feed your family; you don’t complain that he wants more hours for less money; you don’t stand up to him if he chooses to take advantage of you. Conservatives’ idea of Character means you do what the hell you’re told by your betters. Asking for fairness is going against a real world that is by nature unfair. It’s all on your back. Deal, and don’t ask how.
A society where a reality of power and inequity is enforced on people, even if it means prolonged depression, is far to be preferred to a society workers don’t learn this kind of Character, even if that society prospers broadly. The reason goes far back in religious and moral precepts, farther back than most conservatives would ever question. God rewards the fortunate because they are moral, and it follows that whoever is more fortunate is more moral. Bring in a morality independent of the goods of this world as God’s reward, and who is to tell who is moral and who is not?
I find the very question to be misguided. The underlying assumption is that it is meaningful to rank people according to hw much they donate to charity and some other characteristic (political affiliation, race, profession, whatever).
I disagree strongly. Charity is freely given and should be recognized with grace, whether one is receiving or witnessing. Some faiths and philosophies may impose or deduce an obligation for charity in one form or another. If believers of those credes wish to measure themselves against the standard set, then that should be a matter between they and their clergy/advisor/mentor/etc.
Seeking to measure someone e;se’s charitable acts in order to imply they are either insufficent and evidence of hypocrisy or extravagant and thus proof against charges of heartlessness or greed is missing the point by a wide, wide margin.
Not to mention uncharitable.
I don’t know of one single conservative who does not believe in safety nets for those who really deserve it. As it stands now we don’t have enough money for the safety nets because too many that don’t deserve it are using up the funds. Life is tough, we have to get up in the morning and go to work, we have to stay fit enough to handle our jobs. When things are beyond our control a wealthy counrty such as ours should have safety nets.
Who are these non-deserving people, exactly?
The people that buy steaks, lobster, and Mt. Dew with food stamps.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/receipt.asp
I think too the question “Are Liberals more generous to the poor” is different than “Are Liberals more genorous”. Churches are certainly charities, but I imagine giving to churches is more prevalant among Conservatives, and giving to the church isn’t the same as giving to the poor.
Well that particular example is a case of fraud. He used his girlfriend’s card and resold the items, which is illegal. I’m pretty sure that liberals are fine with eliminating fraud in the system.
So, who are these non-deserving people, exactly?
You make several interesting points. I do want to address the fact that you yourself were collecting unemployment but you eventually received welfare benefits that you felt you were entitled to since you paid into it. I would agree with you 100% Unfortunately there are numerous people in this country collecting welfare benefits who NEVER PAID INTO IT! I used to work as a caseworker for the welfare office so I speak with some authority here. While the stereotype of the “welfare queen with 10 kids by 10 different fathers” is what I would call an extreme example, the fact is that many of the people that I dealt with simply found having children with men that they were not married to nor would even be able to pay child support was simply a way of life for them. I do believe in a safety net (as many conservatives do) however the safety net should not be a “way of life” for those who have never paid into it. The sad reality is that many unwed mothers didn’t give one thought to the guy staying with them or supporting their child. Unwed mothers is a topic for another thread, but my point here is that people that don’t produce anything EXCEPT more children that they are UNABLE TO TAKE CARE OF take a toll on those such as yourself who ended up unemployed (like so many others) and did your best to change that situation rather than have MORE CHILDREN that they could not care for by men who WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OR WOULD NOT WANT TO CARE for their children.
There are also other types of charitable donations that don’t qualify as giving to the poor – the arts, for example, or educational institutions. Some wealthy people give a large percentage of their money to charity by donating to the symphony, the ballet, the opera, their prep school and their Ivy League university. All qualified charitable donations, but not exactly going to the poor.
I don’t agree with the premise that the amount of money given in charitable donations is a valid metric by which to measure a person’s generosity.
What metric would you propose?
I wouldn’t propose any. “Generosity” is an intangible concept; it can’t be measured.
Then, is there no meaningful way at all to debate the OP?