While They Talk A Good Game

charity begins at home.

thats why Jack and Olivia lived in subsidized housing for so many years.

Doesn't suprise me a bit. I have always looked at the left as the mean people, say a lot do nothing.

Ha. I find it humorous that it took a book to validate this fact. One only needs to look at hypocrites like Celine Dion, Oprah, Bono, Baldwin, Penn etc. These millionaires expect governments to tax the snot out of middle class Canadians and Americans in order to fund they're pet projects. Yet, they seem to have no problem living their luxurious lifestyles while holding more money than their "grandchildren's grandchildren could ever spend" (Garth)

When Bono is down to living off the average wage of a Canadian and he has gotten rid of all his money and assets, then he can come to our Country and try and convince our prime minister to raise our taxes for his causes.

No surprises here, if you've kept on top of reality and aren't afraid of the truth--when it comes to "those scary Christians."

(Coincidentally, my husband and I are just taking a break from one of the most ridiculous anti-Christian films we've had the misfortune to sit through: The Da Vinci Code. What crap, but that's a topic for another time...)

Professors at Queen's University did a study (sorry, others will have to find a link for it) back in the late 1990s, which revealed that by far the majority of charitable givings in Canada, including time and talent (aka volunteer work), come from individuals who regularly attend church, synagogue, or mosque--and this percentage of charitable givings extends to secular charities such as the United Way.

So much for the nasty, niggardly, intolerant, closed (that is, not open) conservative Christians who care not a hoot for their fellow wo/men.

If anyone wants to check out who gives the most charitable givings when international catastrophes happen, like the tsunami two years ago, the same statistics would hold.

And another thing: Those who give generously to charities are, being Canadian, taxed to the max., and very seldom can benefit from tax loopholes.

The head of Red Cross makes 400 g's per year, while the head of the Salvation Army makes 30 g's...enough said.

Certainly those with more income are statistically more likely to provide the larger share of philanthropy. In fact, for all the shortcomings of the U.S., it is the world's largest philanthropist. Ironic, given it also creates the world's largest unnatural catastrophes.

The "left" simply believe that we cannot guarantee or count on the goodwill of the rich as sound fiscal governmental planning. We must allocate funds to the needy and the downtrodden where and when it is deemed appropriate to help.

"Ironic, given it also creates the world's largest unnatural catastrophes."

Not only that, but they cause earthquakes and tsunamis, suppress the electric car, fake the moon landing, hide the bodies of the Roswell aliens, crash airliners into their own buildings, and start wars for oil. Oh, and they're all just Zionist agents trying to take over the world for the NWO run by the Illuminati.

Did I miss anything?

"The 'left' simply believe that we cannot guarantee or count on the goodwill of the rich as sound fiscal governmental planning."

Actually, it seems this research is saying that "the left" prefers to re-allocate OTHER peoples money, instead of giving their own.

Although your excuse is an interesting one. What you're saying is that "the right" has more faith in human "goodness" than "the left" does. Interesting argument. Judging from the way the left demonizes the right, I might even agree with you on that one.

This is only a surprise to secular liberals.

The best part of the story is where it says that Liberals believe more in government funded social programs and thus feel "everyone's taxes" should pay for these programs - but they aren't charitable with their own money. "Someone else should pay for it!"

As it has been said, a liberal is someone who feels a great deal of guilt. He resolves to absolve himself of this guilt by spending your money.

"Certainly those with more income are statistically more likely to provide the larger share of philanthropy."

This statement may be true of philanthropy, but it doesn't hold true for charity. Ironically, the most generous charitable givers, as a perecentage of their income, tend to be those with less money, not more.

It's actually quite astonishing how little many well to do people give to their church, especially as a percentage of their wealth.

Mark Steyn has written several interesting and thought-provoking columns touching on this subject. His view is that the closer the country one lives in is to being a collectivist welfare state, the more that most of it's citizens consider philanthropic efforts to be the State's social welfare responsibility.

Here's an illustrative incident. About three years ago, when the Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindt was chased, screaming her lungs out, around a Swedish mall by a knife-wielding maniac for about 10-15 minutes before the maniac killed her, NOBODY tried to help her or even called the cops! None of the storekeepers, none of the cellphone-carrying shoppers, nobody did a damn thing. They just watched him run her to ground, corner her and butcher her.

In this arguably most socialist, welfare-state in Europe, there was apparently a predisposition to social passiveness and an apparent assumption that "somebody must have called "The Authorities".

That's the ultimate fruits of the Nanny State: intellectual stupefaction and moral lethargy. Unfortunately, greatly reduced charitable giving is one of the least worrisome tendencies.

I think it depends partly on what you mean by "the left" and partly on what you mean by "charity". People I know - on the "far left" - are extremely generous with their time and money but don't give either time or money to the kind of mainstream charities most people would think of or ask about if they were doing a study.

I have no idea what "secular liberals" do, though :-)

"People I know - on the "far left" - are extremely generous with their time and money but don't give either time or money to the kind of mainstream charities most people would think of or ask about if they were doing a study."

So, exile, I'm curious: What kinds of charities do they give to that aren't "mainstream"? I'm intrigued.

I believe exile is referring to "charities" such as Hezbollah, PLO, Tamil tigers, Al Qaeda etc.

'been around the block..i suppose it's obvious.. the kind of institutions that have agendas that have nothing to do with helping people, just helping the left to help itself.

They will support any org. that has an anti conservative bias, and further promotes the leftist agenda.Ask me about some of these NGOS i used to see at work in Africa..what a joke!

Did it help people? no way!!! it sure lined the pockets of a lot of "caring" socialists though...

exile says "People I know - on the "far left" - are extremely generous with their time and money but don't give either time or money to the kind of mainstream charities most people would think of or ask about if they were doing a study." Yeah, right. Well those on the far left probably do have a lot of time on their hands because they probably aren't working or are otherwise living off the state. That's also why they can usually get a pretty good crowd out to "demonstrate" about one thing or another.

''conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.''

Where did this guy find enough conservatives who ''reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution'' to get a large enough representative sample. Conservatives love income redistribution as long as it cuts their way.

And let the squawking begin? When has it ever stopped on SDA?

Put it another way: many leftists like myself simply don't believe it is the responsibility of the generosity of strangers to help single mothers with three children who have been abandoned by a dead-beat father with no income. We believe the state should assist her in some way.

Many leftists feel that those who need a little help (note the word: little) or a leg up, should be assisted by the government, and not have to ask on the streets for some income while they are between jobs.

We also believe it is fair to have everybody put a little bit of cash into the belief of these principles. The poor and downtrodden are the concern of all society. The guy you help today could be the one who pays you back bigtime in the future with tax revenue. I'm a perfect example. I was on unemployment for 11 months once, and now I give the government $250 on every paycheque. Some of that cash is going to people who, like myself, were once down. But with patience and time, perhaps they can rise up again.

The "right" enjoys demonizing the homeless, the mentally ill, and those on welfare for reasons why we should not have a social state of welfare for those in need. In truth, Canada works remarkably well utilizing both fronts.

We receive funding from generous people on all sides of the political spectrum (my father donated to the United Way with a percentage of his teacher's paycheque for 30 years). But we also receive money from the government which allocates funds into programs which the people of Canada feel is necessary.

If Conservative have a problem with this governmental philanthropy, lobby the government to cut these programs as Mike Harris did in Ontario. Just don't be surprised if the backlash of these cuts elects the hated Liberals. And just make sure you don't blame the "left" for the policies enacted by your own government of Canada.

"We also believe it is fair to have everybody put a little bit of cash into the belief of these principles. The poor and downtrodden are the concern of all society."

Yeah, they're a concern. Where we differ is at the solution. I believe that they should get off their lazy asses and get to work. You believe they should take my money and continue to live in poverty. Not surprisingly, I like my solution better.

A huge advantage that charities have over government institutions is that they are much more personal. If you're a person who's really trying to get out of poverty, people will go out of their way to help you. On the other hand, if you're a bum who simply doesn't want to work, you'll be shown to the door. A government system doesn't make any such distinctions. As such, it does nothing to motivate or help those who are constantly destitute. In Toronto it has created a homeless industry by encouraging the poor from the rest of the province to migrate here. We spend an average of $70,000 per homeless person, yet still have them sleeping, begging, pissing, and drinking all over our streets. Face it, the socialist model has never worked, and never will work. It goes against human nature, and any system that does that is destined to fail. We need a better solution.

Ironically enough I lived in a communist country when I was younger, and, when it comes to government spending and social programs, Canada is more communist than that place was. We moved to Canada at least partially in order to avoid communism. Sometimes I wonder if maybe we shouldn't have moved to the US instead.

this practice is completely consistent with the lefties and lieberals I have ahd the distasteful necessity to deal with.

tighter than a friggin bear trap with the wallets whilst hounding all in earshot how 'unfair' the 'system' is.

alex says: "Ironically enough I lived in a communist country when I was younger, and, when it comes to government spending and social programs, Canada is more communist than that place was."

That's what I've been trying to tell people! I wish more people like you would speak up. I have to laugh when Canadians criticize China for human rights because I frequently argue that China is, by any reasonable measure, more free and less communist than Canada.

Lefties love wearing their tacky "Conspicuous Compassion" paraphrenalia, though. Yellow wristband, white ribbon, blech...

If you try hard enough you can find all kinds of uncharitable statistics for people on the other side of the spectrum. There are statistics that state churchgoing men are more likely to commit rape for instance. But I'm sure you can cherry pick a convincing case for moral superiority backed up by statistics whatever you happen to believe in.

You can cherry pick statistics (or in this case it's not even that but an inference that such statistics exsist) that assert your moral superiority over the other side all you want. Beliefnet also has articles like "Overwhelming Evidence" for Design" which are utter claptrap so I'll take any unsupported assertions published there with a healthy fistful of salt.

There are also statistics that indicate that regular church going men are more likely to commit rape than men that don't. There I've just made an unsupported inference that suggests regular churchgoers aren't moraly superior in every way.

Willing to believe that without hard evidence?

Of course liberals want the state to take care of "compassion and caring". Liberals, after all, by their nature, are selfish. They impose, they take... they're "liberal" in the sense that they'll liberally help themselves rather than liberally helping others. They download their "compassion" and caring to overpaid, underworked bureaucrats who treat needy people like livestock to be herded according to rigid bureaucratic policies and regulations which often don't apply appropriately to an individual's situation, as there's no one to really listen, understand, and figure out how to help the individual. The state is cold and impersonal, but liberals don't care as long as they clear their consciences by paying taxes so that they don't have to worry about caring about anyone but themselves.

Plus this also helps explain why Liberals give so much less money to their party than Conservatives give to theirs.

Never will so few (Liberals) receive so little from so few of their members. That's the problem they face!

This is one reason why the Liberal-controlled Senate refuses to allow the Federal Accountability Act to pass, as it would financially seriously impact the LPC even worse than it already has, given that there are relatively few Liberals who care to give money to their party, and they then could only give a fifth as they do now. Mathematically, it horrifies the Liberals... they believe that they'll go bankrupt if their small number of donors can only give a pittance each. They won't get many new members, and not many of those they do get will care to donate to the party anyway.

Therefore, the selfishness of the liberal-type person will lead to the Liberal Party's undoing!

So Ebenezer Scrooge was actually a Liberal.

Belinda!'s going to fix what ails the Liberal$. She's got her Pink Book going. She's working on a Reform/Conservative Brainchild, one member one vote.
Isn't that priceless?
They may have to get back to brown-bagging it again when the Accountability Act clears the fools in the Upper Chamber, which they should be shamed into doing at some point.

Isn't it curious how quickly the Left latched onto the term "Progressive" after the Conservatives dropped it off? It was almost instantaneous and not at all fitting. Regressive would better describe their agendas.

"The "right" enjoys demonizing the homeless, the mentally ill, and those on welfare..."

LOL

I and my family are helping people in these circumstances all the time. We don't have a lot of money, but we believe in "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbour as yourself."

As I write, we and our community are collecting household goods for a recent single mom and her children, who for tragic reasons are facing a broken home. Why would it be better for a government agency to help her?

Rather than moving into an apartment on Monday, she'd have to wait for months, at risk, if she was relying on a government bureaucracy, and the move would be ten times as expensive. Also, what kind of followup would there be? This woman and her children have constant support.

Jose, re your 06:51 AM:

"...regular churchgoers aren't moraly (sic) superior in every way."

Hate to quibble, but that should be "any way".

The sick go to hospital, sinners go to church.

New Kid (9:24 AM): "As I write, we and our community are collecting household goods for a recent single mom and her children, who for tragic reasons are facing a broken home."

She should hook up with Alex (12:59 AM), who could motivate her to "get off her lazy ass and get to work." And to stop sleeping, begging, pissing and drinking in the street.

If she only took those steps, she'd be fine.

What the study bares for all to see is that the liberal left is devoid of initiative and believe that the nanny state should tax them more to take care of our society’s ills in an impersonal, indirect way.

Said another way the liberal left is so guilt ridden they can’t bring themselves to getting into the trenches with those they feel they have taken from to get what they have. Talk about avoiding the issue

I know nothing new there, however it screams as to the underlying attitudinal rot that has permeated our society.

I would love it if we all had was so much wealth that we could just let the government tax us according to the needs of the less fortunate, etc. and everybody would be happy.

The reality is we don’t and we are in the process of loosing our wealth to the Chinese because we are more worried about having fancy dinner plates to eat off of instead of making sure the food is there.

As a country we need to be hungry again to survive this onslaught but the left has over time “breed” out of our country the ability to see the problem, and deal with the problem.

Socialist, nanny state programs are the opiate of the masses that have been used by the liberal left political elite to numb the country as to the reality of the situation and to feed the guilt of voters. And it is all done to retain power for their own selfish ends. “Let them eat cake” comes to mind.

"There are also statistics that indicate that regular church going men are more likely to commit rape than men that don't."

If you actually provided proof of this statistic, you might have made a point. Instead, all you've done is make a baseless accusation.

"She should hook up with Alex (12:59 AM), who could motivate her to 'get off her lazy ass and get to work.'"

Congratulations, sir, your selective reading skills are functioning perfectly!

Alex-

You say this about my point "If you actually provided proof of this statistic, you might have made a point. Instead, all you've done is make a baseless accusation."

The fact that I didn't provide proof was the point. The writer of this article hasn't provided proof either but you're willing to take what he says as gospel and run with it.

For what it's worth you can fact check my baseless accusation using Google. Which is more than you can do with the "baseless accusation" that the author of this article is making.

BTW, Since when did church attendance=right wing and a person who doesn't attend church=left wing?

Alex (quoting Adrian): "...The poor and downtrodden are the concern of all society."

Alex's response: "Yeah, they're a concern. Where we differ is at the solution. I believe that they should get off their lazy asses and get to work."

Which part of this would you like to retract? Or at least clarify? What are you assuming here?

"The fact that I didn't provide proof was the point. The writer of this article hasn't provided proof either but you're willing to take what he says as gospel and run with it."

Better sharpen up on your reading skills Jose, although proof may not have been provided in the article, proof is provided in the book. Ask your local library to get you a copy when it comes out next week and then read it. If you still disagree then you can make your objections known to the author. In fact he invites academic review.

"He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions. ...

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages."

Would this qualify as peer review?

"Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid." "

Jose wrote,
"There are also statistics that indicate that regular church going men are more likely to commit rape than men that don't"

I checked your "baseless accusation" using google and the term "church going men are more likely to commit rape", as you suggested and found no proof of this accusation. Better provide a link buddy cause you're standing on real thin ice with that one.

You guys really boggle my mind sometimes
"Better sharpen up on your reading skills Jose, although proof may not have been provided in the article," (goes on to talk about a book he hasn't read)

What's that sensation I'm feeling... Oh ya I'm pissing in the wind.

"I checked your "baseless accusation" using google..."

Ok I did it for you. You needed to put "correlation" in the search term.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

...Not that I expect you to believe it one bit.

Your going to have to do better than that Jose
"So who is Gregory S. Paul and what are his qualifications to opine on the salubrious quality of agnosticism? We spent a considerable amount of time attempting to discover where Mr. (Dr.?) Paul received his training in sociology and/or statistical analysis, etc. Here’s what we found:

The above blank space is not a formatting error of some kind. It is the best we could come up with to signify nada, zero, zip, bupkis, nihilo,…nothing. Yes, that’s right. We found nothing. As near as we can tell, Mr. Paul has no advanced degrees in statistical analysis, demography, sociology, or any other “ology.” In fact, it appears as though he holds no advanced degrees of any kind. He is, in fact, an artist and “freelance paleontologist”

And this reviewer of Mr Paul said
For educated criticism of Mr. Paul’s statistical work we refer you to Scott Gilbreath, who runs the Magic Statistics blog. Scott is a statistician by trade and has done a masterful job of critiquing Mr. Paul’s work. His conclusion:

In my professional judgment, the statistical and scientific validity of Mr. Paul’s study…can not be accepted.

But wait! There’s more! Here’s the conclusion of the George H. Gallup International Institute (Gallup has been known to work with numbers on occasion) as stated in a letter from George Gallup to the London Times where Mr. Paul’s study was highlighted by a gullible reporter.

Gregory Paul’s conclusion is based on a flawed analysis according to my research associate, D Michael Lindsay, an expert in the department of sociology at Princeton University. After carefully examining Paul’s international study, Mr. Lindsay maintains that it does not pass scholarly muster.
Read more on debunking Mr Paul at
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25

Maybe you should try another link as I "busted" you on that one quite easily.

A perfect example of saying one thing and doing another is the media blitz about a wedding in Italy. Many of the guests are very leftist liberals and envirowackos, but they all spent money and increased greenhouse gas to get there. What would the 100,000.00 spent on candles do for the worlds starving. What a sham. And, after all that hullabaloo, they still have to have a civil ceremony to make it legal. Things have sure changed since Ingrid Bergman had a child out of wedlock and was boycotted by the media and studios.

I see hundreds of T4s/yr, and notice a huge amount deducted for union dues, but with over 50-60 thousand dollars gross income, not once charitable receipt, or for that matter one T5 or T3 or RRSP receipt. But, those grossing under that amount have all of the above, but no union dues deducted. You can get much of this info from Stats Canada. And, are those questioning the data in this book the same ones who believe all the global warming crap because of scientific facts.

Alex said "I believe that they should get off their lazy asses and get to work."

My example of the right demonizing the ills of society on those who are least able to defend themselves...

"Face it, the socialist model has never worked, and never will work. It goes against human nature, and any system that does that is destined to fail. We need a better solution."

But I just told you our socialist system does work. It worked for me by providing Employment Security when I could not find work.

Bob said "I frequently argue that China is, by any reasonable measure, more free and less communist than Canada."

I suggest you learn a little bit more about both China and Canada. You assertion is, to put it mildly, preposterous. Making dissenting statements in China can get you executed. Is this the freedom you espouse?

The Canadian Sentinel said "The state is cold and impersonal, but liberals don't care as long as they clear their consciences by paying taxes so that they don't have to worry about caring about anyone but themselves."

I would certainly rather have portions of my income tax allocated to social concerns assessed important by the elected representatives, than to donate to causes I personally find worthy.

been round the block wrote: "As I write, we and our community are collecting household goods for a recent single mom and her children, who for tragic reasons are facing a broken home. Why would it be better for a government agency to help her?"

That's commendable. And it's not better for a government agency to help. But a mix of both is even better. We cannot rely on people of good will to help the downtrodden. That's not sound governance.

Face it. The majority of Canadians believe that philanthropy and a little assistance and security from the government is the remedy for what ails us. Lest we become like the United States, we all fear being that one paycheque away from destitution ourselves. Some of us are further than one paycheque away, but it remains the case that we cannot rely on individuals to give a helping hand to the poor.

As it was written in "A Christmas Carol", Ebeneezer Scrooge refuses philanthropy on the grounds "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" We cannot rely on philanthropy. We must protect the vulnerable with basic services that enable them to get back on their feet.

Those who are chronically unemployed are another story, but I don't think we are discussing them... are we?

Lost among this discussion is the question of why charity is needed in the first place--i.e., the roots causes of poverty. In my view, charities and social welfare programs exist because other factors--principally in N. America (and especially the US), neoliberalist economics and a pervasive ethos of individualism--create conditions that make poverty inevitable for a great many number of people.

For instance, Brooks argues in his book that Americans, on the whole a relatively conservative folk, give far more to charity as compared to citizens of European "liberal" states with large state-run social welfare bureaucracies.

True enough, except that these 'liberal' nations--Sweden, say, or Norway--also enjoy far less poverty and socioeconomic inequality that their American counterpart (e.g., the US leads OECD nations both in poverty and child poverty rates; Finland is at the bottom). Indeed, a clear association exists between higher social expenditures as percentage of GDP, and lower poverty (and child poverty) rates.

In other words, whether we use absolute or relative poverty as our definition, the more generous social welfare system and income redistribution policies in these European nations--funded by taxation--create societies in which fewer people are poor, and those who are, are less likely to stay that way. Less charity, then, but also less poverty.

The US, meanwhile, is most amenable to "conservative" ideas on poverty alleviation, preferring individual giving and market solutions to poverty over expansion of the state-funded social welfare net. More charity, then, but also more poverty.

And before anyone claims that all this 'nanny state' spending is bad for the economy, it should be noted that in 2002, Norway had a productivity level (GDP per hr worked) 131% that of the US, and the World Economic Forum recently announced that Finland and Sweden had the world's 2nd and 3rd most competitive economies (the US, #6; Canada, #16).

So, while "conservative" types can enjoy their day in the sun gloating about how much more generous they are than "liberal" types, be wary of concluding then that personal giving is somehow more effective at alleviating poverty than so-called 'liberal' policies of state-run social welfare programs. Indeed, the opposite may be true, if individual charity comes at the expense of using tax revenues to create and sustain ambitious and comprehensive social welfare programs.

By the way Jose you should check out his latest attack on Christians at
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=paul_23_4

"A growing body of scholarly research, "some based on careful analysis of Nazi records",
[What the rest was based on he never tells us.]

"is clarifying this complex history. It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure "in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies."
[Ah yes the secularist as victim]
"In contrast, Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit with—indeed, in the pay of—the Nazis.
[That's a funny thing to say! I thought the army had quite a bit more to do with Hitler retaining power, than the church!

"Most German Christians supported the Reich";

[Note the arrangement of words as to give the appearance of truth. It is reasonable to assume that if today Germany identifies itself as sixty- three percent Christian then it is safe to assume that in 1933 the numbers would be similar. Hitler gained power with just thirty-three percent of the popular vote, to say that most Christians supported Hitler is a stretch]

many continued to do so in the face of mounting evidence that the dictatorship was depraved and murderously cruel.

[Do you know of any free elections being held in Nazi Germany throughout Hitler's reign as chancellor?]

Elsewhere in Europe the story was often the same. Only with Christianity’s forbearance and frequent cooperation could fascistic movements gain majority support in Christian nations. European fascism was the fruit of a Christian culture. Millions of Christians actively supported these notorious regimes. Thousands participated in their atrocities."
[Not surprising numbers when you consider the demographic of early nineteenth century Europe and note the rise of marxism throughout Europe is given no mention]

And so on it goes, another biased attack on Cristianity. We could all do the same with a keyboard and a little factual knowlege spread amongst the lie. The man's a hack.

A, some excellent points. Scandanavia is also much more unionized and has lower unemployment rates, poverty, and crime.

MaryT, I'm confused about what you're trying to say (at 4:07). Can you reword it, or expand a little?

I'm not sure how it ties in with the environmental question, either. Can you help on this, too?

RE: Adrian says,
-Lest we become like the United States, we all fear being that one paycheque away from destitution ourselves.-

Yo Adrian!

Sorry to pop your bubble but Canada is already very much "like the USA".

IIRC, the USA enacted social security for those over 65 years before Canada did. And Medicare and Medicaid just shortly after Canada did. And the USA has just enacted a pharmacy program for the elderly. And I think welfare was also enacted in the USA around the same time as it was in Canada. And of course the many, many churches are always available to lend a hand to those in need too.

Adrian MacNair writes: Scandanavia is also much more unionized and has lower unemployment rates, poverty, and crime.

They also have better overall population health outcomes.

concrete, if you look at the US and Canadian programs side by side, you'll be able to detect differences.

I would certainly rather have portions of my income tax allocated to social concerns assessed important by the elected representatives, than to donate to causes I personally find worthy.

A perfect example of someone who needs a nanny.

The leftist-bashing on this thread is uncalled for. It is sad to see that people only want to confirm their own prejudices, rather than looking honestly at the situation.

For those who do want to be honest on the matter, I have several comments.

First, many conservatives are generous with their time and money. Good for them.

Second, there seems to be a connection between being religious and being charitable. I wonder if religious leftists aren't equally generous as religious conservatives. Conservatives overall are more charitable, but is this due to them being overall more religious or is conservative ideology responsible?

Third, accusing leftists of wanting "someone else to pay" is unfair and contrary to the evidence. In social welfare states like Denmark, taxes are high on the middle and working classes as well. In these regions,upper middle class leftists do foot the bill for the projects they endorse.

Likewise in the United States, many of the liberals in Congress are personally wealthy. They also work against Republican tax cuts which on a selfish level would be in the interest of these same limousine liberals.

One can debate whether the welfare state is good or bad, however it is untrue to say that many limousine liberals aren't supportive of high taxes on themselves.