… the commitment of the “progressive” left towards helping the poor and underprivileged in society stops well short of their wallets;
The book’s basic findings are that 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.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.
“These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago,” he writes in the introduction. “I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book.”
Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Let the squawking begin.
I have never seen or met a liberal yet who wouldn’t use somebody else’s money to finance another pet project of the Liberals/NDP. None of their OWN money mind you, just yours.
Hey we don’t want much out of life – we just want to live it just as we please, and we want somebody else to pay for it.
Rocky, complete nonsense. The Harris government tried to cut essential public services like libraries and schools which directly affected both my parents (my mother thought she would be laid off every day she went into work). You can’t demonize the NDP and Liberals without taking a hard look at your own party.
Crabgrass-I was saying that charitable giving by high income earners is much less than the amounts donated by the non unionized lower income earners. Also,many of those high earners have little or no savings put away. I am also saying that those that question the data or stats in this book being discussed, would without hesitation be the same ones who believe all the crap from the envirowackos on global warming,saving the seals etc, but do not donate to any of the org. spouting this nonsense.
The slips I mentioned are those required by Rev Canada to prepare you Income Tax Return,-a T1 General. A T4 shows the amount pd for union dues, and various benefits deducted from your income. You must know it also shows the amount of income tax paid, as do the other slips mentioned.
Adrian Mcnair should read some recent Ontario history. When Mike Harris made welfare less lucrative, welfare rolls in Ontario dropped miraculously. People who “couldn’t find work” or “couldn’t work” suddenly found jobs. I’m all for a safety net, but there are people who treat it more like a hammock.
“A” noted many glowing statistics about Scandinavian countries. He didn’t add that suicide rates in Sweden and Finland are significantly higher than in Canada or the US. Also, birth rates in those countries are below replacement level, and much lower than those in the US. So in these “worker paradises”, they choose to kill themselves more often than we do, and they don’t choose to have children. It must be all the life-affirming lessons they’re getting.
KevinB writes: “A” noted many glowing statistics about Scandinavian countries. He didn’t add that suicide rates in Sweden and Finland are significantly higher than in Canada or the US. Also, birth rates in those countries are below replacement level, and much lower than those in the US. So in these “worker paradises”, they choose to kill themselves more often than we do, and they don’t choose to have children. It must be all the life-affirming lessons they’re getting.
You’re right that Finland’s suicide rate (31.9 per 100,000 males; 2003 estimate) is significantly higher than Canada’s (18.7; 2001 est.) or the US’s (17.6; 2001 est.). Unfortunately, your little thesis doesn’t hold up when we turn to Norway (16.1; 2002 est.) or Sweden (18.9; 2001 est.) or The Netherlands (12.7; 2003 est.). (All numbers are from the WHO website). Hmm, perhaps the psychosocial etiology behind self-annihilation is a little more complex than your argument would try to have it.
In any case, why do you think that citing a high suicide rate constitutes a prima facie argument against a country’s social welfare policies, as if the goal of income redistribution, generous parental leave, comprehensive unemployment insurance, etc. is to mitigate suicide rather than poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage. Yours may be the most ridiculous rationale for social policy inaction that I’ve ever heard: “Why bother making lives better for our citizens–it’s not like it’ll change the suicide rate.”
As for birth rates being below replacement levels, let’s consult the CIA World Factbook for total fertility rates (measured as number of children per woman; 2006 est.):
– Denmark: 1.74
– Finland: 1.73
– France: 1.84
– The Netherlands: 1.66
– Norway: 1.78
– Sweden: 1.66
– Canada: 1.61
Hmm, all those Scandinavian’s are actually having more babies than Canadians. So much for Part B of your argument. True, the US rate is 2.09 children/woman, so you’re technically correct when you say that “birth rates in those countries are below replacement level, and much lower than those in the US.” You are, however, patently wrong to thus conclude that “they don’t choose to have children.” As the number show, even those morose, suicidal Scandinavians are having a fair number of kids (certainly more than Canadians). In fact, it seems most are having around 2 kids, with a few are having one (to get towards the average of 1.75 or so). Of course, population “replacement level” is a combination of fertility and net migration, and so when you combine immigration rates, all countries cited above have stable or slightly positive population growth projections.
Bottom line, despite your best efforts, all appears well in Scandinavia.
A: 4:16 PM
So, if I understand your point with respect to this thread, we need socialism to ensure the left contribute their fair share to the alleviation of poverty?
Johndoe124: So, if I understand your point with respect to this thread, we need socialism to ensure the left contribute their fair share to the alleviation of poverty?
No, my point is that Mr. Brooks’ book, and the tenor of this subsequent thread, misses the point of charity entirely. His conclusion–that “conservatives” give more on average than “liberals”–is a small and inconsequential point indeed. It exposes some hypocrisies on the so-called “left”, but it offers no deeper insights. What dialogue has it inspired? As evidenced in this thread, nothing more than a pissing match of who’s-more-philanthropic-than-who, with T4 slips as evidence of moral superiority.
Nowhere is it noted that this moral virtue of the individual (i.e., charity) is itself made necessary by past and present moral failings of society (i.e., policies and conditions that produce poverty). Even as individual religiously-minded “conservative” types may on average give their fair share to charity than their secular “liberal” types, their more economically-oriented brethren (found in both the Republican and Democratic Parties, on the “left” and the “right”–this is not a partisan issue) are doing far more, with less effort, to entirely negate that generosity through fiscal and social policies that perpetuate and expand the poverty underclass.
In other words, it’s great that lay members of the public can be generous philanthropists. But that generosity is necessary in large part because the neoliberalist ideologies that pervade our power institutions–government primarily, private industry also–fail to balance short-term economic interests with long-term human interests, thus creating the conditions of poverty in the first place. Charity has as its aim the amelioration of poverty’s consequences; a paradigm shift in the purpose and priorities of our public institutions and policies (which is what I’m calling for, and which you characterize as “socialism”) has as its aim the elimination of poverty itself.
We need “socialism,” then, not to ensure the left contribute their fair share to the alleviation of poverty, but to ensure that our shared institutions work to the benefit of all rather than merely a few.
It is utterly Utopian to suggest that public institutions and policies can ever eliminate poverty itself. To do that, they’d have to eliminate human nature–which, in a nutshell, is actually what Utopian socialism tries to do.
There will always be people who are too lazy to lift a finger to either help themselves or their families. And there will always be greedy, unprincipled despots who rob and steal from their own people, thus creating massive poverty in the population.
To suggest otherwise is to be immune to reality and naive to the point of silliness. Even if the hope is earnest, it is unproductive and very often leads to a lot of Utopian nonsense–which usually ends up robbing Peter (productive, independent, hardworking individuals/countries) to pay Paul (lazy loafers/corrupt leaders).
KevinB wrote : “Adrian Mcnair should read some recent Ontario history. When Mike Harris made welfare less lucrative, welfare rolls in Ontario dropped miraculously. People who “couldn’t find work” or “couldn’t work” suddenly found jobs. I’m all for a safety net, but there are people who treat it more like a hammock.”
Excuse me, but I was there during the Harris years. Right downtown, living in a tiny bachelor apartment, working hand-to-mouth jobs for $7.75 an hour. There was a worldwide recession, and the economy was only just starting to pick up. Finding a job was near impossible with so many better qualified people. I recall how many people Harris forced off welfare – yes. And where did they go? Could it be cooincidence that this was about the time there was a homeless boom in Toronto? You happen to think cuts to welfare worked. I think it turned them into a greater burden on society.
Your dystopian nightmarish portrait of Scandanavia need not be addressed; indeed it is laughable. But “A” fairly well refutes all your arguments.
In truth, I find a good mix of capitalism and socialism to be the best solution for Canadians, and if our history is an any indication, the majority of our people agree with me.
BATB: It is utterly Utopian to suggest that public institutions and policies can ever eliminate poverty itself…To suggest otherwise is to be immune to reality and naive to the point of silliness.
I never suggested that poverty can ever actually be completely eliminated, only that socially responsible public policies should have that goal as their aim. The point is set the bar high, in order to not sell oneself short. Just about every major public policy statement–e.g., the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ottawa Charter, the UN MDGs–sets for itself seemingly impossible odds, all the better to mobilize and impassion widespread commitment.
Also, you’re misusing the phrase “Robbing Peter to pay Paul,” which actually refers to the folly of abandoning one honorable task in order to fulfill another, when in fact both tasks should be accorded equal effort and commitment.
“A” wouldn’t stand for “Adrian” would it?
As for “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” that’s exactly what the socialists do, with the mistaken idea that doing both is an honourable thing, as you point out.
Socialist governments do, in fact, think that “both tasks should be accorded equal effort and commitment”: rob the hardworking taxpayer to pay the lazy loafer (poor guy/gal; they can’t help it that they’re poor, yada, yada, yada, because of where they were born, who their family is, what happened in their childhood, yada, yada, yada…).
See? That’s the problem with socialism. Make someone less rich in order to make someone else less poor. It’s a fools game, A, and can be–and is being–mercilessly exploited by the poverty/help/therapeutic industry, to the point where there are a lot of organizations that are committed to poverty.
They’re not committed to eradicating it. They’re committed to make sure that people in poverty are never empowered to work and make their own way, because the anti-poverty (sic) organizations they’re a part of would then cease to have a reason to exist.
There are a lot of these organizations around, employing a lot of people, all Libs and Dippers, including the U.N.
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.
-Adrian MacNair
–But that would posit that the Liberals actually care more about directing all of one’s dollars towards those who truly need them, rather than towards themselves and their criminal cronies, as we saw in, for example, ADSCAM. And towards the mysterious multibilliondollar “foundations”.
Why would anyone who genuinely cares trust people who have proven themselves to only care about themselves to give one’s tax dollars to genuinely needy charities? Besides, it’s inefficient and it’s politicized that way, plus it gives rise to phony charities, including jihad-supporting “charities” and phony charities.
I wouldn’t trust the government to do that at all. It is NOT the business of government to decide for us which charities are worthy of our donations. Those who pass the buck really don’t care at all. They just, delusionally, ideologically, unrealistically, unconditionally believe in the state as a power of goodness which will do all the right things and make everything better.
That’s another problem with leftism. Leftism attempts to absolve people of the moral responsibility to actually, actively, directly care, to make the effort to think about helping others oneself, to make a difference oneself.
I’m sorry, but passing the buck to some “liberal” gov’t will not make one a righteous person at all.
Crabgrass,
Re;- concrete, if you look at the US and Canadian programs side by side, you’ll be able to detect differences.-
I know. The biggest difference IMHO is that it is illegal in Canada to own a private medical practice.
The end results of this policy (i.e. the brain drain of Canadian doctors and nurses and specialists to the USA) will become apparent to many, many aging Canadians soon enough. This article on canada.com today has some info and stats.
A Generation Gone South
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, November 20, 2006
“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”
Jesus Christ!!! 11 frick’n months on the public dole?! I’m glad you decided to rise up again.