It Turns Out Conservatives Really Are Compassionate

[newf]

We only give to organizations that we believe in and have done research on. I will not give to an organization that I’m unfamiliar with, though I may familiarize myself and then give.

My aversion to being asked for money while I’m at the grocery store has absolutely nothing to do with my actual generosity.

It is a lot easier to give a check to an organization than it is to look at the person standing there in the grocery store and reach in your purse for a few dollars.

With the organization, you have no personal interaction. You just write a check and feel like you’ve done your good deed. It’s not a bad way to give, it’s just not a very high level of giving, no matter how much your check is. It doesn’t cost you anything emotionally.

When you deal with a person one on one, that’s where the rubber meets the road. You see how they got to where they are, you may know the bad choices they have made, and yet you still try and help. You give from your heart and you give from your wallet. This is a higher level form of giving.

 

[Hastrman]

Why does the USCCB continue to lobby and write to Congress and the Executive office to keep them from voting out budgets which negitively affect the poor?

Because they don’t understand economics. They still use the outdated Keynesian model that’s been widely discredited by almost all real economists, in favor of some version of the Trickle-Down theory. If you interpret the budget in a Keynesian way, they’ll hurt the poor, but that interpretation isn’t accurate.

Is Trickle-Down the best economic model? Probably not (that’s why we don’t use pure trickle down). But it’s infinitely better than Keynesian, which is almost as dead as communism.

 

[josephdavid]

Because they don’t understand economics. They still use the outdated Keynesian model that’s been widely discredited by almost all real economists, in favor of some version of the Trickle-Down theory. If you interpret the budget in a Keynesian way, they’ll hurt the poor, but that interpretation isn’t accurate.

Is Trickle-Down the best economic model? Probably not (that’s why we don’t use pure trickle down). But it’s infinitely better than Keynesian, which is almost as dead as communism.

Well then if they understand Keynesian style economics then they know economics they just do not subscribe to your style of economic philosophy.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

newf,

Do I understand you correctly to say that it is a higher form of giving to give money to someone taking donations for an organization that I know nothing about than deciding with my husband who to give money to? And that the amount is irrelevant? So if two people have an equal amount of income, and one gives to random organizations in person and the second gives more to organizations they investigate, the first is giving “more”?

 

[newf]

newf,

Do I understand you correctly to say that it is a higher form of giving to give money to someone taking donations for an organization that I know nothing about than deciding with my husband who to give money to? And that the amount is irrelevant? So if two people have an equal amount of income, and one gives to random organizations in person and the second gives more to organizations they investigate, the first is giving “more”?

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear…My point is that it is easier to give a check to an organization than it is to be personally involved with someone else’s problems.

If I am giving $500, it’s easy to write a check to my church or some organization and be done with it.

If I give $500 to a family member who is using drugs, I need to be more involved…like maybe buy the food with this money rather than give the cash, pay the rent rather than give the cash, and counsel the family member on where to get drug treatment…especially when he doesn’t want to hear about it. It’s a lot more difficult when giving like this. That’s all I’m saying. It’s hard to see someone making bad choices.