Why is socialism bad by Church teaching?

[estesbob]

Tell me if I am wrong here. Liberals by and large are big advocates for socialism where conservatives are advocates of captialism. The big statements on the left is that liberals are more compassionate and more loving than those evil conservatives who only care for themselves and to h*** with everybody else. Let me know if I said anything wrong yet.

Anyway here is an interesting point that I discovered. Liberals on average make about 6% more in income than conservatives, yet conservatives give on average 30% more of their money and time to charity. How can that be Black Rose? What is wrong here?

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Here is something else I find very interesting as well:

Here is a quote concerning the Obama family’s charitable donations over the years: “Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama’s family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations – about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).” The link is below:
huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on-_n_93353.html

Here is another one concerning the evil Cheney and his charity donations during 2005: Adjusted Gross Income of 8.82 million (the evil rich); Charitable donations of 6.87 million (what?!?!, must be a typo). This came from MSNBC of all places. Here is the link below:

msnbc.msn.com/id/12318056/

Bush during his presidency gave more than 10% of his income to charity that is 4% more than Obama’s best year when he was running for the presidency.

Biden averages a wopping $369.00/year in charitable donations as can be seen here:

usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

Here is another link for you:

tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/charity-donations-and-liberal-hypocricy/

Here is what these links show that by and large liberals are hypocrites. They call conservatives evil capitalists with no heart, yet it is these evil people that do more for their fellow man than the loving and gentle and compassionate liberals.

Hopefully this opens the eyes of some of you out there.

That is because the left believes charity is defined as how much of other people’s money you can give to the needy.

 

[Black_Rose]

Maybe you need to reread the post. i choose this document because it was written by liberal intellectual and the writer had grudgingly accept the positive impact that christianity had on womens rights even though the writer didn’t want to.

How do you know she is liberal? Did you know anything about the author beside her name so you could infer her political preferences and that she “grudgingly accepted” the positive impact of Christianity? Have you read her other work besides that excerpt that you (presumably) found from a google search?

Well, here is the amazon book summary for one of her books. Apparently, she does not hold any overt antipathy towards the Church:

While the Roman Catholic church has continued to oppose the ordination of women to the priesthood, the history of the church is filled with chronicles of women who have been instrumental in transmitting the religious teachings of the church as well as in performing acts of charity under the auspices of the church. Although women in the church were denied access to positions of religious authority traditionally held by men, many of these women gathered themselves into religious orders where they could express their devotion to God and church through teaching, missionary activity, social activism and prayer. McNamara traces the development of women’s pursuit of spiritual fulfillment and religious vocation from the Apostolic Age through the Middle Ages to the modern world. Throughout this wide-ranging narrative, we are introduced to women like Paul’s companion, Thecla, who baptised herself in preparation for her martyrdom, and Sister Mary Theresa Kane, who in 1979 publicly petitioned the pope to ordain women. McNamara’s fascinating guide through the lives and work of Catholic nuns over the last two thousand years reveals both the successes and failures of these women who have played such significant roles in the history of the Catholic church.

amazon.com/Sisters-Arms-Catholic-through-Millennia/dp/0674809858/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280446269&sr=1-3

Ok, so women were able to find niches within the Church where they were able to thrive. Also, Christianity treated women better than other religions too. I do not dispute this.

Regarding women in Medieval Europe:

The subject of education for women, however, was a hotly debated issue throughout the Middle Ages. As education was directly connected with the church it was inevitable that the church’s views of women should have led predominated. St. Thomas of Aquinas,1225-1274, who was perhaps one of the great teachers of the period declared what was clearly a widely supported notion regarding women:

“The woman is subject to man on account of the weakness of her nature . . . Man is the beginning of woman and her end, just as God is the beginning and end of every creature. Children ought to love their Father more than they love their mother.”

Medieval society, and particularly the powerful domains of church and state, clearly had no place for well-educated women.

What “education” women did receive was likely to be one with a views of their future roles as wives and mothers. In his treatise De educatione liberorum written in 1440 Matteo Veggio advocated that girls “be raised on sacred teachings.” He enjoined them to lead “regular, chaste, and religious lives and to devote all [their] time to female labors.” If girls were allowed to learn to read and write it was not for the purpose of making them literate. Vincent of Beauvais, writing in 1256, advises noble parents to allow their daughters to learn to read and write so that in “keeping busy they will escape the harmful thoughts, the pleasures and vanities of the flesh.” For Vincent and other clerics with advice on the education of young girls, the inculcation of good morals was of the first importance. To preserve chastity, Vincent warned parents to make sure their daughters “avoid superfluity of food, drink, sleep, baths and ornaments as these are nothing else but the seed-bed of impurity.”

For girls wishing to become nuns, learning to read and write was part of the training. Some even studied Latin. For the most part, marriage, motherhood and child rearing were the principle goals for most girls. As transmitters of morality and religious dogma, they were to be “raised on sacred teachings to lead a regular, chaste, and religious life.” Furthermore, according to clerics such as Francesco Barbaro and Maffeo Vegio, they were to devote their time primarily to “female labors” and prayers. Despite the restrictive social codes a number of women did assert their talents in as writers, poets, composers and artists. One of the most remarkable women of the time was the poet Christine de Pizan. Not only was she able to earn her living as a writer, but her arguments with the leading clerics of her day on the rights of women represent one of the first declarations of feminism to be articulated.

csupomona.edu/~plin/ls201/medieval3.html

 

[Black_Rose]

But, to reiterate, I never argued that the Church was totally evil or was totally repressive. Instead, my position that I adopted in this thread (for the mere purpose of calling out your arguments) is that is it neither a uniquely good institution (in the context of worldly and political affairs) nor a progressive social force. Of course, it is hard to credibly deny that the Church was repressive (not progressive) in some aspects, most notably religious freedom, in the pre-Enlightenment political and social climate. (I am prepared to briefly defend this later.) But, one who has a rudimentary understanding of Chinese history would be quick to point out that Confucianism is also repressive too.

I am not criticizing the Church’s past positions in this thread since the primary intention is to critique the some poster’s perception of the Church in history. I never explicitly made the argument that the Church was “bad”, but my posts can certainly be used to support such a position.

 

[Black_Rose]

books.google.com/books?id=wZGLIP9NUvgC&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false

More on the position of women in medieval society. apparently, they weren’t able to attend university.

 

[ERose]

But, to reiterate, I never argued that the Church was totally evil or was totally repressive. Instead, my position that I adopted in this thread (for the mere purpose of calling out your arguments) is that is it neither a uniquely good institution (in the context of worldly and political affairs) nor a progressive social force. Of course, it is hard to credibly deny that the Church was repressive (not progressive) in some aspects, most notably religious freedom, in the pre-Enlightenment political and social climate. (I am prepared to briefly defend this later.) But, one who has a rudimentary understanding of Chinese history would be quick to point out that Confucianism is also repressive too.

I am not criticizing the Church’s past positions in this thread since the primary intention is to critique the some poster’s perception of the Church in history. I never explicitly made the argument that the Church was “bad”, but my posts can certainly be used to support such a position.

So the church did not have any impact whatsoever on the history of the Europe? Why don’t you just imagine what modern times would be like without the Church? Lets see before the Church there was what polytheism which promoted a worldview that gods ran everything. The sun was a god’s chariot that ran daily across the sky. The heavens was a dome and above those heavens the gods lived. The earth quaked because of some god. Lightning was either Zeus or Thor attacking something one or below the earth. Not a very good world view to develop science don’t you think. Women where property with no rights whatsoever outside her husband. The only purpose of a woman was to produce babies and her worth was dependant on he accomplishing that. Would barbarians still be running rampant thoughout Europe you think, since the Church wouldn’t have been there to convert them to Christianity? Would there have been significant developments in medicine over the time to the level it is today you think? If so how would that have happened? Witchdoctors came together and developed hospitals? Would that have happened? You wouldn’t have had Orders of monks and nuns creating the hospital system if there was not Christianity. I could go on and on about this.

If you want to continue with your blinders go ahead. If you want to keep believing that civilization didn’t really start until liberals came on the scene you really do have blinders on. Modern civilizatian wasn’t created exclusively by liberals, atheist, etc. I know you want to believe that and I doubt I or anyone else can convience you of the truth.

But if you want to keep down this road which is really off topic on this thread start another thread and I will be more than happy to participate in it. This is a thread on socialism and it needs to stay on subject. If you want to learn more then I suggest you read the book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

 

[jimpres]

So the church did not have any impact whatsoever on the history of the Europe? Why don’t you just imagine what modern times would be like without the Church? Lets see before the Church there was what polytheism which promoted a worldview that gods ran everything. The sun was a god’s chariot that ran daily across the sky. The heavens was a dome and above those heavens the gods lived. The earth quaked because of some god. Lightning was either Zeus or Thor attacking something one or below the earth. Not a very good world view to develop science don’t you think. Women where property with no rights whatsoever outside her husband. The only purpose of a woman was to produce babies and her worth was dependant on he accomplishing that. Would barbarians still be running rampant thoughout Europe you think, since the Church wouldn’t have been there to convert them to Christianity? Would there have been significant developments in medicine over the time to the level it is today you think? If so how would that have happened? Witchdoctors came together and developed hospitals? Would that have happened? You wouldn’t have had Orders of monks and nuns creating the hospital system if there was not Christianity. I could go on and on about this.

If you want to continue with your blinders go ahead. If you want to keep believing that civilization didn’t really start until liberals came on the scene you really do have blinders on. Modern civilizatian wasn’t created exclusively by liberals, atheist, etc. I know you want to believe that and I doubt I or anyone else can convience you of the truth.

But if you want to keep down this road which is really off topic on this thread start another thread and I will be more than happy to participate in it. This is a thread on socialism and it needs to stay on subject. If you want to learn more then I suggest you read the book “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

And read ‘Triumph The power and Glory of the catholic Church, a 2000 year history’ by H.W Crocker III
NOw back to socialism

 

[Monk21]

The problem with the idea that conservatives and liberals think one way and one way only is stupid and even idiotic.
Most people have a variety of ideas that may lean ether way, but others like to put them into a corner. I find this to be simply an American trait and it does lack intelligence.

 

[ERose]

The problem with the idea that conservatives and liberals think one way and one way only is stupid and even idiotic.
Most people have a variety of ideas that may lean ether way, but others like to put them into a corner. I find this to be simply an American trait and it does lack intelligence.

It is American only Monk? Polarization in politics is in every country that has some form of Democracy. Canada has it as well. The last time I was in Canada I tried to watch some on your Parliment and they made me start to think that America’s congress was bi-partisan in comparison. For a democracy polarization is extremely important. Everytime I here people in the press and other places wishing that there was more bi-partisanship I laugh and thank God that we do not have it.

You have through your comments shown that you lean left or liberal. I through my comments have shown that I lean right or conservative. Are we stupid or idiotic in our beliefs? No it is a different worldview on our parts. Now granted my worldview is the right one, but I do not look at you any less a brother because you are a liberal.

I have noticed that no liberal has even commented on my thread comparing charity donations between liberals and conservatives. I wonder way that is?

 

[jimpres]

It is American only Monk? Polarization in politics is in every country that has some form of Democracy. Canada has it as well. The last time I was in Canada I tried to watch some on your Parliment and they made me start to think that America’s congress was bi-partisan in comparison. For a democracy polarization is extremely important. Everytime I here people in the press and other places wishing that there was more bi-partisanship I laugh and thank God that we do not have it.

You have through your comments shown that you lean left or liberal. I through my comments have shown that I lean right or conservative. Are we stupid or idiotic in our beliefs? No it is a different worldview on our parts. Now granted my worldview is the right one, but I do not look at you any less a brother because you are a liberal.

I have noticed that no liberal has even commented on my thread comparing charity donations between liberals and conservatives. I wonder way that is?

Because you are right the liberals want to support everyone with someone else’s money. No polarization in Cuba, with Hugo, Putin etc. Socialism at it’s finest.

 

[sedonaman]

… Everytime I here people in the press and other places wishing that there was more bi-partisanship I laugh and thank God that we do not have it.

“Bi-partisanship” means liberals get their way.

…I have noticed that no liberal has even commented on my thread comparing charity donations between liberals and conservatives. I wonder way that is?

They would have to admit that they think it is the government’s job, perhaps?

 

[Black_Rose]

You have through your comments shown that you lean left or liberal. I through my comments have shown that I lean right or conservative. Are we stupid or idiotic in our beliefs? No it is a different worldview on our parts. Now granted my worldview is the right one, but I do not look at you any less a brother because you are a liberal.

What self-righteous condescending arrogance! Pretty ironic that you accuse liberals/socialists of the same thing earlier!

I have noticed that no liberal has even commented on my thread comparing charity donations between liberals and conservatives. I wonder way that is?

So what?!

But I’ll take the hill to answer it now.

Tell me if I am wrong here. Liberals by and large are big advocates for socialism where conservatives are advocates of captialism. The big statements on the left is that liberals are more compassionate and more loving than those evil conservatives who only care for themselves and to h*** with everybody else. Let me know if I said anything wrong yet.

Anyway here is an interesting point that I discovered. Liberals on average make about 6% more in income than conservatives, yet conservatives give on average 30% more of their money and time to charity. How can that be Black Rose? What is wrong here?

Presumably, this was a response to my rhetorical question about whether the economic utility, which I will define as job creation and/or technological progress and innovation, of the wealthy, or virtue justifies them holding a disproportionate amount of the nation’s wealth. The context of the question is macroeconomic and collective in nature; it does not attempt to judge individual people and families who are “wealthy”.

I briefly tried to answer my “rhetorical” question by pointing out that the wealthy strategically default on their mortgages as higher rates. Of course, I do not believe that anyone has a moral obligation to make mortgage payments if they are able. But my main point is that “middle class” people are more bound by social stigma that makes them do things that is not in their financial self-interest, while the rich are untrammeled by them. Pointing out the higher rate of strategic defaults among the wealthy is not to illustrate them as immoral people, which cannot be done on this point anyway, but to show that they are economically amoral whose economic decisions are not bound by considerations of the “common good”, shame, or social taboos.

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

…

In a recent column on Freddie Mac’s Web site, the company’s executive vice president, Don Bisenius, acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.

The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind, especially when it comes to investment and second homes. Nor do they appear to be particularly worried about being sued by their lender or frozen out of future loans by Fannie Mae, possible consequences of default.

…

The rich and successful often come naturally to this sort of attitude, said Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied strategic defaults.

“They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest,” Mr. White said.

 

[Black_Rose]

First incorrect assumption, charitable giving is highly correlated with altruism. Never mind, that John Galt/Ayn Rand’s fifty page screed in Atlas Shrugged condemns altruism, so it is not really a virtue for some conservatives/libertarians anyway. Nevertheless, people often give to charity to increase their social status and not look miserly to others, not out of pure altruism. But if people do not observe one’s charitable donation, then the act of giving would have little utility to the giver.

halfsigma.com/2005/06/the_economics_o.html
nytimes.com/2006/06/15/business/15scene.html

[D]
onors often give to charities for reasons of pride. Monitoring a charity means worrying about the wisdom of contributing to that charity. Many donors would instead prefer simply to feel good about their generosity and thus they deceive themselves into thinking that all is going well. Furthermore, many donors seek a sense of affiliation and wish to be a part of large and successful organizations — the “winning team,” so to speak. Again, these donors do not focus on how, or if, they actually end up improving the world.

Charity seems like illogical behavior. People give but get nothing in return. Of course, people never really do anything without some benefit. People giving to their church probably expect to receive some benefit in the afterlife. In the case of secular charities, the benefit is feeling good, guilt alleviation, or social stigma avoidance. The latter “benefit” occurs when someone calls you on the phone and asks for money. You don’t want to seem like a bad person or a cheapskate in the eyes of the solicitor. Although why anyone could care what a telemarketer thinks about them is beyond me. The social stigma effect is more powerful when the solicitation is in person, especially if you know the solicitor. This is why shaking down office co-workers for charitable donations has proven to be an effective fundraising strategy.

But not all charity is truly devoid of material benefits to the giver. In fact, giving money to charity, if done the right way, can be an effective way to raise one’s status. Those in the fundraising business understand this very well. Charity dinners, for example, allow the dinner attendee to hobnob with the right crowd. The higher the cost per plate, the better the crowd you get to hang with. At a $100 per plate dinner, you may wind up sitting at a table with a school teacher or a chiropractor, but as you move up to $1,000 or even $10,000 per plate dinners, you get to hang out with the elite and raise your status accordingly (and also make some valuable business contacts).

A very large donation allows you to sit on the board of a prestigious cultural or philanthropic institution. And with even more money you can get a building named after you.

We see that effective charitable giving requires one to give in a public matter. Giving in the privacy of one’s home is a complete waste of money. It’s like the proverbial tree falling down in the forest where no one is around to hear it fall. Charity only helps the giver when other people know about it.

This discussion should set to rest the notion that charity is strictly about altruism.

Second incorrect assumption, relying on a small sample size of (extraordinary) cases such as the charitable donations George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama to induce broader phenomenon.

Regarding the fallacy of using extraordinary samples, I will invoke the case of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer whom most Catholics find morally repugnant. According to Ronald Bailey, Peter Singer donates 20% of his income to charity. He primarily donates to alleviate world poverty, so he donates to charities such as OXFAM and Amnesty International. Even if those charities support abortion as some pro-life activists claim, one could reasonably assert that they save more lives than their abortion activism terminated. Because of the high proportion of his income he gives to charity, I suppose, by your reasoning, that he is a virtuous, compassionate, and morally upright person whose ethical ideas are worth considering.

Third incorrect assumption, my rhetorical question was about the wealthy collectively, not political orientation. Regarding wealth and income, the working poor give a larger proportion of their income than wealthy people:

Wrong. In fact, Americans at the bottom of the income-distribution pyramid are the country’s biggest givers per capita. The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that households with incomes below $20,000 gave a higher percentage of their earnings to charity than did any other income group: 4.6 percent, on average. As income increased, the percentage given away declined: Households earning between $50,000 and $100,000 donated 2.5 percent or less. Only at high income levels did the percentage begin to rise again: For households with incomes over $100,000, the number was 3.1 percent.

…
But the fact that the working poor sacrifice the highest percentage of their income is also important. Charitable giving is more than just a source of money to fund nonprofit activities; it is an expression of how communities band together to meet common goal

aei.org/article/27596

Fourth incorrect assumption, although not explicitly stated, charity is a relative macroeconomic phenomenon in developed nations and can serve as a means to finance services that are provided by the government.

 

[Black_Rose]

Fourth incorrect assumption, although not explicitly stated, charity is a relative macroeconomic phenomenon in developed nations and can serve as a means to finance services that are provided by the government. According to this, the gross domestic product of charitable contributions in the United States is 1.7%, a rather meager amount, but it is still the highest among all other countries. Does anyone will think that would be enough to finance unemployment, Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, health care, etc?

The 1.7% figure illustrates how ineffective charity is in actually helping the unfortunate, relative to well-financed government programs in developed countries. Each unit of financial resources donated through charity might have a higher marginal utility than those derived from taxation, but regardless, government programs are simple more effective (not efficient) because the enormous amount of financial resources at their disposal, relative to most charities.

Yes, I am able to support myself using resources from “conservative” sources. I used Half Sigma (a blogger that dislike liberals), Tyler Cowen (a libertarian economist from George Mason University), Ronald Bailey from the libertarian website www.reason.com, and, Arthur Brooks from the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[Monk21]

When Jimmy Carter was interviewed on an educational TV station, he was asked if he was bothered by groups in 3rd world countries asking him to use his influence to get funds. He said, no, they want to know if I know of anyone in Norway. The reason is that Norway is the biggest doner to 3rd world causes
In Canada, the poorest province (Newfoundland) give the most to charity.

 

[estesbob]

When Jimmy Carter was interviewed on an educational TV station, he was asked if he was bothered by groups in 3rd world countries asking him to use his influence to get funds. He said, no, they want to know if I know of anyone in Norway. The reason is that Norway is the biggest doner to 3rd world causes
In Canada, the poorest province (Newfoundland) give the most to charity.

I seriously doubt Norway gives more money to third world causes than the United States

 

[Black_Rose]

When Jimmy Carter was interviewed on an educational TV station, he was asked if he was bothered by groups in 3rd world countries asking him to use his influence to get funds. He said, no, they want to know if I know of anyone in Norway. The reason is that Norway is the biggest doner to 3rd world causes
In Canada, the poorest province (Newfoundland) give the most to charity.

Could I have the data? I am not doing this in an attempt to “call out” a point of data or argument that I deem fallacious, but simply because I want to corroborate it.

I want to know the charitable donations of Norway.

 

[jimpres]

Could I have the data? I am not doing this in an attempt to “call out” a point of data or argument that I deem fallacious, but simply because I want to corroborate it.

I want to know the charitable donations of Norway.

Here is a chart of the giving globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

The USA is first giving twice as much as the second which is the UK.

 

[ERose]

First incorrect assumption, charitable giving is highly correlated with altruism. Never mind, that John Galt/Ayn Rand’s fifty page screed in Atlas Shrugged condemns altruism, so it is not really a virtue for some conservatives/libertarians anyway. Nevertheless, people often give to charity to increase their social status and not look miserly to others, not out of pure altruism. But if people do not observe one’s charitable donation, then the act of giving would have little utility to the giver.

So your argument is that people that give to charity are really selfish in doing so? Really, that makes a whole lot of sense. Granted most people when they give of their time or money feel good about themselves for doing it but normally that is only a secondary response to the action. Most people I know give to give back to the community or to help people out. Not because they are selfish people, but because that is the right thing to do. But according to your thinking those that don’t give to charity are less selfish because they are not doing a selfish act of giving?

Second incorrect assumption, relying on a small sample size of (extraordinary) cases such as the charitable donations George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Barack Obama to induce broader phenomenon.

No I did not rely on a small sample. The initial data was collected over a broad spectrum and if you read the link you would have known that.

Why I provided these four examples is because by and large liberals love Obama (particularly) and Biden, and absolutely hate Bush and Cheney. Obama being the savior reborn for socialism in the US. I mean you finally got a socialist in the White House, who is so compassionate, loving, wonderful. He is what every liberal should be. etc., etc. He is by and large considered the greatest liberal president in our lifetime is he not. While Bush and Cheney are considered these evil monsters of men you need to be thrown into prison, etc., etc., etc.

Yet Bush and Cheney do far more for their fellow man than Obama does. Who is more compassionate? In my book it is the people who give more of their wealth and time to the poor and downtrodden. Not the ones who say everyone else should do so while I do not.

I provided them for a comparison of leaders, nothing more.

Regarding the fallacy of using extraordinary samples, I will invoke the case of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer whom most Catholics find morally repugnant. According to Ronald Bailey, Peter Singer donates 20% of his income to charity. He primarily donates to alleviate world poverty, so he donates to charities such as OXFAM and Amnesty International. Even if those charities support abortion as some pro-life activists claim, one could reasonably assert that they save more lives than their abortion activism terminated. Because of the high proportion of his income he gives to charity, I suppose, by your reasoning, that he is a virtuous, compassionate, and morally upright person whose ethical ideas are worth considering.

It sounds like he is one of the few liberals that put their money where their mouth is. No I call him an exception to the data. Personnally I do not know him so I am not going to say what kind of person he is. Please do not try to bait me into pettiness please.

Third incorrect assumption, my rhetorical question was about the wealthy collectively, not political orientation. Regarding wealth and income, the working poor give a larger proportion of their income than wealthy people:

That I have no doubt about. But there are many wealthy people who are giving a significant portion of their wealth. I heard Bill Gates is working on getting a group of billionaires to give 50% of their wealth away to charity. Data above showed that Dick Cheney and his wife gave 77% of their wealth to charity in 2005 or 6 I cannot remember. Also I posted the post not on anything you said but on the collection of post written by liberals on thread. So if it makes you feel better I am not picking on you exclusively.

Fourth incorrect assumption, although not explicitly stated, charity is a relative macroeconomic phenomenon in developed nations and can serve as a means to finance services that are provided by the government.

No charity primarily finances services that are not either provided by or inadequately provided by the government. Individuals collectively give far more to poor and downtrodden than governments do.

 

[ERose]

Fourth incorrect assumption, although not explicitly stated, charity is a relative macroeconomic phenomenon in developed nations and can serve as a means to finance services that are provided by the government. According to this, the gross domestic product of charitable contributions in the United States is 1.7%, a rather meager amount, but it is still the highest among all other countries. Does anyone will think that would be enough to finance unemployment, Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, health care, etc?

The 1.7% figure illustrates how ineffective charity is in actually helping the unfortunate, relative to well-financed government programs in developed countries. Each unit of financial resources donated through charity might have a higher marginal utility than those derived from taxation, but regardless, government programs are simple more effective (not efficient) because the enormous amount of financial resources at their disposal, relative to most charities.

Yes, I am able to support myself using resources from “conservative” sources. I used Half Sigma (a blogger that dislike liberals), Tyler Cowen (a libertarian economist from George Mason University), Ronald Bailey from the libertarian website www.reason.com, and, Arthur Brooks from the American Enterprise Institute.

Obviously you didn’t understand the point of my post because you must not have read it. The purpose of my thread was to point out the hypocrisy of the liberals in this country which determined by your response was effective. Explain to me why liberals, who are the primary group in this country working on making the US a socialistic country, do not live the life they say I and every other wealth generator should live by giving the majority of what I make to the government and depend on the government to parcell out my wealth along with other’s to whatever the government determines is a right and just?

You know why don’t you put your money were your mouth is and give 50-60% of your income to the government, which you can do if you look on your tax returns. See how far that gets you. I am not rich and I do not have alot of money. But I do not want your money. I do not want the government to come in and bail me out. I am not looking for a handout. All I want to do is take care of my family. That is it. Nothing more. Is someone makes more money than me well good for him. I don’t really care. All I care about is my family’s well being. If that requires me going out and working two or three jobs then so be it I will do it. But I can guarantee you one thing. When they finally lay me down in the ground, I go with the knowledge that I didn’t take anything that wasn’t mine and everything I owned and did was done with my money that I made by honest work.

When the government wants to come in and say no you are not doing enough so we are going to take more of your money? I have a problem with that.

Now concerning the mortgage issue. If you agreed to it you pay it. It is immoral not to pay it especially if you can afford to pay it.

For those that cannot afford it then they should loose the houses they are living in because that is no longer their house. They need to get out of them. Sometimes you hit rock bottom in this life. You don’t just lay there you get back up and you start climbing up again. You may have to get help for a little while that was what welfare was made for. But as soon as you don’t need it anymore then you get off of it. You don’t just stay on it because it is easy. That is immoral.

I do not feel sorry for those people who bought a house they could not afford. Those people are stupid and they deserve what they get. I am sorry that is just the way it is.

I am not against welfare and some government aid for those who really need it. I am against those that abuse the system which there are plenty of. You eliminate those that abuse the system you could probably get the percentage down where charity contributions and carry the day. But until then we are in a quagmire that we need to get out of.

 

[Black_Rose]

Here is a chart of the giving globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance

The USA is first giving twice as much as the second which is the UK.

Thanks, although a chart shows that the US .07% of its GDP to foreign aid. Norway is fourth, and Sweden is first, giving .5% of its GDP to foreign aid.