Friday, March 28, 2008

Shabbat Shalom 21 Adar II 5768

Talk is cheap, especially Liberal compassion
conservatives more charitable than liberals

When I am asked to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives, my answer is short, sweet and from personal experience. Liberals believe in ideas such as affirmative action and low-income/section 8 housing. However when an African American or Hispanic family moves next door to them in their upscale suburban neighborhood, they have their home up for sale quicker than Ted Kennedy leading the stampede at an open bar.

Conservatives don't care who lives next to them as long as their property values increase.

In other words talk is cheap and action speaks louder than words. Liberals want to force their socialism ideology on everyone, but themselves. Conservatives don't believe in preferential treatment and prefer to help those in need themselves than rely on the government to solve the ills of society.

Columnist George Will has a brilliant article about a book published by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise he found was that conservatives are more charitable than liberals.

Brooks discovered that conservative-headed households give on average 30% more to charity than their liberal counterparts. Making the numbers more interesting is that liberal families earn approximately 6% more on average than families with conservative leanings. Brooks also learned that conservatives donate more time to charity as well as donate more blood.

Supporting these claims is the facts that people in states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did citizens in states that voted for George Bush...ouch! Bush carried 24 of 25 states that charitable contributions are higher than average.

What may be the most hypocritical revelation about compassionate liberalism is that those who reject the notion that government has an obligation to reduce the income divide, give an average of four times more than people who accept the socialist proposition. Once again people helping people, not government incompetence.

Your brilliant blogger doesn't need Professor Brooks to tell me that people who believe in their fellow man are more generous to others than those who want to force government solutions down every ones throats.

The most defining aspect of why conservatives are more charitable than liberals is because of religion. Brooks findings also backs what common sense dictates, people of faith understand their obligation to their neighbor. Oh no did I just say that religious people are overall more generous than secularists? Yeh, I did.

If you take an honest look at liberal ideals about what is best for society the end result is always the same. General talk about government providing more money with no real solutions proposed and of course no accountability. Think about education in America. Every year Uncle Sam throws more and more money toward funding education. In the meantime schools get worse, our children are less competitive in a global economy, but politicians on both sides of the aisle pat themselves on the back proclaiming they care about the kids, when in reality they are providing money for bureaucrats to waste and to make the teacher's union happy. The kids get screwed.

Conservatives want the government out of education, leaving people, in this case parents to decide how to educate their own children and spend their hard earned tax money. Charity begins at home and who better than our children to receive it.

On this Shabbat edition of Paulies Point, ask yourself how you are helping your fellow man and if you don't like what you find then change it. Don't rely on the government to do what you think should be done. That's the liberal way better known as the selfish way.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites