American Republicans are usually to the right of British Conservatives. British Conservatives are more like conservative Democrats. They accept reforms like universal health care. They believe that a certain amount of domestic spending makes it easier to keep the right people in charge.

Rich British Conservatives have a sense of noblesse oblige: the attitude that from whom much is given much is expected.

Rich American Conservatives are usually more selfish and consider their wealth, however acquired, to be an absolute entitlement.

When Mitt Romney made his comment about the 47 percent he was expressing a widespread Republican attitude of contempt for the poor and the unemployed.

 

You are a misguided liberal hippy,,make no mistake about it.

 

You,,,as usual,, are so far off base again.


Republican voters have given more to charities than democrat voters.

 

Who Really Gives? Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States

Michele Margolis
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Political Science

Michael Sances
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Department of Political Science

September 4, 2012


Abstract:
Charitable contributions are the lifeblood of many nonprofit organizations; however, little attention has been paid to how political attitudes affect donations. In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity.

Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.

Finally, we examine the dynamic relationship between political control and individual partisanship. We find that charitable contributions fluctuate based on the political landscape: Democrats (Republicans) donate less money when a Republican (Democrat) occupies the White House. Conversely, having a co-partisan in the White House increases the average and total donations to nonprofits at the state level.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148033

 

I'm glad neither side gave in on the sequestration. I think we're better off with the so-called "cuts" that the sequestration calls for. At some point, we have to slow down the massive growth of the government. Federal spending has gone up 98% in the last 10 years. It isn't sustainable. Shaving off 2% of that isn't really a big deal even though the spendaholics in Washington act like it's the end of the world. It's a very small step in the right direction.

 

the whole of the government in the US needs to cut all spending by at least 30% per annum
simple methods for doing so are easy cuts to make
stop all funding for the care of illegal imigrants
end all unearned foriegn aid
end the funding of any business except in the form of garunteed loans against capital
end federal control of moral choices such as abortion, same sex mariage, ect.
end all salaries for politicians until such time that all citizens are first priority and that all government budgets are balanced
draft and enforce real fair trade agreements with other nations or enact import taxes equal to what we face on the foriegn nations
end all leniancies for those that refuse or fail to pay or file ontime tax statements, and end the practice of a variable tax rate and all deductions
make the rules for purchasing firearms a federaly maintained standard requiring a full and complete history check

 

DL you know better.
The government spending and government employment that did end the Depression was due to WWII; for the same reason unemployment dropped to around 1%; the government was buying war material and sending our best and brightest to fight Germans and Japanese (by the by; figured out yet why they went on such a rampage?). It was NOT government entitlement programs.

But you knew that.

And Eisenhower was not supporting entitlement programs with his points about the cost of war; he was making the point that war is a wasteful enterprise. Something I'm sure we both can agree with.

Now earlier you made mention that Roosevelt had been president when the unemployment rate dropped from 23.6 percent. In 1940 when he was reelected the second time unemployment had declined to 14.6 percent. And you know that by 1940 the nation was gearing up for war. And we haven't even addressed the idea that in 1932 before there even was an unemployment program, "unemployed" was counted differently than it is today. I can't help noting that 8 years is one hell of a long time for unemployment to stay above 10%, let alone above 14%.

The reality is that when government creates an "entitlement" program it is generally taking from one group (the rich) and giving to another group (the poor). The problem with that approach, no matter how noble, is that it creates dependency in the receiver and resentment in the giver.

Your president is doing it again; the rapid extension of unemployment benefits from a maximum of 6 months to over 2 years has not been as beneficial as leaving that money in the hands of employers, where they can a) hire more people b) create new products c) pay higher returns to the stock holders.

Instead, to pay for that fine concept, employers will see their unemployment tax DOUBLE for the next 5 to 10 years. And I promise you; that will nicely stomp on any recovery.

But you know that.

And I don't consider Social Security to be an "entitlement". I and my employers have paid into Social Security for my entire working life. The contract I have with my government is that when I retire I will be able to collect that money and enjoy my old age.

Starting with your president Johnson (remember? he "unified" the federal budget to hide the cost of his war in Viet Nam) and right along to your president Clinton (who wrote IOU's to Social Security to create a "surplus) administrations have been playing "make it up" with the budget numbers to hide what they are really up to.

Just like you do with your "Master of facts" stuff.


.............*shooter has an epiphany*


Say, do you work for the government?

 

The natural tendency of unregulated capitalism is to accumulate wealth among the rich. They are unlikely to invest the money ways that create jobs, goods, and services for the rest of us unless consumers are affluent. When consumers are unemployed, under employed, or fearful of losing their jobs they will not be buying very much.

Right now corporations have plenty of money. They are not hiring because most potential consumers are not buying very much. Consequently, corporations are buying each other out. When two companies merge, jobs are not created; they are destroyed.

By raising taxes on the rich and spending it in ways that benefit those who are not rich the government creates better consumers. When these buy more, employers hire more to create and sell what is bought. This is why there was nearly as much economic growth during Franklin Roosevelt's first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and why there were more jobs created per year under most Democratic presidents than Republican presidents from Harry Truman to George Bush.

 

Because you do not seem to understand my reasoning I see little point in repeating myself. However, for the benefit of others reading this comment, the Great Depression was ended by high amounts of government spending and employment paid for by steeply progressive taxation. It did not need to be military spending and employment.

 

It does not matter if you consider Social Security an entitlement or not. What does matter is that Social Security checks are not paid for from gold coins stored in the National Treasury. They are transfer payments from those who are employed to those who are not. It is not possible to cut taxes without reducing payments for programs like Social Security.

As I have pointed out, there is much support for raising taxes on the rich, and very little for cutting any government programs other than foreign aid, which is less than two percent of the budget.

 

Both of my parents did when Civil Service exams were exacting and when there were no affirmative action policies.

The Civil Service System was begun in order to prevent political patronage from filling government jobs. Since the civil rights movement requirements have been relaxed in order to hire more blacks. I have read that blacks are more likely to work for the government than whites. I am sure this is not because they get higher scores on Civil Service exams.

Affirmative action has reduced the quality, and hence the prestige of government employees. This is what Charles Murray wrote about government employment and affirmative action in his essay, "The Inequality Taboo."

"pecific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm...

"The nature of many of the consequences must be a matter of conjecture because people are so fearful of exploring them. (76) Consider an observation furtively voiced by many who interact with civil servants: that government is riddled with people who have been promoted to their level of incompetence because of pressure to have a staff with the correct sex and ethnicity in the correct proportions and positions. Are these just anecdotes? Or should we be worrying about the effects of affirmative action on the quality of government services? (77) It would be helpful to know the answers, but we will not so long as the taboo against talking about group difference prevails."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html

 

So by contract and tort law you do feel it's your entitlement ?

 

I think that's a very fair and balanced assessment.

 

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

- John Kenneth Galbraith


There is more to conservatism than this. I myself find much wisdom in the writings of Edmund Burke. Unfortunately, what passes for conservatism in the United States seldom extends beyond hatred for gun control laws and taxes.

 

Edmund Burke was just that, a Burk trying to justify selfishness and the protection of the status-qua as a "natural thing ". Pain had a better take on things, but to the conservatives he was a pain.

 

Burke did tend to idealize hereditary, landed aristocracies. Where I agree with him is that I am pessimistic about human nature and human potential, I think there is often wisdom in tradition, and I distrust untried social and economic experiments.

 

yeah i didn't blame most of my problems on bush throughout 2003 to 2008 either.

 

Classic. DL avoids the question with a bunch of nonsense.

 

It almost inevitably goes back to Murray and the Bell Curve eventually with him. He can't help himself. It's an all consuming obsession for DL.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Definition of EARN

1
a : to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered
b : to bring in by way of return <bonds earning 10 percent interest>

2
a : to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to <she earned a promotion>
b : to make worthy of or obtain for <the suggestion earned him a promotion>

I have earned the right to collect my Social Security. As I understand the term Entitlement as used by politicians, an entitlement is a "right" earned not by contribution, but by being a member of a certain class.

When Johnson unified the Federal budget dedicated trust funds like Social Security and Unemployment trust funds, which can not be used for anything but unemployment benefits, were rolled into the overall Federal Budget. He did this to hide the cost of the war in Viet Nam. Politicians now look at Trust funds like Social Security, and decide that the way to fix the budget deficit is to take from those funds. Never mind that by law, Social Security and Unemployment are dedicated funds. Clinton by the way stepped pretty close to the cliff when he "borrowed" from Social Security to pay off debt, thereby creating a "surplus".

That is not the deal my Government made with me when I started working. To cut my Social Security benefits when I have held up my part of the deal to pay for the excess spending of the last 5 years violates the agreement my government made with me some 50 years ago.

Collecting Social Security is not an "entitlement". It's something I have earned.