Conservatives are more generous!

[ivbinconned]

Why are conservatives more generous to poor?

December 2, 2006
So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30 percent more to charity than liberal Americans? A new book called Who Really Cares, by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, is not going to please the Howard Dean crowd. The book states flat-out that religious Americans who vote Republican are far more likely to be generous to the downtrodden than secular-progressives.
The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ''nurturing'' people who need help. The ''tax the rich'' crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.

That may be unfair but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ''income redistribution,'' that is big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ''economic justice,'' things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.

But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in ''income redistribution'' give 75 percent less to charity than Americans who don't, according to Brooks. That is a stunning differential.

I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and a vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you -- then you are thinking about you -- not about poor Dave down the street.

But devoted Christians, Jews and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in Scripture. Jesus was a huge ''help your neighbor'' guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.

The statistics say that religious Americans give four times more money to charity each year than secular people and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45 percent.

So in this season of giving, Christmas -- a word some liberals don't like to say -- it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portray conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multimillionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The vice president gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.

So the next time you hear a big-government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.

[AdamSmith]

The question is dishonest and constructed to get a desired result.

Farmers have been asking for choice but the MB NDP have unilaterally decided, just like the CWB that we're not allowed to desire that.

this plebicite is not relevent to what is happening today and what the is being proposed for the cwb, so the results will be meaningless.

I didn't expect anything else from the NDP though.

I only hope Strahl does a better job in constructing his plebicite.

[wilagro]

Conservatives (Republicans in the States) give to charities all right, but only to APPROVED causes that their religious right churches approve. It is called selective giving.

Check it out.

[wd9]

Come on AS, there is nothing wrong with the question, open market or not, that is the only question.

Waste of time and money as the fed gov has a strategy anyways, but that is another discussion.

Their position and policy is to provide marketing choice for wheat and barley growers and they are moving ahead with or without a provincial vote.

[parsley]

Minister Rosann Wowchuk's thinking represents what a great many farmers do not want..state control, peasants doing what she tells them, one marketing agency, one shipper. Her big plan does not recognize, let alone provide, any diversity at all.

Borat needs to come to Manitoba to film what comes out of Rosann's mouth to best put her views into perspective.

Her most convincing attribute is her audacity to thrash about in front of the media, loudly reciting the freshest single-desk phrase just memorized.

singledesksingledesksingledesk..over and over.and over.

You cannot have a vote on whether or not farmers are allowed to sell what they grow.

Farmers should own what they grow.And decide who they want to sell to.

Next, she'll be picking out your marriage partner.

Parsley

[Braveheart]

Adam Smith, as a fellow Manitoban I'm appalled at the waste of $80,000 to play the NDP's little political games. They (NDP) have the gall to say they support the single desk, then waste precious dollars to offer farmers a vote? Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[15444]

I think the liberal crowd gives less because the expect the government to be in charge of that, which they should. Giving a dollar to some charity is not going to help. If the government gives 1/4 million, then there is some chance of change. Liberal crowd says tax them, and spend it on the important charities, don't waste time and effort going door to door for chump change donations.

[ivbinconned]

"So what are we to make of the fact that conservative Americans donate 30 percent more to charity than liberal Americans?"

Thats the FACT willy that the artical deals with, NOT WHO they give to...but WHO gives.

[HFL]

Next, she'll be picking out your marriage partner.

Liberal and NDP politions have fought for and won the right for Gays and Lesbians to marry someone of the same sex. They fight to defend the right of people to end the life of their unborn children but if I want to sell my own grain, thats where human rights ends. I need to be put in jail for that kind of stuff. Unless you're from Ontairio.

[AdamSmith]

A great article in the Winnipeg Sun.



Thu, December 7, 2006

Farmers political pawns in plebiscite ploy
By TOM BRODBECK




If you want to know how politically motivated the Doer government's decision is to hold a plebiscite on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, just ask Agriculture Minister Rosann Wowchuk what she plans to do if farmers vote in favour of having choice in selling their grain.

The federal government is looking at making the Wheat Board voluntary so farmers can sell their wheat outside the board if they wish.

Right now, Manitoba farmers -- by law -- have to sell their wheat through the CWB monopoly. The argument is that the wheat board can get better prices for farmers if they're all forced to sell through them.

It's open to debate.

But now the Doer government wants to hold a plebiscite for farmers so they can vote on it.


Trouble is, this is federal jurisdiction and the wheat board has nothing to do with the provincial government.

The only reason the Doer government is holding a vote is to try to score political points with farmers in rural Manitoba in an attempt to offset some of the damage the NDP caused when they slapped farmers with a cow tax earlier this year.

In reality, the outcome of the vote on the wheat board is not binding and is entirely meaningless.

It has everything to do with political posturing before an expected spring election and nothing to do with farmers themselves.

That was made brutally obvious by Wowchuk yesterday when I asked her what she would do if farmers voted in favour of having choice outside the board.

Wowchuk says the wheat board is owned by farmers, not the federal government, and it is they who should determine its future.

If they vote to keep the monopoly, you can be sure Wowchuk would be yelling from the rooftops, demanding the federal government accept the outcome of the vote and maintain the status quo.

But when I asked her if she would lobby the federal government for choice outside of the wheat board -- if farmers voted that way -- she wouldn't answer the question, saying only that she just wants to give farmers a voice.

Idealogical views

Right. As long as it coincides with her ideological views.

The Doer government wants Ottawa to listen to farmers, but only if they like the outcome of the vote.

Wowchuk further insults our intelligence by saying this plebiscite is a fair and unbiased process.

That's funny.

The press release they put out on it yesterday excoriates Prime Minister Stephen Harper and federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl in the most partisan, political way for their position on the wheat board.

The release, an official Government of Manitoba press release, doesn't even refer to Harper as Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor Strahl as agriculture minister.

I've never seen a government release that fails to refer to a prime minister by their official title.

It reads more like a cheap partisan blog or a political party newsletter than an official government news release.

This process is as politically charged as you can get, driven by party politics, electioneering and NDP ideology.

It has absolutely nothing to do with farmers. They're just being used as political pawns by Premier Gary Doer.

The Doer government's decision to hold a plebiscite on the wheat board makes about as much sense as the federal government holding a plebiscite on the future of Manitoba's government-monopoly vehicle insurance scheme.

I doubt the Doer government would stand for that.

[northfarmer]

Direct charity is by far a better means of ensuring that aid and help gets directed to those who in fact need it, and not to spend it on some bloated beuracracy and tax system to collect it and distribute it.....not to say that govt does have a role, but it surely should not be the govt's sole domain.....

this is a lesson I had learned from someone who delivers his charity not through large tax sheltered donations to hospital building projects and other govt sponsored means,(which he did at one time but learned better after his large sums of money were squandered inefficently)....he goes to stores and buys large volumes of off the shelf food products, meats, etc and then takes them around in his Mercedes and delivers them to the soup kitchens and aid centres around the city he he lives, he packs extra suitcases of clothes with him on his global holidays to give directly to the poor so as to make sure his money gets to the people who need it......

people who can help people who need it does more to show the true goodwill of man, and at the same time does more to promote self reliance of the individual than expecting the govt to be the only vehicle of charity and support(income redistribution)......great article for exposing the the reality of charity and who really gives.

.....and by the way Wilagro, those so called conservative/republicans I know that give direct charity do not follow some approved list.....there is no proof of political/religous beleif required at the soup kitchen line....but it may make you and your like minded liberal thinkers feel more confortable in your skin to think that ...IMHO

[GrainVac]

Even Ralph knew better than to hold a vote/plebicite...Even after he de-regulated energy in AB and opened the door on reforms for private/for-profit health care...

[wedino]

Good point from Wheatgrowers:
We note for example that it takes a 60%
> threshold in Manitoba to impose a VOLUNTARY producer checkoff. If 60%
> is considered an appropriate threshold for voluntary participation, what
> sort of threshold is necessary for a compulsory marketing scheme?