Shameless plug for a good cause

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Ok; read Who really Cares by Arthur C Brooks

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/...zI1Y2I3YmE1ZDg

None of this is terribly persuasive. Dollars to doughnuts that $263 is going primarily to a church, which may or may not be using it to do good works.

As far as giving to the homeless goes, I thought that only encouraged them. That aside, does the survey account for the fact that the "pull up your sockser" is less likely to live in an urban environment where he is confronted with such requests several times a day. Would they return change as quickly to the Mexican kid at McDonald's as to the blue haired lady at the local diner?

Not everyone gets to give blood.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

None of this is terribly persuasive.

Great points; I offered this link as a defense against the stereotype that conservatives are stingy and heartless.......

Just because someone doesn't think the government should do something doesn't mean they don't think something should be done

[innerSpaceman]

Um, is that supposed to be some sort of news flash? Richer people give a higher portion of their income to charity? Snoooooze.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, is that supposed to be some sort of news flash? Richer people give a higher portion of their income to charity? Snoooooze.

A second survey, this one conducted in 2002, found that people who believe that "people should take care of themselves" accounted for 25% of the population — but gave 31% of America's blood.

A third survey found that people who believe that the government "spends too much on welfare" were more likely to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or to give food or money to a homeless person.

A fourth found that a poor family that worked for its income donated three times as much money as a family that received an exactly equal income from welfare.

What does income have to do with blood donations and giving directions?

Also note that two families with identical income; the family who works for their money donates 3X the amount that the family who gains it from welfare.

[sleepyjeff]

From the same link I referenced above:

You'll never know who will turn up in Washington to talk politics. On Wednesday, the city was graced by actress Eva Longoria, the sultry star of ABC's Desperate Housewives. Addressing an audience of Latino business leaders, she explained the wide appeal of her show: "Everyone on Wisteria Lane has the money of a Republican, but the sex life of a Democrat."

It's a pretty good joke — but very poor sociology.

Over the past 15 years, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have emerged as the party of upper-income America. In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush among the 4% of voters who described themselves to exit pollsters as "upper class." In 2004, John Kerry won nine of the 10 richest zip codes in the United States.

[flippyshark]

Okay, I'll gladly accept charitable donations from any kind-hearted Republicans here.


Yes, I'm familiar with the charge that liberals want others to foot the bill, and don't want to give as much of their own money as Republicans are willing to do. That may well be true. (I know a few folks of whom this seems the case, anecdotally.) We could go back and forth on that forever, and that is precisely what I hoped not to do. (I admit, I asked for it with the sentence in my post that began "Not to bait anyone..." so I hereby withdraw that.)

I still think there is a significant problem, and I personally feel like I fall right through the woodwork in the current scheme of things. If we all agree that there is merit to the idea of all people in a society helping to shoulder at least some of the burden for the general good (and I take these responses to mean that yes, everyone agrees with that in principle), then what is the way forward?

[scaeagles]

My mom died of lupus. She had a brain tumor taken out in 1970 when I was 2 and never really recovered. Medications galore, therapy, doctor appointments, specialists.....a lot of which with my dad unemployed.

Without going into the day to day hardships, there was 6 figures of medical debt incurred over those 14 years after the surgery until she died in 1984.

Somehow, I managed to go to school. Yes, I had scholarship money, but I worked two jobs as well as going to school.

How is any of this the responsibility of anyone? How is it that any of that should be paid for by anyone else?

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

You have my admiration for sticking it out and making the best of a terrible situation. Still, I wouldn't wish the accompanying financial hardships on anyone.

While I understand that nobody's specific hardships should be your or anyone else's individual responsibility, am I wrong to think that it is good for society as a whole to voluntarily (important emphasis) try to alleviate suffering?

There are other angles to consider, too. Can we bring the cost of healthcare down? Can we institute reforms to the system so that doctors aren't burdened with legal costs, but patients have suficient redress for malpractice? I don't have much, or really any, confidence in government or the private sector to solve these problems. Still, "tough it out and remember that there are others worse off than you" is small comfort. (Though, admittedly, it's the system I'm currently on.) I don't want handouts, but I would like to be able to afford to take care of myself, and that isn't a realistic expectation right now. Seems like it should be.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My mom died of lupus. She had a brain tumor taken out in 1970 when I was 2 and never really recovered. Medications galore, therapy, doctor appointments, specialists.....a lot of which with my dad unemployed.

Without going into the day to day hardships, there was 6 figures of medical debt incurred over those 14 years after the surgery until she died in 1984.

Somehow, I managed to go to school. Yes, I had scholarship money, but I worked two jobs as well as going to school.

How is any of this the responsibility of anyone? How is it that any of that should be paid for by anyone else?

Our situation may not have been the worst out there. But it sucked. We made it. There is always something worse out there than what anyone is experiencing at any given time, certainly. I honestly do not understand, however, why anyone thinkfs that their misfortune or genetic impariments or whatever is the responsibility of anyone else. It's just a concept completely foreign to me, and I've been through it.

The notion of "the family" as a holistic unit in potential conflict with the rest of society is something of a conservative fiction, no? Like society, your family is just a collection of individuals. Under your logic, your dad could have told your mom that her illness was her problem and that she should have worked, worked more, saved more, etc. to prepare for such an occurrence. (Basically the old-fashioned marital property approach.) But he didn't. Your family made the fiscally irresponsible but compassionate decision to spend hundreds of thousands on medical care for one woman in a deteriorating condition so that one boy (and whatever siblings you have) could have a mother for as long as possible. Your opponents on this thread would simply expand the compassionate unit beyond the family to society as a whole.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Like society, your family is just a collection of individuals.

Not just a collection of individuals.