Shameless plug for a good cause

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Everyone in this thread is one serious illness or special needs child away from the poorhouse.

This is certainly true and was the case in my own family, where my father's Brain tumor quickly ate through the family savings and insurance coverage. In the end I grew up on Social Security Disability Funds and went to school by virtue of Pell grants. I'm not sure what we would have done without those government programs.

[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.

[€uroMeinke]

The lesson is, your a sucker is you have a huge savings account - the bigger the debt, the better off you are. At least when entering into a catastrophic health care situation.

[tracilicious]

From this link.

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.

All the other countries make it work. Why can't we?

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, what are you on about? Is the concept of insurance totally beyond your comprehension? What about taxes?

The individual contributing to the common good goes on all the time. It's a scheme of society that's been quite successful over the course of human history.

By your logic, why should I pay for education when I have no school-age children?

You may disagree that health care should be treated like flood damage or road construction ... but don't pretend that individual contributions to common good (which may or may not benefit any given contributing individual) doesn't go on all the time in modern society.


If people are not left to their own devices for basic education and basic infrastructure, I see no reason why they should be for the far more important role of basic health care.





.