In all fairness, how many of us will commit petty theft once in our lives?  That doesn’t make petty theft “good”.  For a social conservative, premarital sex is taken in the same vein as stealing or fighting or drinking.  Just because the state of Texas has a case of raging alcoholism doesn’t mean their attempts to regulate drinking are hypocritical.  Just because I get in a car accident doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite for chastising unsafe drivers.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the reasonable conservative mindset and its important not to get the generic home school parent or the once-a-week church attendants or the mom and pop from the city suburb with the 2.3 kids and the minivan confused with the actual raving psychos of the right.

There are large swaths of people in America with a socially conservative mindset.  You can’t just wave your hand and say they don’t exist.  They might be suckers for having believed in the current incarnation of the Republican Party and they may be voting for Obama this time around, but they aren’t any less conservative than they were in 2000 or 1992 or 1980.  Don’t ignore them and don’t count them out.

I actually don’t care how anybody behaves in private.  What I object to is the belief that they should have a say in how I behave.  Conservative church members will take their daughters for an abortion and go out the next day and try to insure that other people’s daughters don’t have one.  Their hypocrisy is important to point out because they are trying to control how the rest of us live our lives.

In all fairness, how many of us will commit petty theft once in our lives?  That doesn’t make petty theft “good”.

Nice strawman.

We’re probably all guilty of a bit of hypocricy at some point in our lives, it’s just that not everyone builds an entire value system out of it…

Petty theft and raging alcoholism are antisocial behaviors that hurt people. Premarital sex and contraception use are not. This is not complicated.

“We’re probably all guilty of a bit of hypocricy at some point in our lives, it’s just that not everyone builds an entire value system out of it…”

Is exercise better than sittign on the couch?  Yes.  Do we all exercise everyday - No
Is saving money with great discipline the best way to ensure you financial future? Yes.  Do we all do it. -No
Is not letting your anger get the best of you so you don’t say and do stupid things that wreck relationships and make you look like a giant idiot the right approach?  Yes.  Do we all do it.  No. 

There are plenty of things that liberals and conservatives all agree are best for society and for each one of us personally, but that a sizeable majority on both sides don’t actually put into practice.  Hypocritcal, yes.  Selfish, yes.  Unique to one side, no.  Because as we all know conservatives watch porn, get divorced, etc. at as high or a higher rate than liberals do - in direct conflict with their stated political values.  And as well all know, liberals give less to the poor out of their take home income and volunteer less than conservatives, despite having a much higher political value focus on the poor.

@Zifnab25: The problem with your argument is that the folks in question were allowed to make their own mistakes, w/o the heavy hand of moral legislation bring them to ignominy.  Howver, by legislating their folkways, they attempt to subject the next generation to actual legal consequence for the same actions that the former were allowed to relegte to inner shame.

In that sense, its not hypocrisy, so much as its an issue of fairness - they know it was wrong when they committed the actions, yet I sincerely doubt they would be willing to line up and retroactively receive punishment.

Petty theft and raging alcoholism are antisocial behaviors that hurt people. Premarital sex and contraception use are not. This is not complicated. - junk science

No.  It’s not that complicated.  But people still won’t get it.  “Limiting reagents” is not a complicated concept.  Does that mean that when my Chem 101 class doesn’t get it, I should yell at them and make sure they hate all scientists?

Zifnab25 captures, IMHO, the way many “social conservatives” do in fact think.  We liberals are generally good at empathy.  When we purposefully “don’t get” how conservatives think, even if they would vote for us (which some might, especially in this election), they will decide not to because “those liberals ‘understand’ everyone but me”.

People live in a socially liberal manner but in many cases claim to be socially conservative.  We can either take advantage of that disconnect by doing things to make sure people realize the difference between legislating against petty theft vs. legislating against abortion or we can complain about how “they just don’t get it”.

Which should I do with my chem students who don’t get limiting reagents?  Which should we be doing with nominally socially conservative folks who are de facto not conservative but think they are?

A-fucking-men Amanda.  And Duncan added something that is very important, the hypocrisy of the media when describing as “socially liberal” doesn’t actually mean anything other than they want to be seen as compassionate when in fact, they’re not.  It’s more faux liberalism.

One thing struck me this morning.  All this constant pissing and moaning about the rural areas, the heartland, main street amurka.  All these people comprise less than 20% of the population yet these yokels are the ones driving our political discourse (we can talk about “undecideds” another time)?

Why?

Because it plays well on TV?  I’m frankly sick to death of these hicks being on TV and radio acting as though if I don’t live like them I’m some kind of commie.  Enough already.  This is, at very best, a special interest group and not the thing around which our entire society orbits.

Oh, and dr.t, that bullshit about “conservatives giving more than liberals” is just that.  Perhaps you would care to elaborate on that and educate me.  I have a feeling there are more than a few caveats that shoot down that generalization, things such as percentage of income, what charities are charities, and such.  I would also point out that the majority of the wealth in this country is controlled by people who would describe themselves as conservative.  It’s difficult for me to compete with scaife, for instance.  So I if I gave 10% of my income as a liberal to charity and scaife coughs up 2% of his wealth to “charities”, who is more generous and giving?

There is nothing particularly wrong with the reasonable conservative mindset and its important not to get the generic home school parent or the once-a-week church attendants or the mom and pop from the city suburb with the 2.3 kids and the minivan confused with the actual raving psychos of the right.

We’re not promoting that confusion, the religious right is—quite successfully, to the point where the archetypes you mention buy into it and to the point where fantasists like Osteen and crazies like Dobson have been mainstreamed to a degree that would have shocked Aimee Semple McPherson or even Billy Graham. Indeed, to the point where Rick Warren hosts one of the major Presidential debates.

There are large swaths of people in America with a socially conservative mindset.  You can’t just wave your hand and say they don’t exist.

However, we can say that they have no right to impose that limiting and narrow mindset (even the mild version) on the entire country. If it’s a hypocrite who’s trying to do that, it only makes our case stronger, but it works either way.

You’re correct that we can’t just pretend social conservatives don’t exist. But in political debates, we do ourselves no favours by politely humouring fantasists.

Does anyone find it funny that the article is writing by the Drudgico boys?  What a bunch of WATB’s.  McCain is getting hammered because his campaign is a trainwreck.  And Drudgico is financed by right-wing money.

There are plenty of things that liberals and conservatives all agree are best for society and for each one of us personally, but that a sizeable majority on both sides don’t actually put into practice.

Yes, but here’s the difference.  I know I should exercise, and I feel kind of bad that I don’t, but I don’t think that the fact that I don’t exercise means that a law should be passed mandating that everyone has to exercise or be fined/go to jail for not exercising.

The hypocrisy doesn’t come in thinking that certain things that I don’t do are good things, or that things that I’ve done are bad things—we all make mistakes.  The hypocrisy comes in insisting that everyone else be required to do things that I won’t do myself, or that things be outlawed even though I have done or plan to do them myself.

It’s holding other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself that makes for hypocrisy, especially if you want to bring the majesty of the law down on people to enforce those standards for you.

As to giving, I’d be interested to see how the numbers broke down if one counted compassionate but non-charitable giving. E.g. this year I’ve given nothing but old clothes to official charities. OTOH, I’ve given money to help individuals (that I don’t personally know): get an apartment, buy an electric wheelchair, bury a parent, and get medical treatment for a pet, and get medical treatment for themselves.

“Oh, and dr.t, that bullshit about “conservatives giving more than liberals” is just that.  Perhaps you would care to elaborate on that and educate me. “

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compasionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216

And it’s not just money that conservatives give more of.  It’s blood, volunteer time, etc.

And at the same time, these conservatives rail against practices and want to legislate them that they are personally doing on a daily basis.  Everyone says they want society to look and act a certain way and then fall short of making the choices on an individual basis to make that a reality.  It’s called being a human being.

“I think the fact that liberals focus governmental attention, and by extension, tax dollars, on the poor and working classes more than makes up for any shortfall coming out of our individual pockets”

Saying that I want you to buy a homeless guy a burger is not the same as me buying a homeless guy a burger by any strecth of anyone’s imagination anywhere on earth ever.  Nice try.  Asking others to pay for social programs you like is not the same as giving your money or time voluntarily.  Not even close.

In all fairness, how many of us will commit petty theft once in our lives?  That doesn’t make petty theft “good”.

Nice strawman.

In some parts, we call that an analogy.

we can say that they have no right to impose that limiting and narrow mindset (even the mild version) on the entire country. If it’s a hypocrite who’s trying to do that, it only makes our case stronger, but it works either way.

Absolutely.  They shouldn’t have the right to impose their morals on me and mine.  That said, it seems like Amanda is implying that the vast majority of folks have a slightly liberal mindset simply because they do things that a slightly conservative mindset would dictate is wrong.  That’s simply not true.  Despite conservatives doing bad things - Palin’s daughter getting knocked up out of wedlock, Rush Limbaugh downing oxycotin like cheetos, Dick Cheney shooting people in the face - they still consider those things “wrong” and will vote under the assumption they are wrong.

My petty theft metaphor was meant to illustrate how people do wrong things all the time despite the fact that they wouldn’t want those things done to them or done near them.  And while premarital / gay / hot sex never in-and-of-itself hurt anyone, it is a conservative no-no that I used to put up against another no-no that everyone can agree upon.  It’s not my fault that conservatives like to disagree with liberals on the stupid shit and I’ll happily admit that my analogy has flaws.

All I’m saying is that just because people break the rules doesn’t mean they oppose the rules.  And it is incredibly important not to be blinded by people’s hypocrisy and start assuming “well, if you do it, you must secretly think its ok”.

The thing is, most of what Amanda is talking about isn’t even socially liberal. It’s just common sense. Henry Ford was no liberal, but he knew that to build a sustainable business he had to pay his workers enough to buy his cars. Otto von Bismarck wasn’t even close to liberal, but he instituted universal health care because he believed it was necessary to his country’s prosperity. Goldwater was no liberal, but he thought it was incredibly stupid to limit who could serve their country. And so on.

For a lot of this we’re not talking liberal/conservative, we’re talking sane/bugf*ck crazy.

I don’t think it’s very productive (although it is satisfying) to view politics through the prism of individuals’ own behavior, because politics is all about reconciling individual will to human interactions.  Conservatives want to impose their will, whether they can live up to the beliefs they claim or not, on society at large.  Liberals want to allow much more for human difference and error, maximizing cooperation and minimizing painful consequences.  But both sides want to see their own claimed virtues—cultural ideals & sexual morality for the right, tolerance & generosity for the left—implemented as policies while making the other side’s beliefs entirely a matter of individual preference.  Democrats usually have few problems with hard work, stable marriages, even religious belief, etc., but absolutely don’t want a narrow set of standards for the above codified in law; Republicans are often okay with forgiveness and tolerance as long as it’s something they can embrace individually and on their own [sanctimonious] terms, not expected of them by society.

That said, I certainly don’t consider those positions of equal merit, because conservatism is historically a brutal and unjust, not to mention dangerously self-limiting, way to structure a society.  But the real issues in politics are always those of power and obligation in dealings with others, more than beliefs and sincerity vs. hypocrisy.

Saying that I want you to buy a homeless guy a burger is not the same as me buying a homeless guy a burger by any strecth of anyone’s imagination anywhere on earth ever.  Nice try.  Asking others to pay for social programs you like is not the same as giving your money or time voluntarily.  Not even close.

Nevermind the fact that liberals agitate for programs/laws that benefit the poor and destitute on a wide scale (see tax cuts for working class families, better health care for the un/under-insured). Give a homeless man a burger, he can eat for a day. Speak out against companies shipping jobs overseas or co-pays so huge that families are forced into poverty to clear their debts, and maybe they can get back on their feet and feed themselves, and their families.

But yeah, liberals are such meanies.

“—Asking others to pay for social programs you like is not the same as giving your money or time voluntarily.  Not even close. —”

Agreed.

Your study is still full of bunk.  Firstly, if it includes church donations, you’re basically saying “People who are confronted with a collection plate are more likely to give more money than people who are not confronted with a collection plate.”  Secondly, I’d like to know how many of those self-described conservatives are voting Obama this election.  Also, how many of them are against the Iraq War.  How many of them are pro-choice.  How many of them support cuts to the capital gains and corporate tax rates.  Etc etc etc.  Ie, I’d like to know what litmus test you’re using to determine whether they’re conservative or not.

Finally, I’d love to know how screaming “I’m holier than thou because I donated an extra $10 to the SPCA last month!” has anything to do with politics.  So you support the death penalty, chemical castration, adult sentences for youthful offenders, abolition of welfare and medicare and social security, gay bashing, vigilante lynching, and the bombing of more third world countries, but you put a higher percentage of your annual income into the PTA’s bake sale.  Why did you suddenly assume the mantle of “compassionate” conservative?

Uh, excuse me. Asking others to pay for programs that you, too, support with your tax dollars is pretty much the essence of democratic government. Otherwise conservatives would be thoroughly embarassed at having gotten the feds to fund abstinence-only “education”.

That said, it seems like Amanda is implying that the vast majority of folks have a slightly liberal mindset simply because they do things that a slightly conservative mindset would dictate is wrong.

I read it as implying that the vast majority of people behave (usually in private) in ways that are attributed by the MSM to a supposed “liberal mindset,” even if some of those people cover it up by professing their social conservativism for all to hear.

All I’m saying is that just because people break the rules doesn’t mean they oppose the rules.  And it is incredibly important not to be blinded by people’s hypocrisy and start assuming “well, if you do it, you must secretly think its ok”.

No, it just means their professions of moral superiority are a sham. A guy like Larry Craig can wrestle with his sexual demons in all sincerity, but when he attributes the so-called evil of homosexuality to choices made because of a liberal mindset it no longer matters whether or not he genuinely thinks homosexuality is morally wrong or not.

Re: Dr. T’s comments.  Perhaps neither conservatives nor liberals are being hypocrites here (assuming the stats about conservative’s and liberal’s personal lives are b.s.): even if we liberals are not so good at personal charity, it just gives us more of an appreciation of why individual charity doesn’t cut it in terms of alleviating poverty.  Even if conservatives can’t lead “moral” lives, well ... maybe that’s why they want society to keep them in line.

*

The thing is, most of what Amanda is talking about isn’t even socially liberal. It’s just common sense - paul

Indeed.  But the fact is that, e.g., journalists who feel this way do feel themselves to be socially liberal for thinking this.  And those who find said journalists to be a bunch of stuffy jerks then tend to view such beliefs held by journalists to be “liberal and outside of the mainstream”.

One of the contradictions in hardcore libertarian arguments against government assistance programmes is this: on the one hand, they claim private individuals and organisations are a better means for handing out welfare than government; and on the other hand, they believe strongly (per Rand) that altruism is for suckers.

All I’m saying is that just because people break the rules doesn’t mean they oppose the rules.

Yeah, but- whose rules ?

Petty theft is illegal. Premarital sex is considered immoral, not illegal, by a sub-set of this nation- generally, fundamentalists of the major religions. 

What conservatives ask is this: “live by the law, and, in addition, live by my personal values that you may or may not share, and which I may in turn not even abide by myself.” There’s a difference between not living up to your own internal standards, and working to enforce those unrealistic standards on the rest of the populace.

Zif, but premarital sex and contraception confer all these benefits—-not just pleasure, but also in the health of your relationships—-and conservatives use those benefits.  They don’t treat premarital sex like a sin, but in the same exact way that liberals do, as a normal and healthy part of life.  The difference is in how they talk about it, like it’s a bad thing.

And that’s a problem you have to overcome.  You can’t just declare these folks “slightly liberal” and move on.  Simply declaring someone a hypocrite doesn’t win you any elections.  You’ve got to keep educating and socializing and deprogramming folks with this mindset - that contraception is for me but not for thee.  You are only as progressive or regressive as your last election vote or your last campaign contribution dollar.  Claiming otherwise is the real hypocrisy.

Also most of the major TV anchors might be socially liberal on paper, but I guarantee you that they’ll be chomping at the bit for another McCain mega-wealthy tax cut.  And foreign wars pay their bills.  Iraq has been a media bonanza.  They live off of that shit.  Same with state executions.  I don’t know whether “War” or “Capital Punishment” are social issues, but if so it definitely takes a great deal of the blush off that media rose.

The thing is, most of what Amanda is talking about isn’t even socially liberal. It’s just common sense. Henry Ford was no liberal, but he knew that to build a sustainable business he had to pay his workers enough to buy his cars. Otto von Bismarck wasn’t even close to liberal, but he instituted universal health care because he believed it was necessary to his country’s prosperity. Goldwater was no liberal, but he thought it was incredibly stupid to limit who could serve their country. And so on.

For a lot of this we’re not talking liberal/conservative, we’re talking sane/bugf*ck crazy.

Michael Moore gave a pretty good argument regarding putting pragmatism before politics when running a business in one of his books. I’m not in agreement with every Moore says, but I definetely agree with him when he points out that:

Universal healthcare would benefit employers because it leads to a healthier workforce; if you can go to a Dr. without worrying that you won’t be able to pay your rent this month, you’ll get treated and recover quickly, as opposed to letting minor ailemnts drag on, reducing your productivity and possibly forcing you to take time off work.

Company daycare? Parents who aren’t distracted worrying about their child or having to rush out early to pick up their children can focus on their jobs.

All of the above being evidence that when conservatives actually put their minds to what would be best for their country/company, they invariably hit on things today’s wingnuts would deem “liberal”.

Asking others to pay for social programs you like is not the same as giving your money or time voluntarily.  Not even close.

You’re right.  It’s better, because using taxes to help people often means a greater efficiency and a lower risk of proselytization.

The problem, of course, is that people with liberal values who feel beholden to conservatives see voting as the tribute they pay.

Absolutely.  So it is important to break that fealty and clean the mud off the word “liberal”.  But at the end of the day its the votes that count.  The end goal is to convince people to vote for the progressive candidate.

The problem with the media is that while they might be liberal in bed, they are plenty conservative on the air.  And I can see where your statements get their fire from.  It’s a ridiculous parody of American life, with guys like Chris Mathews living the high life from 5 to 9, then hoping on the air the next morning and chewing people out for being hedonistic elitists and amoral slugs.

But that’s where the danger is.  The “liberal” media still panders heavily to the conservative talking points.  That they live a liberal lifestyle is meaningless.  They spend all their time galvanizing the conservative vote.  And their rhetoric wins Republicans elections.  So for all political purposes, they’re about as liberal as an Alan Keyes / Liddy Dole love child.

“Uh, excuse me. Asking others to pay for programs that you, too, support with your tax dollars is pretty much the essence of democratic government.”

No, it’s income redistribution. That is not democracy.  Giving the voting populace control over the wealth of all individuals is not anywhere in any of the founding documents of htis country and not in any way what was practiced by those who wrote them.  That was decided upon generations later and is a pretty clear change to what was originally put together.  It is quite the opposite of what has happened for a great big chunk of the life of this nation.

Firstly, if it includes church donations, you’re basically saying “People who are confronted with a collection plate are more likely to give more money than people who are not confronted with a collection plate.”

It’s also a good question as to how much of that money actually goes to social services.  Churches are pretty much answerable to no one.  They can spend as much on overhead as they like and never get called out on it.  Real non-profits are much more efficient, although are still frequently less efficient than government (depending on their focus).

Gracchus sez:

“One of the contradictions in hardcore libertarian arguments against government assistance programmes is this: on the one hand, they claim private individuals and organisations are a better means for handing out welfare than government; and on the other hand, they believe strongly (per Rand) that altruism is for suckers.”

That might be a good argument if all (or even most) libertarians were Randians. But they’re not, so it’s not.

Might be a good argument against Objectivism, though. Heh. But even Objectivists don’t believe they’re libertarians.

“People who actually think premarital sex is wrong are a tiny minority.  Much bigger are those who feel bullied into not disagreeing vehemently, but who quietly have premarital sex because they know it’s the right thing to do.”

You are absolutely spot on when you say that Amanda.  But there is a huge block of people who believe that premarital sex is alright and think it is a horrible idea if you are, say, under 18 when you do it.  So within a group that agrees on a Macro level is a big group that then would question how youth are spoken to about sex, by whom, and when.  Therein lies the debate.  It’s not between Dobson and Nambla.  It’s between the wide middle.

Giving the voting populace control over the wealth of all individuals is not anywhere in any of the founding documents of htis country and not in any way what was practiced by those who wrote them.

Baloney, Dr. T.  Right there in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

If that’s not “giving the voting populace control over the wealth of all individuals” I don’t know what is.

It is income redistribution (or more accurately wealth redistribution), and it absolutely is democracy.  What else would it be?

liberalrob -

When one taxes a small percentage from individuals to cover defense and other needs it is taxation.  When one takes over 50% of an individual’s earnings through federal, state, local, property and sales tax it is income redistribution.  Show me the article that says that is part of the plan, Stanley.  If the founding fathers inteneded taxation to be income redistributon, why didnt they do it when they ran the show.  Cuz they didn’t envision it to be that way.  The bastardization of that article to include the government pyaing for and being responsible for everything including the kitchen sink for all people has come in the last 100 years, not the first 130, and has grown out of a school of political thought that is anything but democratic in nature and practice.

That might be a good argument if all (or even most) libertarians were Randians. But they’re not, so it’s not.

Which is why I added the qualifier “hardcore.” I’m not talking about people who read Reason (who don’t focus soley on economics), or the Randians (who don’t believe in charity, full-stop). I’m talking about the kind of economic libertarian who’s so hardcore he votes for Republicans or thinks Democrats are Commie-pinkos—and there are quite a lot of them.

You know, people who say things like this:

Giving the voting populace control over the wealth of all individuals is not anywhere in any of the founding documents of htis country and not in any way what was practiced by those who wrote them.  That was decided upon generations later and is a pretty clear change to what was originally put together.  It is quite the opposite of what has happened for a great big chunk of the life of this nation.

The Founding Fathers of the Republic didn’t object to taxation (or, as you might put it, “giving the voting populace control over the wealth of all individuals”) per se>, they objected to taxation without representation. As to how taxes were collected and/or applied, they had the foresight and intellectual maturity to leave that to later generations, because things change.

During the “great big chunk” of American life you mention (roughly 1783 to 1917), the nation as a whole had: different geopolitical aspirations than it does now; a significantly smaller population (most of them native-born or slaves); a relatively tiny middle class; an economy based on agriculture and resources-extraction, transitioning to industrial enterprises; and a geographic scale made seemingly more vast by the limitations of technology. There are other factors, but those cover the basics in explaining that it was a far less complex economic system than today’s, and taxation regime that matched it.

Oh, what crap, T. It’s all redistribution. Get used to it. When my-hard-earned money is used to line the pockets of some jerkwad at Halliburton billing the government for sailboat fuel,or some once-well-meaning kid kicking down a door and shooting everyone inside because he got spooked, or for the $70 billion in bonuses that bailout-eating wall street frims reportedly have scheduled for this year, that’s redistribution. And when Ken Lay’s estate gets dinged so that grade-school classes in Texas may get two new watered-down textbooks a year instead of one or none, that’s redistribution too.

What worries me a little in this discussion of hypocrisy is that in a way it’s even scarier if some of the “conservatives” believe the stuff they preach while living otherwise. Because then their sense of personal failure just pushes them into ever-stricter attempts at control.

So the welfare state in The U.S. ” has grown out of a school of political thought that is anything but democratic in nature and practice.”
So the the progressive republicns and democrats who indtorduced the income tax and the welfare state were ani-democartic? Are you nuts or just a libertarian?

Are you nuts or just a libertarian?

That’s a redundant question.

When one taxes a small percentage from individuals to cover defense and other needs it is taxation.

You have no idea how large our defense budget is, do you?  Stealth bombers ain’t cheap.

When one taxes a small percentage from individuals to cover defense and other needs it is taxation.  When one takes over 50% of an individual’s earnings through federal, state, local, property and sales tax it is income redistribution.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the collection of funds and the application of funds. On the latter issue, just a quick look at the Federal numbers tells you that the largest share (approx. 67%) of the discretionary budget does indeed go to the military and national security. I suppose you could call a big chunk of that “income re-distribution” to defence contractors, but I suspect you’re more focused on the remaining 33%. Let us know which aspects of that part of the budget are evidence of creeping Marxism.

Because then their sense of personal failure just pushes them into ever-stricter attempts at control.

Amen, brother.

How much of church giving goes to *nothing* but specifically religious purposes?

Because if I give the government a check for $50, and they take $5 out of it for overhead and give $45 to a poor person, I know that poor person is getting $45 regardless of their beliefs and without having to listen to someone sermonizing about a belief system I think is ridiculous or harmful. But if I give a church a check for $50, and they take $5 out for overhead and give $45 to a poor person, *their* overhead involves less pay for their employees and more purchasing of materials and time for the purpose of proselytizing their religion. I mean, they are a CHURCH. That’s their job.

Conservatives give plenty to church, I’m sure—both time and money. But in my opinion, a significant portion of that time and money is wasted energy because it is spent on broadcasting their beliefs, trying to educate people in their beliefs, and worshipping. I don’t begrudge them the right to do that—they’re a church, that’s what they are for. But the money I give to the government to be given out to poor people gets delivered *without* money being spent on delivering a message I don’t believe in. And money I give to secular charities goes directly to the cause, without being tangled in the transmission of a message I disagree with or with the time and materials spent on worship.

I think if you look at how much the money liberals give *helps* people vs. how much the money conservatives give, you might see that liberals give less money because we donate to more efficient charities. Churches *must* spend their money on worship, that’s what they’re for. A secular charity can be about nothing but the charity.

Saying that I want you to buy a homeless guy a burger is not the same as me buying a homeless guy a burger by any strecth of anyone’s imagination anywhere on earth ever. 

Nice strawman, numbnuts.

Buying a homeless guy a burger is also not the same as organizing via the government a program to buy all the homeless guys burgers, for which we all pay.

Unfortunately the latter approach 1. achieves meaningful results 2. doesn’t allow for quite as much indulgence in smug self-satisfaction and 3. doesn’t create a captive audience for haranguing the homeless guy about how he’s only homeless for failing to genuflect before your personal god of choice. So conservatives naturally hate it.

Asking others to pay for social programs you like is not the same as giving your money or time voluntarily.  Not even close.

I’ve asked this before, and never gotten an answer. Why do people assume liberals are somehow magically exempt from taxes?

If I agitate for government programs, I’m also asking *myself* to pay for them, douchebags.

If the founding fathers inteneded <strike>taxation to be income redistributon</strike> slavery to be abolished and women given the vote, why didnt they do it when they ran the show?

FTFY, Doc.

Dr T, if you don’t want to pay your part of the social contract, then get the fuck out of this country and find some country where they don’t have taxes.  Go on, do it - after all, since you’re so convinced that the no-state state is so perfect, it ought to be everywhere in the world, right?

Wingers who actually are and live like civilized, decent liberals - hypocrits and buttheads.

Go to:  www.buttheadpolice.com

Vote for some of these extreme buttheads, like Palin and McCain to get asses stamped on their heads.  All in good fun, but makes a wicked statement.  Spread the word!!

I’ve still never heard Dr T explain how he would handle living in a “Libertarian Paradise” where he was NOT one of the 5% at the top who own everything (you know, just like the way it is now).

And that’s why I keep quoting BioShock:

We all come down here, figured we’d all be part of Ryan’s Great Chain.  Turns out Ryan’s chain is made of gold, and ours are the sort with the big iron ball around your ankle.

And that’s why I keep quoting BioShock:

Win.

BTW, does anyone have the figures/paper for the whole “liberals donate less to charity” study? I’m interested in whether it includes the amount of money that religious folk give to their churches. Not to say that churches don’t do some good with the money (soup kitchens, mission schools in places with poor educational systems), but in my experience, much of the money is not spent on charity. People are, in fact, basically paying for a service (even if the payment isn’t required, up to a certain point- no one pays, no one gets their weekly stories)...

Oh wait, someone made this point up-thread. Still interested in actually seeing the numbers though.

The bastardization of that article to include the government pyaing for and being responsible for everything including the kitchen sink for all people has come in the last 100 years, not the first 130, and has grown out of a school of political thought that is anything but democratic in nature and practice.

You’re arguing ideology, not structure.  There’s no doubt that ideologies have changed over time.  The Founders built DEMOCRATIC means to accommodate such ideological shifts without the revolutions and civil wars that characterized how other systems of government dealt with ideological change (the American Civil War was fought because the South explicitly rejected the majority consensus and refused to accept change).  If the polity now values social services over rugged individualism and self-reliance, the system can adjust to that; and it has.  The fact that you and a minority of others view this change as forced upon you undemocratically by powerful elites should mean that you aim your anger at those elites who have captured the system, not the system itself.

dude, bioshock is fun and creepy as hell. Never made it past the first “Daddy” though.

Constitutional fundies will take that quote from Article 8 and make it into an argument for the flat tax. Instead of, you know, meaning that NY and VA had to abide by the same tariff laws.

Sure, both these views are constitutionally valid within the wording, it’s just that one of them is really stupid.

Well, that should be an and/or anger, liberalbob; one could be angry at the elites and the chump system that gave in to them.

About liberals and taxes: heck, insofar as it’s true that the `liberal elites’ are in high-paid jobs on the coasts, income taxes are worse for us; we hit higher income tax brackets well before we can buy an `average’ house.

The distinction that I use between normal-kind-of-healthy doublethink, e.g. `I shouldn’t smoke, I do smoke, pity about cig taxes but I agree with them, someday I’ll quit’ and chaps-my-hide hypocrisy is whether enforcement is actually the same for everyone. The nasty side of socially conservative places with strong hierarchies is that some people know they won’t get punished for errors that ruin other people’s lives; and the first people get pretty loud in their condemnations.

Stones, glass houses, etc.

When one taxes a small percentage from individuals to cover defense and other needs it is taxation.  When one takes over 50% of an individual’s earnings through federal, state, local, property and sales tax it is income redistribution.  Show me the article that says that is part of the plan, Stanley.

When you see the following printed words:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Where do you read “as long as its a small percentage” or “general Welfare dosent mean general Welfare”

Must be that strict constructionism that gives you the power to read whats not written and ignore what is

When one taxes a small percentage from individuals to cover defense and other needs it is taxation.  When one takes over 50% of an individual’s earnings through federal, state, local, property and sales tax it is income redistribution.

No, you are wrong. There is no magical level at which taxation becomes “income redistribution,” and in fact, income is not actually redistributed in the vast majority of cases. What matters is creating the infrastructure and conditions for people to be able to better their position. That’s always been at the core of any public welfare (construed in the broad sense) programs implemented throughout American history.

Show me the article that says that is part of the plan, Stanley.  If the founding fathers inteneded taxation to be income redistributon, why didnt they do it when they ran the show.  Cuz they didn’t envision it to be that way.

You know what? Fuck the fucking plan, and fuck people who bring up this idiotic argument. “Waaah, the positions I impute to some dead dudes that I deify because I don’t know any better don’t match up with reality, waaah!” Cry me a river. It’s not the 18th century anymore.

The bastardization of that article to include the government pyaing for and being responsible for everything including the kitchen sink for all people has come in the last 100 years, not the first 130, and has grown out of a school of political thought that is anything but democratic in nature and practice.

No, you are wrong again and also stupid. Because the government does not pay for everything, or even close to everything, and only a total liar would claim otherwise. And also because the idea that this is a social contract and not libertopia, and that it’s ok to ask the most successful to contribute more to the common cause, is in fact a direct consequence of democratic reforms and ideas.

If the founding fathers inteneded taxation to be income redistributon, why didnt they do it when they ran the show.  Cuz they didn’t envision it to be that way

Yeah! And why didn’t they say that the 2nd Amendment means private citizens can own Uzis?

And what Paul and Jeff said. I find it fascinating how strict construction only applies to things conservatives don’t like.

The Constitution: It’s a living document, stupid.

The founding fathers owned slaves.  They had property that was other, living human beings.  Most of the things they squeezed into the constitution was to make things more comfortable for themselves.  Slaves didn’t have the right to vote, of course, but were counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes giving the southern slave owners more representatives in congress.  Whatever opinions they might hold on what is happening today is very unimportant because they are all dead.  They didn’t leave us a document to freeze us in time in the eighteenth century. 

A lot of the money that conservatives give to charity or non-profit groups is given to their churches and is used on buildings and enriching the pastors.  I give money to charity to benefit the less fortunate, not to help pay for some preacher’s new Mercedes or a church’s stained glass windows.

My friend’s parents sent her entire college fund to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, who bought an air-conditioned doghouse among other crappy things.  I give my old clothes to charity and send small amounts of money to support educational and social uplift groups.  I spend a larger amount paying more in order to support local farmers and small businesses against Big Boxes.  The latter doesn’t count as charitable giving in the strictest sense, and I certainly cannot claim it on my taxes, but still it is direct support for those whom I believe need it.  So who’s more likely to come back as a wombat in their next lives, my friend’s parents or me?

If the polity now values social services over rugged individualism and self-reliance, the system can adjust to that; and it has.

Exactly.  Further, the system permits policies to adjust to shifts in the polity’s values in the other direction.  For example, the “Reagan Revolution” and the last 30 or so years of conservative politics.  The results of those policies have been disastrous, and now the polity is shifting back again.  That is democracy, Dr.T.

Also, the religious charity thing: besides the fact that religious contributions don’t necessarily equate to charitable giving, why does anyone assume that “religious” necessarily means “conservative?” Uh, hello, Rev. Wright?  MLK?  Malcolm X?  Are Unitarians conservative?  Quakers?

Next thing you know, Dr. T will be telling us that equality “is not an American value”.

Yeah, it’s only in the CONSTITUTION and the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, so it’s not like it’s any kind of ideal for us.

So what IF the tax rate were 50%?  If you got a functioning society out of the deal, seems like money well used.

How are the roads in your state, Dr. T?

“So what IF the tax rate were 50%?”  That’s socialism.