Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Did someone leave the cavern entrance unguarded? What next, a pond grabber?

[Rockphed]

Personally I wouldn't say Republican economics are "evil", exactly.  A lack of compassion (health care and welfare) is central, though, justified with naive optimism that people have the chance to "make their own fortunes" through hard work and intelligence...  Even when that means taking down entrenched, barely-regulated megacorps with little capital.
Compassion still has a place, but through blatantly religious channels.

A belief in the power of the free market has long been a touchstone among Republicans.  With the rise of Trump it seems to be waning, but still present.  Republicans will tell you that if the market is allowed to exist with minimal outside influences, that it will result in the most good for the most people.

And Republicans may try to make government uncaring, but they typically donate between 5 and 20 times as much to charities when compared to democrats.  The "joke" I have heard more times than I care to count runs "When I am liberal, I am liberal with my money.  When a politician is liberal, they are likewise liberal with my money."

[Rolan7]

Personally I wouldn't say Republican economics are "evil", exactly.  A lack of compassion (health care and welfare) is central, though, justified with naive optimism that people have the chance to "make their own fortunes" through hard work and intelligence...  Even when that means taking down entrenched, barely-regulated megacorps with little capital.
Compassion still has a place, but through blatantly religious channels.

A belief in the power of the free market has long been a touchstone among Republicans.  With the rise of Trump it seems to be waning, but still present.  Republicans will tell you that if the market is allowed to exist with minimal outside influences, that it will result in the most good for the most people.

Yep, that's what I was describing I think.  And I agree to some extent - sometimes safety nets do go too far.  There needs to be enough regulation to provide reasonable standards of safety, environmental damage, and competitiveness (anti-monopoly).  But not too much, or bureacracy and restrictions hamper business more than necessary.

I think the balance is waaay too far Right at the moment, due to naive *over* confidence in the free market.

And Republicans may try to make government uncaring, but they typically donate between 5 and 20 times as much to charities when compared to democrats.  The "joke" I have heard more times than I care to count runs "When I am liberal, I am liberal with my money.  When a politician is liberal, they are likewise liberal with my money."

Waaait what, 5 and 20 times as much?  Surely you might mean percent?
Even considering that a massive amount of that "charitable" donation is funding churches, IE private congregation facilities and evangelism.  Secular charities don't have to balance their aid with promoting a message as missionary work does.

Really though, the crazy part there is 5-20X.  I couldn't find anything close to supporting that...  The reddest states seemed to have about twice as much on charity (adjusted I think) than the bluest states maybe.  And those are extreme cases with clear possible explanations.

I did find a similar funny joke when looking.  Something like "A Republican gave a homeless man $5 for a meal.  A Democrat saw that and, inspired, gave a homeless man directions to the welfare office."  Which is sorta funny in that the Democrat probably did more good...  Obviously that's not the point the joke was going for though.

[Rockphed]

Waaait what, 5 and 20 times as much?  Surely you might mean percent?
Even considering that a massive amount of that "charitable" donation is funding churches, IE private congregation facilities and evangelism.  Secular charities don't have to balance their aid with promoting a message as missionary work does.

Really though, the crazy part there is 5-20X.  I couldn't find anything close to supporting that...  The reddest states seemed to have about twice as much on charity (adjusted I think) than the bluest states maybe.  And those are extreme cases with clear possible explanations.

I did find a similar funny joke when looking.  Something like "A Republican gave a homeless man $5 for a meal.  A Democrat saw that and, inspired, gave a homeless man directions to the welfare office."  Which is sorta funny in that the Democrat probably did more good...  Obviously that's not the point the joke was going for though.

My bad, I misremembered the data.  Looking around quickly I found that liberals average 6% higher income while conservatives give 30% more (which I think was absolute $) to charity.

Edit:  And from the same article where I found that, there was this tidbit:

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

[Rolepgeek]

Free market is pretty nice, I would say. Government interference immediately causes it to be less of a free market, though, and the way it is less free can vary from good to bad.

Take a look at where support for Democratic versus Republican deals/policies are, and the characteristics of those areas, and look at how that might influence how and why people think/vote that way.

Rockphed, if you're able to find the median charity donations (and while this is less likely to be findable, to organizations specifically for helping people; not politics, would be the ideal here), that might serve your point better. The meaning seems somewhat...garbled, though. What point exactly are you making?

[Rockphed]

Free market is pretty nice, I would say. Government interference immediately causes it to be less of a free market, though, and the way it is less free can vary from good to bad.

Take a look at where support for Democratic versus Republican deals/policies are, and the characteristics of those areas, and look at how that might influence how and why people think/vote that way.

Rockphed, if you're able to find the median charity donations (and while this is less likely to be findable, to organizations specifically for helping people; not politics, would be the ideal here), that might serve your point better. The meaning seems somewhat...garbled, though. What point exactly are you making?

That republicans may think that government should not be out helping people, but they typically are going to give of themselves to help others.  The "The government will take care of it" mentality is, in my opinion, mere giving excuse for problems persisting.

[Rolan7]

That republicans may think that government should not be out helping people, but they typically are going to give of themselves to help others.  The "The government will take care of it" mentality is, in my opinion, mere giving excuse for problems persisting.

Yeah and that makes perfect sense to me, as does the opposite position:  Since I support government spending on welfare, I feel less obligated to send my money to help poor people...  through a missionary organization or otherwise.

I found the charts midway down this rather interesting, though note that they're from 2003/2004.  They're also using "percent of income" rather than raw amounts, and it's going by state.  With the benefit that it's actual numbers instead of people self-reporting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/?utm_term=.0e561100ef37
DC's an extreme outlier of course, so the dotted line ignores DC.
And Utah is also a notable outlier because of Mormonism, hence the dotted line.

It's about what I expected...  Religious organizations handle most "charity" money altogether, especially from Republican states.  Democratic states were significantly more generous towards 2005 tsunami relief, though. 

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Deus Vult the tsunami, anyway

[Rockphed]

It's about what I expected...  Religious organizations handle most "charity" money altogether, especially from Republican states.  Democratic states were significantly more generous towards 2005 tsunami relief, though.

I vaguely remember being able to put "tsunami relief" on my church's donation forms in late 2005, so it would make sense that democrats who don't attend church would donate directly to relief efforts instead of donating through their church.

[Reelya]

That republicans may think that government should not be out helping people, but they typically are going to give of themselves to help others.  The "The government will take care of it" mentality is, in my opinion, mere giving excuse for problems persisting.

The government is expected to help with certain problems, because those problems persisted without intervention before hand. Also, you do need some sort of data to decide who needs what. I don't really buy that there are these problems that persists because we're helping people with them, and that they would just magically go away if we let the "free market" deal with them.

Single mothers are apparently one of the go-to topics, with the argument that welfare creates the problem. Except that single motherhood is less common in countries with better welfare arrangements than the USA:
https://spacedoutscientist.com/2015/04/11/single-parents-worldwide-statistics-and-trends/

Australia, which offers a full pension for single mothers, has 16% single-parent households, compared to 25% in the USA. The USA actually has the highest rate of single-parent families in the entire OECD, despite having almost the weakest welfare system of all of them. Clearly, the linear "welfare system causes single motherhood" argument doesn't hold up against international data.

[PTTG??]

So are we finally going to see a gang war between a Trump-backing FBI and an anti-Trump CIA? Because I really want to see that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I hardly see any reason to believe the CIA would be anti-Trump. If anything, they'll be happy to have their leash held by someone who's too weak to pull on it, gives them autonomy.

Regardless, I reiterate what I said about Trump long, long ago during the halcyon days of the primary season: He may well be the lever via which we can tear out the heart of the security state. His base idiocy will lead to him using it in far more hamfisted ways than any other candidate would have, thereby justifying its abolishment in the eyes of the public.

We may be unironically using the word "Detrumpification" two to four years from now, but it might be worth it.

[Neonivek]

I hardly see any reason to believe the CIA would be anti-Trump. If anything, they'll be happy to have their leash held by someone who's too weak to pull on it, gives them autonomy.

Regardless, I reiterate what I said about Trump long, long ago during the halcyon days of the primary season: He may well be the lever via which we can tear out the heart of the security state. His base idiocy will lead to him using it in far more hamfisted ways than any other candidate would have, thereby justifying its abolishment in the eyes of the public.

We may be unironically using the word "Detrumpification" two to four years from now, but it might be worth it.

When the heck did Trump need evidence or justified suspicion for his accusations? I mean... He might be a total hypocrite... but at least he is consistent in his ravings.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A. That has nothing to do with Trump's accusations.

B. Trump isn't consistent at all in his ravings. One speech it's "arrest the Clintons, Hillary's a traitor and Bill's a rapist" then it's "she's a great woman, and we owe her our thanks". Or "Obamacare is the worst thing to ever happen to America" then "I'm alright with most of Obamacare". Or "Global warming is a hoax by the Chinese" then "Al Gore and I had a very productive meeting".

Dude has had his private face assimilated by his public face. He believes whatever he feels like saying that day.

[misko27]

The tendency of people to believe that the best way of fixing things is to let them get worse is perhaps the most counter-intuitive piece of madness ever produced by politics.

If a large number of people voted for Trump, then I refuse to believe that such madness as you suggest is possible.

His base idiocy will lead to him using it in far more hamfisted ways than any other candidate would have, thereby justifying its abolishment in the eyes of the public.

Or maybe Trump will just let them do whatever they want, leading to it becoming far more entrenched than it was previously. You know, what happened under Bush. For eight years. And made things the worst they've ever been. For another four years.

Just consider the possibility that Trump can be easily used by people who know how to manipulate him, and perhaps you will understand the sum of all my fears.

So are we finally going to see a gang war between a Trump-backing FBI and an anti-Trump CIA? Because I really want to see that.

I think that any such war would be one that you and I don't get to see, as much as I like drama between different organizations that could kill me if they wanted to. mainiac was probably our best shot at seeing any sort of war within the intelligience agencies (since obviously he was a shill for the CIA), and with him gone it depends entirely on what spills into the public