http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/our-daughter-isnt-a-selfish-brat-your-son-just-hasnt-read-atlas-shrugged

Funny, but oh so not conservative.

Most conservatives are very willing to "share" and you typically find charitable donations (easily checked on tax returns) as a percent of income are just as high and usually higher than liberals.

The thing conservatives don't like, is the government mandating and being the middle man for the charitable donation (so to speak).

The story would have correlated if some park officials came and took the ball away from the girl and then let all the other kids play with it. If she were a true 'conservative' she would have shared when the boy asked.

You and I know different conservatives.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1249450 wrote:You and I know different conservatives.

Or possibly we know different liberals?

Charitable donations as a percentage of income.

Obama's-From 2000-2004 they donated about 1%, in 2005 and 2006 they donated about 5%. They made millions in this time frame (not Romney type money, but still millions).

Romney-In 2010 and 2011 his charitable donations were 14% and 19% respectively.

McCain-2006 he donated 18%, 2007 he donated 26%.

Bush II-2007 18%

Biden-2007 0.3%, 2009 1.4%

The Clinton's have been the best big name D's lately when it comes to charitable donations. They routinely give 10-18% each year, so they are one of the few liberals who actually show they care about the poor with their actual money, not your's and mine.

I got these from multiple links, so just google them, I'm not going to post 7 or 8 links.

Oh, and mine, as a conservative who makes far less than the people in the above list, is typically 10-15% each year.

I don't know any Romneys or Clintons so I can't speak on their charitableness. In my personal experience, conservatives with money do a good job with their donations. The conservatives with lesser money do nothing except complain that it's their hard earned money and make excuses for why "those people" are poor. While liberals with money do a good job with their donations and liberals without money are sympathetic to others plights and give modesty.

That is purely my experience and not gospel.

Also, I'd like to see what all those guys contribute when they know they wont be running for office. I can imagine there's a huge discrepancy from campaign time to retirement time.

Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with how much money you give as a charitable contribution. Just like being a "good christian" has nothing to do with how often you go to church. People who define others as liberal and conservatives need to grow up. The government either represents the people or it doesn't. Don't waste time arguing about labels. Many "liberals" are just as intolerant as many "conservatives". Many "conservatives" are just as giving as many "liberals".

I'm not much of a fan of forcing or raising a kid to be one way or another. Let the kid find their own way.
My parents never forced liberal or conservative ideas on me. Politics and policy was never really a topic of discussion.
I found my own way, and as a result, obtained both liberal and conservative views.

Saying I have to raise my kid liberal or conservative, seems to eliminate any analytic growth and exploration by the kid themselves.

And Rand is just one portion of conservative viewpoint.

mella;1249629 wrote:Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with how much money you give as a charitable contribution. Just like being a "good christian" has nothing to do with how often you go to church. People who define others as liberal and conservatives need to grow up. The government either represents the people or it doesn't. Don't waste time arguing about labels. Many "liberals" are just as intolerant as many "conservatives". Many "conservatives" are just as giving as many "liberals".

Which is probably way too sane of a post for this board, but I totally agree with everything you posted here. Blanket labels are the sort of thing that stupid people come up with, so they can stay securely wrapped in their little "us vs. them" bubble, as opposed to actually doing anything to help make anything better.

I'm not sure how, or why, someone would attach a label to themselves. On social issues, I tend to be progressive. In many matters, I more closely align with libertarians. Obviously I'm fiscally conservative (well, I believe in the need for balanced budgets, which shouldn't necessarily imply fiscally conservative).

But a big part of the problem as I see it is most Americans lack business sense. By that I mean things like costs, ROI and value-add are foreign to them. And why wouldn't it be? The engineer does not overly concern themselves with the bottom line, they just make stuff. But typically when you bring numbers into a debate, if a person's eyes don't completely gloss over they simply reject anything that doesn't sound right to them, with no real basis for what "sounds right". And that's how something as ridiculous as blaming the deficit on the rich not paying their fair share gains traction (nevermind the rich can easily & legally "dodge" taxes by deferring income and capital gains almost indefiintely).

gut;1250665 wrote:
But a big part of the problem as I see it is most Americans lack business sense. By that I mean things like costs, ROI and value-add are foreign to them. And why wouldn't it be? The engineer does not overly concern themselves with the bottom line, they just make stuff. But typically when you bring numbers into a debate, if a person's eyes don't completely gloss over they simply reject anything that doesn't sound right to them, with no real basis for what "sounds right". And that's how something as ridiculous as blaming the deficit on the rich not paying their fair share gains traction (nevermind the rich can easily & legally "dodge" taxes by deferring income and capital gains almost indefiintely).

I agree with your post, but just FYI, your example of an engineer doesn't fit. Engineering students have to take both macro and micro economics and their whole career is built around building things or improving designs that do have ROI's. No sense in spending $1 million dollars to upgrade a system that only allows it to last 6 extra months when the whole system only costs $500k.

We absolutely deal with value added, ROI, etc.

I agree with your post about most of America, just think that a different profession would better fit the analogy.

haha, yeah I know engineers deal with budgets and often have to submit ROI's. Maybe a salesperson would be a better example. I was just trying to highlight someone that primarily builds stuff as opposed to a primary focus on bottom-line profitability.

gut;1250779 wrote:haha, yeah I know engineers deal with budgets and often have to submit ROI's. Maybe a salesperson would be a better example. I was just trying to highlight someone that primarily builds stuff as opposed to a primary focus on bottom-line profitability.

What about those with a liberal arts degree that don't build anything and don't focus on bottom-line profitability?

sleeper;1250804 wrote:What about those with a liberal arts degree that don't build anything and don't focus on bottom-line profitability?

You mean HR? I kid, I kid.

gut;1250838 wrote:You mean HR? I kid, I kid.

lol, yeah or those in the unemployment lines.