the babble of this article is truly amazing. Let's take a look!
One may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources, OF OTHER PEOPLE (SEE B.O., CIRCA 2008, "WE WANT TO SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" for the welfare of such others.
THIS IS NOT VOLUNTARY, GOSH, MR. SMARTY PANTS, DOES NOT THAT CHANGE THINGS JUST A LITTLE?
The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.
SO...TAKING MONEY AWAY BY FORCE AND HAVING AN INCOMPETENT (REPEATEDLY)STRUCTURE DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY IS MORE...MORAL? BETTER? SMARTER? WORKED BEFORE?
THIS IS STUPID. EVEN WITH IT'S CHART! FYI, ALWAYS THROW IN A CHART IF YOU WANT TO PSEUDO UPGRADE YOUR ARTICLE.
I know this stuff is tough for some of you to understand.
"WORKED BEFORE?" The Keynesian system has worked rather well in the western world for 60+ years, thank you very much. I'll explain it to you sometime. :)
5 comments:
Another great source - psycho babble
Get MSNBC involved also!
the babble of this article is truly amazing. Let's take a look!
One may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources, OF OTHER PEOPLE (SEE B.O., CIRCA 2008, "WE WANT TO SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND" for the welfare of such others.
THIS IS NOT VOLUNTARY, GOSH, MR. SMARTY PANTS, DOES NOT THAT CHANGE THINGS JUST A LITTLE?
The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.
SO...TAKING MONEY AWAY BY FORCE AND HAVING AN INCOMPETENT (REPEATEDLY)STRUCTURE DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY IS MORE...MORAL? BETTER? SMARTER? WORKED BEFORE?
THIS IS STUPID. EVEN WITH IT'S CHART! FYI, ALWAYS THROW IN A CHART IF YOU WANT TO PSEUDO UPGRADE YOUR ARTICLE.
I know this stuff is tough for some of you to understand.
"WORKED BEFORE?" The Keynesian system has worked rather well in the western world for 60+ years, thank you very much. I'll explain it to you sometime. :)
Post a Comment