I saw a PBS special the other night about the "Guilded Age". And I've been reading about various forms of capitalism only one of which is based on the idea that those who are rich are Darwinian survivors while the poor are losers.
But when the right starts yelling "socialism" at any attempt to aide the poor, the chance of a reasonable discussion almost vanishes.
Uh....that's not why the right starts yelling 'socialism.' We start yelling because....well....
there is this political cartoon about the difference between conservatives and liberals, at least as expressed in the USA.
I can't draw worth a hoot...but...
two men are walking down the road; a conservative and a liberal. The conservative says "We have to do more to help the poor!"
The Liberal says "Yes! You DO!" and he reaches into the conservative's back pocket, grabs his wallet, removes all the money in it, and says "there! The poor are helped!"
....and if you don't get the point of that joke, well....
It just so happens that Republicans are more charitable than Democrats. EVERYBODY agrees with that. Left leaning articles attempt to get around this by saying that Republicans (conservatives) give more to their churches...which for some reason don't count even though most charities that help actual people are funded BY churches) and Democrats (liberals) give more to secular charities. Which do count. You know...like the local art museum and/or theater, the organization devoted to rescuing terrier/chihuaha mixes, the local fund for erecting a monument to Johnny Appleseed? THEY count.
the prime example of this that one account uses is the Mitt Romney Vs. Obama giving. It was noted that Romney gave away a far higher percentage of his income than Obama did...but then dismissed that by saying that 80$%of Romney's contribution went to the Mormon church (which according to the liberals, doesn't count) where Obama gave to the Sidwell Friends School and the United Negro College fund, which DO count. Now contributions to the United Negro College Fund DO 'count,' definitely, as to contributions to the Red Cross...but since when should contributions to his daughters VERY pricey and private school count?
And why don't contributions to the Mormon church 'count?" Yes, 10% of Romney's income was 'tithing,' and went to church administration costs. However, anything over and above that (and Romney contributed nearly 30% of his income) went to the 'welfare fund,' 100% of which went directly to those who needed aid. You know, food, shelter, mortgage and rent payments. Even the Red Cross doesn't send 100% of it's income to the programs it supports.
So why doesn't his 20% contribution to what is arguably the best and most efficient welfare program in the USA 'count"? Why is it dismissed?
Capitalists...the good ones...understand that they are responsible, PERSONALLY, for the welfare of their fellow men and women.
Socialists figure that the capitalists are correct. They ARE responsible for the welfare of their fellow men and women, and what's more, the socialists are going to see to it that the capitalists not only pay for everything, they'll do it the way the socialists WANT them to do it.
In the mean time, the liberals (and socialists, a bit further down the line) will contribute their considerably lower percentage of charitable giving to tax-exempt charities that have absolutely nothing to do with helping other people...and volunteer, comparatively, far fewer personal hours.
