Posted by
Arnie on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:29:19 AM
Compassionate conservatives really are really really more compasionate. A new book is out: "Who really cares... " by Arthur Brooks, a Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit
Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of
Citizenship and Public Affairs. Now there's a title to put after your name. "My book explores four areas of our culture
that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the
government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family." "Most surprising is that the least privately charitable group out there
tends to be secular conservatives, who give and volunteer even less
than secular liberals, and far less than religious conservatives. For
example, secular conservatives are only about half as likely as
religious conservatives to volunteer." So he was
quoted in an interview for NROThat's not surprising to conservatives, only to the media, democrats and secular progressives, who scream the most, and label the compassionate conservatives as being stingy. You've heard it. Gee again, the old adage is right again: "It takes one to know one". When the left scream about conservatives being stingy, about being against helping the poor with a new government hand out, they assume that is so, because that is how they feel, and that is who they are. A government hand out is not charity, except to liberals. There is another saying: "The truth hurts", and again and again the liberals will continue to deny all of this by providing another hand out.
"What’s vastly more interesting is what Brooks’s data says about
America. Our charitableness is a distinct cultural artifact. America’s
simply a lot more generous than most other countries. Not counting
government aid, we give, per capita, three and half times more than the
French, seven times more than Germans, and 14 times more than the
Italians."
"Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a
voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane
it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public
services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues.
Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do
not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are
selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those
who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence
that I am the uncharitable one.)"
HereI just thought this was something to crow about as the new year gets under way.