Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

If You Are Happy About The SCOTUS Ruling...

...are you concerned at all about the precedent this could set? I'm not normally an alarmist, but realistically I could see the leading to things like: a tax penalty if you have a vehicle that doesn't get at least XX MPG, a tax penalty if you use more that XXgallons of water a year, a tax penalty if your household produces more than XX pounds of trash, etc. Does this concern you at all?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Jun. 28, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Replies (61-68):
Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Jun. 30, 2012 at 4:50 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting samurai_chica:

You are aware that real clear politics is a biased source right? While they do occasionally post things that liberals might like to read, the founders started that website because they felt upset about the anti-christian/conservative movement and wanted to create a website that they thought gave un-biased info about the right. But....it is extgremely biased. Some of the articles on that website are insulting to the left.

I also provided a second link. In that, a liberal author points to the same book George Will cites, along with several other studies supporting the same directions in their conclusions and he does not challege them. So I've got a conservative author and a liberal author supporting the same information. 


 

And just an FYI -  many liberals do not write off their charities. We don't, never have.  I don't think you can speak for all or even most liberals.  If that were true, then liberals would have zero chartitable write offs, but they don't but it is significantly less than conservatives. I am a conservative and there have been donations that I didn't write off...how does this guy know how many liberals donate their time vs conservatives? There is no clear way of getting valid numbers for volunteer work. It works just like any other statitistical study.  They find a way to measure the information, then they use the same method accross the board for every participant of the sample.  There may very well be reasons that can account for these results...they don't prove that liberals care less, they just support the assertion that liberals give less donations, donate less time and donate less blood.  Now, I have heard one explanation, that liberals are more likely to pursue less profitable careers in order to better mankind, like being a non-profit 's lawyer instead of a corporate lawyer BUT those are just hypotheses, I have't seen them backed up with the numbers.

I had to take a stats class for my major and it has been extremely helpful in interpreting studies, surveys, ect... studies can be very mismeading and that class helped me learn how to weed out the less reliable stuff from the more reliable stuff, IMO. :)

This whole entire article is completely biased.

Keep in mind that there is more than one study cited in the two links.  The book that the authors reference uses a number of different studies, and the second link (article by the libeal) provides more studies.

Quoting Meadowchik:


Here ya go:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- 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.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Here's a liberal OP-ed on the same book that George Will references, but with additional findings that support the same claim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

_Kissy_
by on Jun. 30, 2012 at 5:15 PM
No I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat on thinking the government is out to get me unless they sign the patriot act, oh wait.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jambo4
by Gold Member on Jun. 30, 2012 at 6:00 PM
1 mom liked this

oh.. you got OWNED!  lol

Quoting samurai_chica:
samurai_chica
by Bronze Member on Jun. 30, 2012 at 11:26 PM

One thing that seems to make sense, is that conservatives are more religious than liberals. And i think spiritual people are more apt to give.

It's just that...because of my own personal experiences, it makes it hard to believe. I grew up in a total liberal house...and we were made to give our time since we were kids. We were made to help the old neighbor ladies put their groceries up, we were made to volunteer our time to bible camps as teens, which we did not get paid for. We did food drives, we helped at the at the perkins school for the blind, which my mom still volunteers at today. My mom used to take us with her almost every saturday night for a couple years to the battered women's shelter where she spent the night, and helped out with whatever. It was fun when we were kids, cause there were always tons of other kids there. 4 of my brothers joined peace corp....

I still volunteer my time to a women's shelter here in Atlanta...so in all honesty, it's just hard for me to believe. I've run into so many liberals while volunteering my time, definitely more than conservatives. Maybe conservaties & liberals tend to do different types of volunteer work...idk...

If this is really true, pardon my ignorance...I guess i must be biased because of my personal experiences.

Quoting Meadowchik:

 

Quoting samurai_chica:

You are aware that real clear politics is a biased source right? While they do occasionally post things that liberals might like to read, the founders started that website because they felt upset about the anti-christian/conservative movement and wanted to create a website that they thought gave un-biased info about the right. But....it is extgremely biased. Some of the articles on that website are insulting to the left.

I also provided a second link. In that, a liberal author points to the same book George Will cites, along with several other studies supporting the same directions in their conclusions and he does not challege them. So I've got a conservative author and a liberal author supporting the same information. 


 

And just an FYI -  many liberals do not write off their charities. We don't, never have.  I don't think you can speak for all or even most liberals.  If that were true, then liberals would have zero chartitable write offs, but they don't but it is significantly less than conservatives. I am a conservative and there have been donations that I didn't write off...how does this guy know how many liberals donate their time vs conservatives? There is no clear way of getting valid numbers for volunteer work. It works just like any other statitistical study.  They find a way to measure the information, then they use the same method accross the board for every participant of the sample.  There may very well be reasons that can account for these results...they don't prove that liberals care less, they just support the assertion that liberals give less donations, donate less time and donate less blood.  Now, I have heard one explanation, that liberals are more likely to pursue less profitable careers in order to better mankind, like being a non-profit 's lawyer instead of a corporate lawyer BUT those are just hypotheses, I have't seen them backed up with the numbers.

I had to take a stats class for my major and it has been extremely helpful in interpreting studies, surveys, ect... studies can be very mismeading and that class helped me learn how to weed out the less reliable stuff from the more reliable stuff, IMO. :)

This whole entire article is completely biased.

Keep in mind that there is more than one study cited in the two links.  The book that the authors reference uses a number of different studies, and the second link (article by the libeal) provides more studies.

Quoting Meadowchik:


Here ya go:

Conservatives More Liberal Givers

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- 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.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Here's a liberal OP-ed on the same book that George Will references, but with additional findings that support the same claim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html


Meadowchik
by Gold Member on Jul. 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

 It's sounds like your parents taught you well! :)

Quoting samurai_chica:

One thing that seems to make sense, is that conservatives are more religious than liberals. And i think spiritual people are more apt to give.

It's just that...because of my own personal experiences, it makes it hard to believe. I grew up in a total liberal house...and we were made to give our time since we were kids. We were made to help the old neighbor ladies put their groceries up, we were made to volunteer our time to bible camps as teens, which we did not get paid for. We did food drives, we helped at the at the perkins school for the blind, which my mom still volunteers at today. My mom used to take us with her almost every saturday night for a couple years to the battered women's shelter where she spent the night, and helped out with whatever. It was fun when we were kids, cause there were always tons of other kids there. 4 of my brothers joined peace corp....

I still volunteer my time to a women's shelter here in Atlanta...so in all honesty, it's just hard for me to believe. I've run into so many liberals while volunteering my time, definitely more than conservatives. Maybe conservaties & liberals tend to do different types of volunteer work...idk...

If this is really true, pardon my ignorance...I guess i must be biased because of my personal experiences.

Quoting Meadowchik:

The most pressing social issue today is the economy

Visit Mitt Romney for President, CafeMom Group

Jambo4
by Gold Member on Jul. 1, 2012 at 6:32 PM

godotherightthi
by on Jul. 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM

 It does apply, continuous coverage is continuous coverage - whether self insured, through an employer or through government aid.  If someone is self insured and can't afford coverage, then that is another discussion, but the changing of policies is not a reason to pass this monsterous sweeping legislation as that issue has already been regulated into existing laws.

Quoting trippyhippy:

Actually my husband is an independant contractor so that doesn't apply to us as we buy our own insurance.  Actually we buy our son's insurance and can not afford to have insurance ourselves.  I was using the loss of job example in general, sorry if you missunderstood.  We pay out of pocket for our care.  Not everyone has a job that gives you and your family insurance.

Quoting godotherightthi:

The law already covers this scenario.  If you lost your job and then found another one with insurance coverage you would have to wait 6 months to a year and then his pre-existing condition becomes covered.  If you plan accordingly you could purchase COBRA coverage for the interim and he would have continuous coverage. 

I have a pre-existing condition that has always been covered because we've continuously had insurance, although my husband has switched jobs several times.

Quoting trippyhippy:

Yes but what if we needed to switch for any reason like job loss?  Also I'm not only thinking selfishly.  1 in 88 kids has this diagnosis, let alone kids with heart problems, other special needs, asthma, etc etc etc?  This law helps them all.

Quoting CIgoin:

 

Quoting trippyhippy:

Not having his needs being a pre existing condition.  Without this law he would be denied by every insurance complany.

Quoting CIgoin:

 

Quoting trippyhippy:

I am happy because of what it means for my special needs child, I only wish the healthcare overhaul went further with complete universal healthcare.


What does it mean for your special needs child? iyo?

 

Do you have insurence now?

 

 

 

 

UpSheRises
by Silver Member on Jul. 2, 2012 at 12:10 PM

No. Not at all. Health care is vastly different than a driving a vehicle or eating vegetables.

The federal government can already tax us for almost anything. They could before the ruling, and they still can. They have the power to tax. So does the state i live in, my city, my county...thats the way it works.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)