Red State Socialism
Comments ... #
The real socialist in this game is Sarah Palin, although I'm unsure the moron entirely understands what socialism means.
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg
Wealth spreader, or cheek spreader, obama doesn't get the goodies he offers out of the ground, where oil comes from. He gets them out of our pockets-where the money come from.
posted by CharlieA-Z on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:04:38 am #
Its the oil companies taking the money out of your pockets. They can do that when they occupy the white house and pay off congress every election. But just look at the CHART!! The red states are living off the blue states like parasites. The republican states are in fact SOCIALISTS.
"Wealth spreader, or cheek spreader, obama doesn't get the goodies he offers out of the ground, where oil comes from. He gets them out of our pockets-where the money come from."
Charlie, this is the craziest comment from you yet. Does any of that make sense, even to you? Do you understand how taxation works?
posted by thetoledowire_com on Oct 31, 2008 at 08:01:58 am #
There are exceptions on each side, but data shows that conservatives are more giving to those in need.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George WillWASHINGTON -- 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.
georgewill@washpost.comCopyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
Wow. I'm so hateful for presenting the cold hard facts. Let "the stoning" begin.
posted by SillyWabbit on Oct 31, 2008 at 12:07:20 pm #
That's the same George Will that said McCain is unfit to be President:
It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?
So? Changing the subject? This has nothing to do with Obama or McCain. George Will is a writer/reporter/editorialist doing his job reporting/writing the story on the book by Professor Brooks and his study findings, and on the opinion of Justice Willet. Der! Reading is fundamental.
So UM, using your logic does that mean that anything you have an opinion on here (related to politics) disqualify or invalidate whatever you do at your job?
posted by SillyWabbit on Oct 31, 2008 at 01:38:24 pm #
No, but someone could easily point to the fact that there have been studies that state liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. How much weight do you want to put into a study that takes a small sampling and applies it to a general population?
Only a liberal would believe that a person's political party determines their intelligence level. One could liken that to the way the Nazis labeled Jews. You don't want to slip into that kind of thinking.
Politics is like religion. It's a belief system, not an inherent trait. Belief systems shape people and their choices. Choices shape the future.
It's too bad that liberal groups and conservative groups both have bad elements within them because they could work together great if they tried.
posted by SillyWabbit on Oct 31, 2008 at 03:16:42 pm #
And, of course, real research that indicates that Democratic states actually give more...
http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/pdf/bcpressrelease.pdf
http://www.bc.edu/research/cwp/meta-elements/pdf/geoandgiving2007.pdf
Only a liberal would believe that a person's political party determines their intelligence level.
Exactly, but it just goes to show that statistics can be manipulated and attributed to a mass population.
Be careful when referring to anything as "real research". I don't even take my sources seriously.
I'm glad you agree that statistics can be manipulated. That was where I was going to go with all of this.
posted by SillyWabbit on Nov 01, 2008 at 08:01:12 am #
Real research would generally be something that has been undertaken in a scholarly environment. Real research is usually published in journals and subject to a peer review and challenges if the conclusions do not follow from the research provided. Their attempt is not to prove or disprove something they believe in, but to come to a conclusion based on information gathered. On the other hand, many books, such as Brooks' and Michael Moore's, use muddled statistics in an attempt to substantiate their claims. Books are more prone to use research that will help the books fly off the shelf rather than research that is independent in thought and judgment.
true
posted by SillyWabbit on Nov 01, 2008 at 10:05:22 am #
if you don't include what conservatives give to religious institutions and instead looked at money donated to actually help social causes i suspect liberals give more per capita.
posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Nov 01, 2008 at 03:59:05 pm #
are new jersey and nevada last based on gambling revenue tax or some other quirk?
posted by enjoyeverysandwich on Nov 01, 2008 at 04:02:38 pm #
The church though in turn uses that money to help social causes, so I am not sure you can make that statement. Although at the same time I know plenty of liberals who go to church, so.....
So them Republicans was the Socialists all along.
That means everyone is a socialist. So we won the Cold War against ourselves?
So is the Bible socialist? The constitution? Guns? Marriage? Families? Teams?
posted by charlatan on Oct 30, 2008 at 09:32:55 pm #