CLOSED!!Political Discussion - A Place to "duke it out" (7400+)
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- La_la
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- Fred2000
- La_la
- KLR
- La_la
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 Next »
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by La_la:"No ones advocating anything new..just believing in the goodness of people."
La_la... I believe in the goodness of most people too. However, the need of poor people is greater than can be met by private charities and/or family.
The goodness of people didn't solve the problem encountered during the depression of the 30's. Even now the charities themselves admit that the task is too great for them to handle. This is truly a case where the people can't do for themselves.
Families are no longer what they once were and are unable to meet the challenge. Fifty percent of mariages end up in divorce and single mothers often need to work. They can't take care of elderly parents, in fact they want them to baby sit their children.
The most optimistic estimates are that contributions might be able to make up for 5 percent of the federal cuts. Other estimates range as low as 1 to 2 percent. Even if donation levels were to rise substantially, only a modest share of the gain would likely be channeled to assist the most disadvantaged groups. Higher giving rates typically benefit higher education, culture, and the arts more than social services.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Fred2000 - What makes a political conservative?
.Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...
BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
Assistant Professor Jack Glaser of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and Visiting Professor Frank Sulloway of UC Berkeley joined lead author, Associate Professor John Jost of Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, and Professor Arie Kruglanski of the University of Maryland at College Park, to analyze the literature on conservatism.
The psychologists sought patterns among 88 samples, involving 22,818 participants, taken from journal articles, books and conference papers. The material originating from 12 countries included speeches and interviews given by politicians, opinions and verdicts rendered by judges, as well as experimental, field and survey studies.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
-- posted by Fred2000
» La_la - Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Fred2000:The goodness of people didn't solve the problem encountered during the depression of the 30's.
Nothing solves every problem. But never was there a time of more display of "goodness" than during the depression.
People took care of their own, helped their neighbors, and bartered informally for goods and services.
-- posted by La_la
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by La_la:"never was there a time of more display of "goodness" than during the depression. People took care of their own, helped their neighbors, and bartered informally for goods and services."
La_la... One key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo. You fit the stereotype of a conservative perfectly. So you love the goodness of the depression? Bush may take you back there.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Fred2000 - Re: Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by La_la:"Liberals are so used to saying.."that's the governments job." They're the toughest ones to get to loosen their wallets."
La_la...Even if individual, foundation, and corporate donors were to retarget nearly all of their contributions to the relief of immediate social needs, they would not make a noticeable dent in the shortfall from the federal cuts. What would happen in the meanwhile to all the other institutions that need support from charitable giving--churches, universities, museums, symphony orchestras, and overseas relief? But no such reallocation is realistic. The lion's share of charitable giving presently goes to support religious, educational, and cultural functions that serve donors themselves. Local charities do not have the tools to carry out needs assessments in their communities or to redirect funding between agencies. Large, national social agencies such as the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and Catholic charities are themselves highly dependent on federal grants for the services they provide and do not see how they can raise enough compensatory funding.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by La_la:"People took care of their own, helped their neighbors, and bartered informally for goods and services."
La_la... Careful and rigorous assessments have not been carried out by Congress to see what specific steps the charities could take to make up for a smaller government effort or what additional tax incentives might be needed to help the charities do the job. The findings might challenge parts of the conservative fiscal agenda. Suggestions that religious groups will come to the rescue with "tough love" are wishful thinking unsupported by any research, data, or experience. Even if these groups were able to supplant the professional social worker, a safety net wrapped in a package of religious proselytizing might violate the sensibilities of many people, not to mention the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
-- posted by Fred2000
» Fred2000 - Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by La_la:"Nothing solves every problem. But never was there a time of more display of "goodness" than during the depression."
La_la... In those days, families lived in urban settings. Relatives lived within walking distance of each other. Now, with urban sprawl, people live miles apart, even in different cities.
The situation is entirely changed. Fifty percent of mariages end in divorce. It's rare for families to be as close as they once were. If you see this as an answer to social problems, you're living in the past. Oh, that's right. You're a conservative.
-- posted by Fred2000
» La_la - Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Fred2000:Careful and rigorous assessments have not been carried out by Congress to see what specific steps the charities could take to make up for a smaller government effort or what additional tax incentives might be needed to help the charities do the job.
Oh, it's the government's job to tell us which charities are good...just can't give it up, can you?
This is why you are a Liberal..you can only think one way, and no matter how wrong or harmful it is..you stick with it.
-- posted by La_la
» KLR - But You Have To Hear The Sermon First...
In response to message posted by La_la:.
Berkshire Gives Up On Giving
How a pro-life housewife took on Warren Buffett.
FORTUNE
Monday, July 21, 2003
By Nicholas Varchaver
Warren Buffett has drawn criticism in the past for supporting pro-choice causes, but it never affected Berkshire Hathaway's charitable giving—that is, until Cindy Coughlon, a 34-year-old stay-at-home mom in Peoria, Ariz., came along.
Now, as a result of her campaign against pro-choice donations, the most powerful man in business (see Cover Story) has terminated Berkshire's entire contribution program, which distributed nearly $200 million over the past two decades to institutions ranging from schools to groups on either side of the abortion debate.
The unusual program—call it a charitable dividend—allowed Berkshire shareholders to designate $18 per share annually for up to three charities of their choosing. Some shareholders, including Buffett via his foundation, used the mechanism to give to pro-choice causes such as Planned Parenthood...
-- posted by KLR
» La_la - Re: Re: Re: Re: Meet the New Sheriff, Same as the Old Sheriff
In response to message posted by Fred2000:What would happen in the meanwhile to all the other institutions that need support from charitable giving
If a rich guy wants to give his fortune to a symphony..that's great. But other than that, if people won't pay enough for the ticket prices needed to support a symphony..why prop it up? The market has already decided this type of music is not wanted...that means.."bye-bye!"
Salvation Army, Red Cross, and Catholic charities are themselves highly dependent on federal grants for the services they provide and do not see how they can raise enough compensatory funding.
Enough for what?..The idea is not to solve everyone's problems. People give what they can.
-- posted by La_la
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.