Fw: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth

[Dwayne and Denine Voegeli]

To offer a new twist to the heated conversation about liberals and 
conservatives.

Here are two questions for Mr. Bothun and Mr. Woodford and for anyone else 
who would like to join in:

1.  As a self-described liberal, what are 1-2 problems you have with some 
liberals?  What are 1-2 things you like or admire in at least some 
conservatives?

2.  As a self-described conservative, what are 1-2 problems you have with 
some conservatives?   What are 1-2 things you like or admire in at least 
liberals?

For the record, I do not think "heated" conversations are necessarily bad 
things but it would be nice if Winona Online Democracy could avoid some of 
the problems of other local blogs.

Dwayne Voegeli

Feb. 8, 2007

===============

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roy Nasstrom" <rrn at hbci.com>
To: "Online Democracy" <winona at mnforum.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth


> [Winona Online Democracy]
>
> Before this colloquy goes off into the morass of Iraq-everything ends up 
> in Iraq these days-it might be useful to provide some information on the 
> study Paul Double referred to. The author is Arthur C. Brooks. The book is 
> titled "Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide," published by Basic 
> Books in late 2006. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and 
> Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell 
> School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He specializes in the economics 
> of charity and philanthropy. Brooks has been a Democrat and then a 
> Republican. He now lists himself as an independent. Needless to say, his 
> book has elicited quite a bit attention in the political arena.
>
>
>
> He found that self-identified conservative households give proportionally 
> far more money to charity than did liberal households. (Moderates were 
> excluded from study.) They also provide more volunteer service and donate 
> more blood! Using Internal Revenue Service data, Brook found than did 
> those in red (conservative; Bush) states donated far more to private 
> charities than did those in blue (liberal; Kerry) Many conservatives have 
> jumped on this information to castigate the hypocrisy of liberals in two 
> specific areas:  caring about people only in the abstract while ignoring 
> them individually, and depending on everyone to support through taxes 
> their (liberals') pet projects, whether productive or not.
>
>
>
> Even though there may be some truth to the charge, the issue appears more 
> complex. Liberals often prefer government largess because they feel that 
> their redistribution of tax moneys to particular groups can satisfy 
> general needs more fairly than assistance provided through private 
> donations to groups that conservatives deem worthy. Moreover, although 
> conservatives do donate to all causes, religious and secular, more 
> frequently than liberals, their interest in religious groups may be of 
> special concern to liberals who watch the church-state issue carefully. 
> (It must be pointed out, however, that very religious liberal people, a 
> group smaller than very religious conservatives, give far more time and 
> money to charities in general than secular liberals, although not as much 
> as conservatives.) Although the liberal-conservative differentiation is 
> the basis of the study, Brook has implied that the charity gap is not a 
> function of politics per se, but of underlying values and culture 
> involving religion, the concept of individual responsibility, and views of 
> the role of government.
>
>
>
> Neither the findings nor the analysis in the study can be given full 
> justice in small space. Several variables and nuances of interpretation 
> deserve to be looked at closely, and only by reading the book itself can 
> this be done. The book will certainly lead to further investigation. A 
> study with different methodology and different definitions might show 
> somewhat different results. But until such studies are made, Brook's work 
> must be the standard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Before this multilayered colloquy goes off into the morass of 
> Iraq-everything ends up in Iraq these days-it might be useful to provide 
> some information on the study Paul Double referred to. The author is 
> Arthur C. Brooks. The book is titled "Who Really Cares: America's Charity 
> Divide," published by Basic Books in late 2006. Brooks is Professor of 
> Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at 
> Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He 
> specializes in the economics of charity and philanthropy. Brooks has been 
> a Democrat and then a Republican. He now lists himself as an independent. 
> Needless to say, his book has elicited quite a bit attention in the 
> political arena.
>
>
>
> He found that self-identified conservative households give proportionally 
> far more money to charity than did liberal households. (Moderates were 
> excluded from study.) Conservative households also provide more volunteer 
> service and donate more blood. Using Internal Revenue Service data, Brooks 
> found that those in red (conservative; Bush voting) states donated far 
> more to private charities than did those in blue (liberal; Kerry voting) 
> Many conservatives have jumped on this information to castigate the 
> hypocrisy of liberals in two specific areas:  caring about people only in 
> the abstract while ignoring them individually, and depending on everyone 
> to support through taxes their (liberals') pet projects, whether 
> productive or not.
>
>
>
> Even though there may be some truth to the charge, the issue is more 
> complex. Liberals often prefer government largess because they feel that 
> their redistribution of tax moneys to particular groups can satisfy 
> general needs more fairly than assistance provided through private 
> donations to groups that conservatives deem worthy. Moreover, although 
> conservatives do donate to all causes, religious and secular, more 
> frequently than liberals, their interest in religious groups may be of 
> special concern to liberals who watch the church-state issue carefully. 
> (It must be pointed out, however, that very religious liberal people, a 
> group smaller than very religious conservatives, give far more time and 
> money to charities in general than secular liberals, although not as much 
> as conservatives.) Although the liberal-conservative differentiation is 
> the basis of the study, Brook has implied that the charity gap is not a 
> function of politics per se, but of underlying values and culture 
> involving religion, the concept of individual responsibility, and views of 
> the role of government.
>
>
>
> Neither the findings nor the analysis in the study can be given full 
> justice in small space. Several variables and nuances of interpretation 
> deserve to be looked at closely, and only by reading the book itself can 
> this be done. The book will certainly lead to further investigation. A 
> study with different methodology and different definitions might show 
> somewhat different results. But until such studies are made, Brook's work 
> must be the standard.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: "Paul Double" <pdouble at hbci.com>
> To: "Online Democracy" <winona at mnforum.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:34 PM
> Subject: FW: [Winona] Two Interesting Articles: The Tax Cut Myth
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
> All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
> No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
> To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
> http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
> Any problems or suggestions can be directed to 
> mailto:winona-admin at mnforum.org If you want help on how to contact elected 
> officials, go to the Contact page at
> http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.411 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 2/7/2007
>
>