Printer-friendly version

Contributed by Sam Minervino 2009-03-08

Portland — President Obama is viewed to be the harbinger of hope and change. His actions are seen as punishing the greedy rich; corporate Americans and the upper class that have taken advantage and preyed upon the poorest of the poor. He is portrayed as a compassionate soul, ready to change the fundamental way America has been governed and operated for centuries and to change the course of capitalism it has taken to get where it is today. President Obama is considered to be compassionate because he is a democrat, left of center and liberal. Is he compassionate? Is he truly a giver because of these labels? Or is his giving away of trillions of taxpayer dollars, not his own, to supposedly help others just another symbolic gesture to put forth a plan and the template of liberalism? Is he using this so-called “crisis” and the supposition of liberal compassion to push socialism on America?

The following excerpts from two articles reveal truths about liberals and conservatives and debunk the notion that the left is inherently compassionate and that liberals are morally superior.

January 13, 2005

Would Jesus be a Democrat or a Republican?

By Noel Sheppard

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/would_jesus_be_a_democrat_or_a.html

…the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats,….. John Kerry sits at the very top of this list (and) is considered to be the most liberal member.

…with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican—controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats.

…(according to) the Congressional Budget Office in August 2004, due to the 2001 and 2003 tax law changes, the lowest 20% of wage earners in our nation pay an effective federal income tax rate of 5.2%. If 2000 statutes were still in place, this rate would be 6.7%.

That means that the average wage earner in this bottom quintile is paying roughly 22% less in federal income taxes as a result of these legislative changes than under Clinton.

(The) Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non—profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.

According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama —— all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts) which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/would_jesus_be_a_democrat_or_a.html

The following is a list of credentials for Thomas Sowell. In the article that follows, he writes about a book, titled Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.

Thomas Sowell;

ADDRESS: The Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Stanford, California 94305

(650) 723-3303

PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

EDUCATION:

Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968

A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959

A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958

EXPERIENCE:

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present

Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980

Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977

Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977

Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977

Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974

Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 - June 1972

Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970

Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969

Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965

Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964

Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 - June 1963

Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962

Who Really Cares?

Debunking mythology.

Nov. 28, 2006

by Thomas Sowell

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJjZWVkY2YyM2I2NGNmZTFlNGNmNjcxMzI0MzQyYjM=

More frightening than any particular beliefs or policies is an utter lack of any sense of a need to test those beliefs and policies against hard evidence. Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.

One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring. It is liberals who advocate "forgiveness" of loans to third-world countries, a "living wage" for the poor and a "safety net" for all.

People who identify themselves as conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.

It is not that conservatives have more money. Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families.

Conservatives not only donate more money to charity than liberals do, conservatives volunteer more time as well. More conservatives than liberals also donate blood.

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find — so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?

Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test — and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds.