Healthcare reform's impact on Nashville

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'm honestly not sure how Detroit fits into this argument...but in any case, I don't think Detroit's failure can be attributed to any one political system or ideology.

 

Cognitive dissonance. Do they teach you this stuff in college ? Seriously. This is the most obvious and egregious ideological, racial and single-party mismanagement of a major city in the nation. Methinks if Republicans/Conservatives had run Detroit for the period in question, you wouldn't hesistate to make a definitive conclusion. It's pretty much obvious to the rest of the world here.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Detroits main problem is it banked it's entire economy, and future in the auto industry, and the industries that support the auto industry. The model was unsustainable, and the problems go back to the 1940's. In his book Middlesex, Jeffrey Euginides alluded to Detroit's problems when he was growing up there in the 1970's. Detroit should have had a more diverse economy, and it did not.

 

Regardless of politics, ideology, and philosophy on economics and government, the auto industry was doomed to failure. Less people in major cities are buying cars. Many young people no longer get their drivers licenses at 16 anymore, and many like myself only own a car because it is a necessity in Nashville. If I ever worked downtown again, we would go down to one car and sell the other.

 

For years Detroit produced junk while Japan, South Korea, and Europe made better cars. The reason for that is very complex, but cities as well as businesses go out of business when they do not produce and sell what the market wants. For years Detroit made what accountants and stockholders wanted, not what drivers wanted.

 

Healthcare reform will indeed be market driven no matter which political party is in power and whether Obamacare will be repealed or not. Whether it's the government or the private sector, they both need to fix something quick. 40 million Americans have no healthcare at all, and many millions more cannot afford what is available. Out of 311,000,000 Americans, over half have no healthcare or cannot afford it.

 

The point is, it is not working, and the populace have spoken. Obama would not have been elected for a second term if people were not in favor of some type of National Health System. I know my friend FMDJ does not want to hear this, but when I was in the UK I read stories in the papers daily of UK residents who were choosing UK and Western Europe healthcare over coming to America. I did not see UK residents begging the Prime Minister, nor the Labor Party, The Conservative Party, or the Democratic Party to start American style healthcare in the UK.

 

America is no longer the golden beacon for the world anymore. The reason for that is we have let our Capitalist greed overshadow our taking care of citizens. America is more interested in tax breaks for the rich, and high profit margins rather than insuring all 311,000,000 people, and that is shameful. 

 

"Proud To Be An American"  is a slogan now rested in Nationalism and the Arian Movements of extremists in Russia and Far Northern Europe. Violent Tea Party Type protests are common in those movements where only one ideology is represented. One race is tolerated, and the rest are seen as the enemy, much like the Anti-Islam Extremists that are trying to stop a Mosque in Rutherford County, Tennessee. That slogan is all about a false sense of security. Proud of what? Decaying cities? Fighting two wars? Uneducated children? Starving families? Destruction of good labor jobs and shipping them overseas? 1/5 of the country having no insurance? Right wingers wanting to get rid of the minimum wage? Right wingers wanting to abolish the Postal Service, Unions, EPA, and Department of Education?

 

To wax nostalgic of Ronald Reagan, the greatest tax and spend Republican of all time, all of this does "Trickle" down to Nashville and our healthcare industry. We need customers to support our healthcare industry. It needs to be affordable for everyone.

 

The last point I'll make is this. When people became customers of the healthcare system rather than patients is when all American Pride was lost.

 

Yeah. What's a "Violent Tea Party" ? You gotta stop watching Ed Schultz & MSNBC, John. It rots the brain.

[BnaBreaker]

^I gotta give FMDJ that.  It's pretty difficult for a group made up mostly of people in their 90's to be violent, unless you count a vigorous cane poke as violent.

[UTgrad09]

Cognitive dissonance. Do they teach you this stuff in college ? Seriously. This is the most obvious and egregious ideological, racial and single-party mismanagement of a major city in the nation. Methinks if Republicans/Conservatives had run Detroit for the period in question, you wouldn't hesistate to make a definitive conclusion. It's pretty much obvious to the rest of the world here.

 

I'm sorry, but you don't know me well enough to make these kinds of statements. Do not get personal with me. I did not attack you in this thread.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Yeah. What's a "Violent Tea Party" ? You gotta stop watching Ed Schultz & MSNBC, John. It rots the brain.

Don't watch MSNBC or any of them. I prefer Seinfeld reruns. I have watched a lot of Tea Party Rallies on Youtube. Guns are ever present along with Hitler posters, Obama with  a bone through his nose, and I could go on and on. I could also bring up the race issue, but I won't. However, at Tea Party Rallies I see mostly WASP's, and very few if any people of color. I also see a lot of misspelled signs at theses rallies proving the great unwashed, the low skilled, and the uneducated are en masse.

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Funny, that doesn't look like any TEA Party event I've ever seen, and I know many people who are actively involved. Of course, they have been known to be actively infiltrated by leftist agitator plants designed to make such rallies of decent, law-abiding and hard-working citizens who are sickened by the direction this nation has gone in look like the extremists that the media deliberately lies about (hey, if you can't find any racist signs and placards, go "plant" some -- pure Alinsky tactics).

 

http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/tea-party-crashers-as-a-particularly-nasty-species-of-vermin/

 

Or a recent one at a Zimmerman rally:

http://www.black-and-right.com/2013/07/24/apology-by-bust-of-the-day/

 

Of course, unlike those astroturf events like "Occupy", where folks are literally a public health threat.

http://news.yahoo.com/diseases-break-outs-occupy-wall-street-show-poor-000800463.html

 

I kinda personally like this one, but you might be disappointed, since he's not a WASP. Of course, this also doesn't fit with the media narrative of old angry White men (but I'm not old, either):

http://rightcogency.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/from-zo-if-the-tea-party-were-really-terrorist/

 

-----

 

Anyway, getting back to the healthcare debate, this piece by Bill Whittle obliterates the farce known as ObamaCare and all the usual leftist groups scrambling to get themselves exempted from this utopian visionary initiative of "The Won."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOKzNc_2S6w&feature=youtu.be

 

P.S. I like Seinfeld, too.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Davy, your side is losing. I am sorry you are so upset about it. The country is moving in a different direction. If you don't like it, you can always move to Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, or Iraq if you want fundamentalist conservatism, and religiosity that controls your every move.

 

If we had complete states rights like you want, states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas would reinstate slavery, and deny women the right to choose. They would run the state like the writers of the 2000+ year old bible. They would become beacons of ancient feudalism and classism. If that is what you (they) want, secede from the union. Good riddance to Texas if they want to secede. Let them go and take their "states rights" with them. Let them try to live on God and Guns all they want. We will see how far it gets them. Let them have their Jim Crow and leave the the rest of us the hell alone!

 

And yes, we can pick and choose what videos to post. You can post occupy Wallstreet, and I can post videos of white southern Tea Party Republicans calling Obama the "N" word all day long. That would be a futile exercise.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

BTW Davy, I don't take any of this debate serious. Honestly it's a form of morbid entertainment for me. When it's slow at work, I have some time to write. Don't take anything I say seriously. I am only in this game for the morbidity of it. Just saying I am a Democratic Socialist should highlight all of my positions. 

[producer2]

"If only those right-wingers will stop opposing the great and perfect ObamaCare, our health care will be the bestest in the whole world. Those meanies !"

 

Pray tell, P2, where's that money coming from ?

Right now you and I are paying for it but not receiving the actual benefits. The "free" market never pays for it. Worse case scenario is we are still paying for it but with better results for a wider range of people. 

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Again, and I agree with P2, healthcare for profit is never a good thing. Once we soften our hearts and realize healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege, then we will grow as a society and a people.

[BnaBreaker]

Again, and I agree with P2, healthcare for profit is never a good thing. Once we soften our hearts and realize healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege, then we will grow as a society and a people.

 

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith

[producer2]

Again, and I agree with P2, healthcare for profit is never a good thing. Once we soften our hearts and realize healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege, then we will grow as a society and a people.

Lets make sure we are all speaking for ourselves. I am not saying "for profit" is bad. In fact I am not a capitalist apologist, I like money, but things like Healthcare, should be somewhat regulated or price controlled because not everyone believes "greed is good"! We have had plenty of examples of private industry, when left unchecked, causes great harm to our economy and leaves many without real choices for their needs. This whole idea that if we just leave private business alone it will do the right thing is hogwash and we have seen it time and time again. I wish people/industries were better about policing themselves but they are not.

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

Lets make sure we are all speaking for ourselves. I am not saying "for profit" is bad. In fact I am not a capitalist apologist, I like money, but things like Healthcare, should be somewhat regulated or price controlled because not everyone believes "greed is good"! We have had plenty of examples of private industry, when left unchecked, causes great harm to our economy and leaves many without real choices for their needs. This whole idea that if we just leave private business alone it will do the right thing is hogwash and we have seen it time and time again. I wish people/industries were better about policing themselves but they are not.

Not trying to put words in your mouth P2, but yes we agree on principal. After all, it's profits that do fund our beloved built environment (and Nashville's healthcare built environment), however the Milton Friedman capitalism at all costs is tantamount to a lack of freedom in the long run. I am more of an Adam Smith guy. Whereas "Wealth Of Nations" may be a call to Capitalism, "Theory Of Moral Sentiments" was written to keep Capitalism in check.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Davy, your side is losing. I am sorry you are so upset about it. The country is moving in a different direction. If you don't like it, you can always move to Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, or Iraq if you want fundamentalist conservatism, and religiosity that controls your every move.

 

If we had complete states rights like you want, states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas would reinstate slavery, and deny women the right to choose. They would run the state like the writers of the 2000+ year old bible. They would become beacons of ancient feudalism and classism. If that is what you (they) want, secede from the union. Good riddance to Texas if they want to secede. Let them go and take their "states rights" with them. Let them try to live on God and Guns all they want. We will see how far it gets them. Let them have their Jim Crow and leave the the rest of us the hell alone!

 

And yes, we can pick and choose what videos to post. You can post occupy Wallstreet, and I can post videos of white southern Tea Party Republicans calling Obama the "N" word all day long. That would be a futile exercise.

 

My side is losing ? I heartily disagree. In fact, I've been blessed since I became politically aware and unshackled from the leftist indoctrination of being ahead of the curve. When this state was in the death-grip of the phony and ethically challenged good ole boy Democrats largely since Reconstruction, I became and rightly predicted a Republican majority (I was more than 20 years ahead of time). I also rightly predicted in 1996 that despite his last independently run race in which he carried every county in Tennessee (by a 68-30% margin) Al Gore would fail to carry the state in his run for President (an incredible repudiation that was even more galling than in 1844 when TN voted for Henry Clay of neighboring KY over Gov. James K. Polk, by just 123 votes, though Polk still won the Electoral College).

 

Mind you, I'm not some crass partisan. I started out as a rah-rah Republican, but evolved when I discovered more than a few were disinterested in doing much more than preserving the corrupt status quo of the opposition. I didn't hesistate in 1998 to vote for Democrat John Jay Hooker for Governor precisely because he was opposed to that status quo (one reason why the Dem establishment in the state jumped onto Sundquist's bandwagon).

 

See, John, what you mistake me for is some status quo political type that is epitomized by the GOP establishment. I reviled both McCain and even more so Willard Romney, who was the ultimate caricature of a rich, out of touch elitist Republican (and a Socialist to boot, which the Republican party largely is now, in contrast to the Democrats, which is now Communist - the GOP establishment being little more than the "lite" alternative). I've not cast a vote for a Republican for Governor or Senator since 2006 (or President since 2008, though absent Palin, I wouldn't have voted since 2004). A choice between Willard and Obama was like deciding between brain cancer or AIDS.

 

No, indeed, I consider myself a bonafide political revolutionary, pledged to a restoration of our Constitutional foundings. Political leadership in this country has been gradually moving since the 19th century to enslave the people and empower themselves and the bureaucratic class. Corruption has become an epidemic, the media aids and abets the cover-up (largely that of the one party). Tyranny is the end result. Heading towards $20 trillion in debt, just as the tip of the iceberg of our problems, demonstrates this "governance" must be halted. A government and a people that doesn't put morality, ethics, reason, austerity/restraint, vision and obediance to God as a philosophy put into action is one that is destined for failure. Almost all of that is absent today, and we're sinking further and further into the abyss. Right is wrong, wrong is right.

 

John, that you don't see the inherent hypocrisy in your own stances and arguments is bizarre. Now, you know I am vocally an opponent of the spread of Mohammadanism as a violent political philosophy that is antithetical to western values (dare I say humanism) and every religious philosophy of mankind. You blast it as a negative or bigotry (as if fighting true evil is bigoted) and seemingly voice no opposition to its proliferation, but yet you turn around and cite those nations caught in its death grip (Iran, et al) in a negative light. Do you not see your own hypocrisy ? If you have no objection to the proliferation of it here and of Sharia law, why would you not cite Iran, et al, as "great places" ? Why, also, would you suggest people of my ilk, vociferously opposed to that evil ideology, as preferring to live in such a place ?

 

Sorry, John, but the country I want to live in is one that values morality, ethics and strength of family with a 2-parent household (the bedrock of a stable society), respect for the role of religion. A country that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator, exploiting racial divisions and employs de facto slavery via ignorance and welfare, or bizarre obsessions with sexuality (disordered or otherwise). One where the government involves itself in its minimal, defined duties. A bureaucracy of short duration that consists of those doing the absolutely necessary essentials, one that comes in with a given administration and swiftly exits with it, no lifetime guarantees and benefits. Government is not a career. A government that serves for a short and defined period of time, whose officials must retire to live under the laws it enacts.

 

A country whose people are free to create and innovate, whose only limits are those of their imaginations. I paint with a broad brush, of course, but you get the idea. I think all of the negatives of our society now, all the needless dragging-down of the populace, both governmentally, educationally and culturally inspired has left us decades behind where we could and should be now (similar to your lament of Nashville's lack of 40-story+ skyscrapers). We could and should already be exploring space and developing technologies for alternative energy sources and to eradicate the issues of disease, of hunger, pollution and the like, but with the corruption, the statism, the bureaucracy, the staggering debt, devaluing of education and all those other negatives, we'll only be able to dream where we could be.

 

That's my ideology, and if that's a loser, John, we've all lost.

[mallguy]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith

You may wish to read the book "Who Really Cares?", a study of charitable giving (both in cash and in donations of time).

 

Conservatives are far more generous with their own time and money, using both to help others, than liberals are.  Liberals just vote for politicians that propose to redistribute money; conservatives step up to the plate and give their own hard-earned cash and scarce time to others.  Compare John McCain's or Mitt Romney's charitable giving to Joe Biden's (negligible) and Obama's before he ran for office (negligible).

 

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

[samsonh]

And to think about why or how that may be could maybe alter your viewpoints.

[Justiceham]

You may wish to read the book "Who Really Cares?", a study of charitable giving (both in cash and in donations of time).

 

Conservatives are far more generous with their own time and money, using both to help others, than liberals are.  Liberals just vote for politicians that propose to redistribute money; conservatives step up to the plate and give their own hard-earned cash and scarce time to others.  Compare John McCain's or Mitt Romney's charitable giving to Joe Biden's (negligible) and Obama's before he ran for office (negligible).

 

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

This study did not include regression models, nor was it peer reviewed. I hesitate to believe that conservatives are far more generous with their own time and money than liberals.This book is filled with right wing ideologies and pandering despite the fact that the author has switched his own political affiliation two times. This thread has gotten entirely off topic with cheap shots at trying to create political division instead of talking about healthcare reform's impact on Nashville. 

[mallguy]

This study did not include regression models, nor was it peer reviewed. I hesitate to believe that conservatives are far more generous with their own time and money than liberals.This book is filled with right wing ideologies and pandering despite the fact that the author has switched his own political affiliation two times. This thread has gotten entirely off topic with cheap shots at trying to create political division instead of talking about healthcare reform's impact on Nashville. 

Unlike your post, the book was extensively backed up by other studies, and you should note that the book's author became less liberal after extensively studying the charitable giving habits of conservatives and liberals. 

 

If you don't like "[t]his thread [getting] entirely off topic with cheap shots at trying to create political division", then stop making those cheap shots.

[UTgrad09]

If you don't like "[t]his thread [getting] entirely off topic with cheap shots at trying to create political division", then stop making those cheap shots.

 

Where was he making cheap shots?

[dmillsphoto]

Davy

 

You're straying from the ACA and it's affect on Nashville companies again. Stick to the topic, because I'm frankly tired of seeing the same political drivel over and over again. 

 

Same goes for everyone else.

 

if you can't provide bona fide facts on the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the health of Nashville companies to support your argument, then you have, literally, no argument to make. This isn't a piss fest about the government as a whole and your views on it, keep that crap somewhere else. If your views help make a supporting case, great. Otherwise it's drivel.

[mallguy]

Where was he making cheap shots?

Calling conservatives selfish.

 

Conservatives may indeed be against government taking their money to spend on others, but they are more generous with their own money than others are.

 

And I don't count as conservative- I'm turned off by the Tea Party.

[ruraljuror]

You may wish to read the book "Who Really Cares?", a study of charitable giving (both in cash and in donations of time).

 

Conservatives are far more generous with their own time and money, using both to help others, than liberals are.  Liberals just vote for politicians that propose to redistribute money; conservatives step up to the plate and give their own hard-earned cash and scarce time to others.  Compare John McCain's or Mitt Romney's charitable giving to Joe Biden's (negligible) and Obama's before he ran for office (negligible).

 

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

 

 

To me, it doesn't seem to really matter whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable; charity alone is incapable of solving systemic problems.  In fact, charity makes no attempt at finding solutions to those problems, but instead tries to alleviate their symptoms.  In doing so, however, more than a few pretty smart people have made the case that charity actually has the unintended effect of perpetuating the systems that created those problems.  Everyone loves the guy who keeps filling sand in the potholes on your street, but sometimes that keeps the neighborhood pacified and less likely to put some pressure on the local government to repave the road before it gets worse and more expensive to fix in the long run. 

 

That said, not all charities are created equal, and most certainly do at least something to alleviate immediate pain and suffering, which can not be a bad thing.  Even then though, charities can only do so much. Here's an article excerpt that makes that point pretty well:

 

..."There's a myth of charity out there," said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute, which researches the impact of philanthropy. "Anyone who thinks that private charity will make up for lowered government budgets is whistling Dixie."

 

Americans like to think of themselves as bighearted and eager to help those less fortunate.

 

Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the crises after the explosions in Texas and Boston - these disasters brought out the best in people, who didn't hesitate to give.

But for the steady-state emergency that is hunger in America, no amount of charitable giving has been enough, experts say.

 

"Americans are very generous, but people don't appreciate the scope of poverty in the United States," said Kathy Saile, director of the office of domestic social development for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "The amount of hunger reduction by the federal government dwarfs what charities in the faith community are doing."

 

Overall, the U.S. government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry, federal figures show.

 

The bulk of that is the nearly $80 billion for food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). The balance goes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); school breakfast and lunch programs; and other initiatives.

 

Feeding America, the largest food charity in the United States (and one of the largest charities overall), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year.

 

But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP.

 

"No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP," said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions."

 

Republicans such as U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, as well as commentators like Pat Buchanan, have expressed preference for charity over government to solve various societal ills such as hunger. Many say private giving, not government largesse, kept America going through the decades.

 

But, said University of Pennsylvania history professor Michael Katz, an expert on the history of poverty, "that's never been true. The notion that private charities can pick up the burden is a canard."

 

The total of U.S. philanthropy is currently $300 billion, according to Katherina Rosqueta, founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at Penn, a nonprofit focused on improving the impact of charity.

 

The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32 percent, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch, an organization that helps donors make more informed charitable-giving decisions.

 

Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake," he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting."

 

Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect.

 

For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2 percent of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say."

[BnaBreaker]

Calling conservatives selfish.

 

 

I fail to see how labeling an ideology which is firmly rooted in the desire to keep absolutely as much of one's own money as possible as selfish, is a "cheapshot," but so be it. 

 

Also, I apologize if I got the discussion off track.  That quote is one that I've always liked, and I thought it related well with what John was saying.

[Justiceham]

Unlike your post, the book was extensively backed up by other studies, and you should note that the book's author became less liberal after extensively studying the charitable giving habits of conservatives and liberals. 

 

If you don't like "[t]his thread [getting] entirely off topic with cheap shots at trying to create political division", then stop making those cheap shots.

I never called anyone selfish. You have to be honest when stating something as a fact. The studies you mentioned have nothing to do with healthcare reform and its impact on Nashville. They are not statistically significant because they do not represent a larger population as a whole (the United States). As rural juror so eloquently stated, "Charity alone is incapable of solving systemic problems." The bigger picture is not about how much a person or group of people gives to a charity. or what political affiliation they claim, but the policies they support and its effect on others.

To me, it doesn't seem to really matter whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable; charity alone is incapable of solving systemic problems.  In fact, charity makes no attempt at finding solutions to those problems, but instead tries to alleviate their symptoms.  In doing so, however, more than a few pretty smart people have made the case that charity actually has the unintended effect of perpetuating the systems that created those problems.  Everyone loves the guy who keeps filling sand in the potholes on your street, but sometimes that keeps the neighborhood pacified and less likely to put some pressure on the local government to repave the road before it gets worse and more expensive to fix in the long run. 

 

That said, not all charities are created equal, and most certainly do at least something to alleviate immediate pain and suffering, which can not be a bad thing.  Even then though, charities can only do so much. Here's an article excerpt that makes that point pretty well:

 

..."There's a myth of charity out there," said Elizabeth Boris, director of the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute, which researches the impact of philanthropy. "Anyone who thinks that private charity will make up for lowered government budgets is whistling Dixie."

 

Americans like to think of themselves as bighearted and eager to help those less fortunate.

 

Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the crises after the explosions in Texas and Boston - these disasters brought out the best in people, who didn't hesitate to give.

But for the steady-state emergency that is hunger in America, no amount of charitable giving has been enough, experts say.

 

"Americans are very generous, but people don't appreciate the scope of poverty in the United States," said Kathy Saile, director of the office of domestic social development for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "The amount of hunger reduction by the federal government dwarfs what charities in the faith community are doing."

 

Overall, the U.S. government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry, federal figures show.

 

The bulk of that is the nearly $80 billion for food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). The balance goes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); school breakfast and lunch programs; and other initiatives.

 

Feeding America, the largest food charity in the United States (and one of the largest charities overall), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year.

 

But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP.

 

"No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP," said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions."

 

Republicans such as U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, as well as commentators like Pat Buchanan, have expressed preference for charity over government to solve various societal ills such as hunger. Many say private giving, not government largesse, kept America going through the decades.

 

But, said University of Pennsylvania history professor Michael Katz, an expert on the history of poverty, "that's never been true. The notion that private charities can pick up the burden is a canard."

 

The total of U.S. philanthropy is currently $300 billion, according to Katherina Rosqueta, founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at Penn, a nonprofit focused on improving the impact of charity.

 

The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32 percent, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities, and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch, an organization that helps donors make more informed charitable-giving decisions.

 

Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake," he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting."

 

Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect.

 

For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2 percent of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say."

Exactly.

[mallguy]

I never called anyone selfish. You have to be honest when stating something as a fact. The studies you mentioned have nothing to do with healthcare reform and its impact on Nashville. They are not statistically significant because they do not represent a larger population as a whole (the United States). As rural juror so eloquently stated, "Charity alone is incapable of solving systemic problems." The bigger picture is not about how much a person or group of people gives to a charity. or what political affiliation they claim, but the policies they support and its effect on others.

 

The fact is that your post had a quote (by a very liberal economist) calling conservatives selfish. 

 

If I carried a sign around town that included a nasty quote by Ann Coulter against Obama, would anyone think, "mallguy isn't saying that; he's just displaying a quote by someone else?  Of course not.  Just as I would be seen (justifiably) as stating something nasty and anti-Obama, you are responsible for what you post, whether or not it's a quote by someone else (particularly, in your case, with nothing added to the post).

 

You may dislike what Arthur Brooks writes in "Who Really Cares", and you may also dislike the multitude of studies that also show that conservatives around the US are more generous with their own money than liberals are, but facts are facts.  You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but you're not entitled to deny facts.

 

Plenty of people may dislike the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun, but facts are facts.  This situation is the same.

 

 

I fail to see how labeling an ideology which is firmly rooted in the desire to keep absolutely as much of one's own money as possible as selfish, is a "cheapshot," but so be it. 

 

Also, I apologize if I got the discussion off track.  That quote is one that I've always liked, and I thought it related well with what John was saying.

Conservative ideology is not "firmly rooted in the desire to keep absolutely as much of one's own money as possible".  It is rooted in the desire to keep taxes low, but that is not the same thing as wanting to keep money for oneself. 

 

As numerous studies show, conservatives give away plenty of their own money voluntarily-far more so than liberals.  Giving away your own money voluntarily is much less selfish (the conservative approach), some would argue, than keeping your money rather than voluntarily giving it away and simply voting for politicians who take money from others (the liberal approach).