Generally speaking, Conservatives are usually well off and are most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals.
-Quoted from earhtpal on a post by helenl (a great read which can be found at--http://helenl.wordpress.com/)
First question would be, what makes this assumption to be true or false?
Are we conservative because we are well off, or are we well off because we are conservative? Do the two even technically correlate with each other? (I'll get to the second portion later)
Let's say conservative are as a rule well off. Were we born well off, and naturally became conservatives, or because we were conservatives we were predestined to become well off for ourselves? Maybe, in order to gain more money, the only thing needed, is to become conservative. then we'll all have money, as a general rule. Instead of being rich, we'll just all be normal everyday conservatives. I have to say, I do not fit this mold. However if I end up CHOOSING to become rich, maybe I should blame it on the fact that I became conservative, and finally practiced what I preached. Yes, ten I too, could grow my own money trees, drink expensive champagne, and wipe myself with $100 bills, just because I can.
Of course, now you have to look at the opposite end of the spectrum: Liberals.
Liberals would, by this statement, be more likely to poorer. So, were they born poor and therefore liberal? Or did they choose to be liberal, and therefore become poor? Is it maybe, that liberals are poor because they CHOOSE to be? Maybe that they purposefuly avoid the high paying end of things. in order to go after the more societally-benevolent and low paying jobs. Of course, then this obviously means George Soros (Billionaire liberal) wouldn't fit the mold either. Maybe he should give all his money away toward actually helping the poor liberals and live like them, rather than creating more money machines, which only serve to enhance his own elitism, that pump messages out to captivate his liberal audiences, who meanwhile still find themselves in need of life's basic necesities, all which Soro's has in abundance, and amazingly enough doesn't share...but he's a philanthropist (which by some definitions just isn't the same)
In both cases, lets look at it as a matter of choice. If conservatives are choosing to become filthy stinking rich, while liberals are choosing to work for less money, then what's the argument? Let's say you got the choice everytime, that literally everyone got to choose whether or not they wanted to be rich, or be poor. (Funny, that sounds like the entire premise of the American Dream)
The liberals would have no right to complain because they took the very road that they knew would lead them to Poorsville. Yet, if they did complain and tried to force the conservatives to give up their money, wouldn't the complaints from Castle Richness be even more validated because they specifically chose to earn their money, knowing full well that all they had to do was pick the right path?
Today in America, everybody, and I mean EVERYbody, has an equal chance at great success in their lives, by whatever means they define it. The question is, do you want to work for it, or do you think everything you need should just be handed to you on a platter, whilst you lay about? And how do we define "need"?
1. Is it clean drinking water, and vitamins and minerals enough to keep you alive, maybe some bread for substance and carb-driven energy?
2. Is it top notch healthcare, plentiful food on your table everyday, and a big house with enough space to live comfortably? Is your food catered, do you go to the store to get it, or do you grow it all yourself? Does the Big house have enough bedrooms so everyone has their own, maybe even guest rooms, or is it just a simple abode with a couple bedrooms, a bath, a kitchen, a gathering place and a dining room, and maybe a yard? Do you really even need a yard? As a matter of fact, do you even really need a house? An Apartment? Maybe just a tent for shelter from rain?
If you answered yes to one....welcome to the work camps of the Nazi war machine. Was that really fulflling the "needs" of humanity?
The objective answer to needs really can't be objective, but rather subjective. For instance, I could take my rifle, shotgun, and a hunting knife, and trek into the wilderness. I could survive indefinitely and healthily. Could You? Or do you need more to live?
Now to the second half Generally Speaking,conservatives are... "most definitely more selfish and less compassionate than liberals."
Conservatives donate to charitymore so than liberals do. By ratio and by sheer numbers of dollars. It was brought up that rich people donate to philathropic causes, poor people just share. Now if a poor person shares what they have, how many people benefit from it? Since it's person to person, I'd say a few to a dozen, rarely ever more than that. If a rich person donates to a charity, how many people benefit from it? I would say anywhere from one to several thousand. The charitable donation is often funneled through an organization that solicits donations from many, to help many. Be it for food, or clothing, or disease research.
But is one greater than the other? I would say no. I might even say the poor person sharing may mean more to the recipients, knowing that their helper didn't have much to give. But is the help received from the "sharing" anymore effective than say Joe Millionaire's $1000 "charitable contribution"? Again I would say no. It all helps the recipient the same. They all receive the same benefit regardless of who it came from, and how well off they were.
Consider also this. The well off pay more in taxes, while the worst of the poor will never pay dime one. In fact the latter would most likely be supported by the taxes paid by the former. Should the poor complain that his lifestyle is being paid for by someone else? I should hope so...I should hope that he has enough pride to let the complaint sink into his very consciousness, that he might work his way out of such a situation. And not that he should sit back and complain that the rich guy still isnt paying enough (despite giving up over 50% of his income to taxes in one form or another, often which never pay for much of anything he'll ever benefit from himself).
Less compassionate? This seems to be more conjecture than fact. For every mean-spirited conservative you can name, I can probably name 2 very compassionate conservatives that would make some of the most compassionate of liberals look like Scrooge. And if I wanted to turn the tables on liberals with the same statement, I'm sure anyone could do the same to me. People are people, political idealists on opposite ends of the same political ideology don't make the personality different. Compassion comes in many forms, just as hatred does. One could say that conservatives are nothing but warmongers, while one could say liberals are nothing but Godhaters. Both statements can be true when applied to select people, but when placed against the whole population, you would find the statements to be vastly false.
After all, for an absolute statement to be true, it must apply every time and without exception. But it only takes one example of falsehood to make the absolute statement false.
So with all that in mind, do incomes and political ideology truly coordinate? And if so, how can one argue with the other when it comes to economics?