Is compassion returning to conservatism?

[Tiger Al 0]

For a few decades now, a narrow view of Christianity has dominated the public square; it's a pinched theology consumed with sexuality but also taking a variety of conservative positions -- such as opposition to tax hikes -- that don't seem to have much to do with the Gospel. That hard-shell Christianity has as its standard-bearers such men as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

The good news of this Christmas season is this: Not only have those theocrats seen their political clout erode with Republican losses in the mid-term elections, but their brand of Christianity is also losing its monopoly on the public square. Moderate-to-liberal Christians such as Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have given voice to a competing theology, as have more conservative Christians such as evangelist Rick Warren. Indeed, some of the most energetic opponents of the Falwell-Dobson axis are other conservative believers who want to reclaim the traditional emphasis on helping the needy.

There was always a cognitive dissonance in the ideology of groups such as the Christian Coalition of America. The political network of conservative Christianity grew into a formidable force after the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, a decision that still angers social conservatives, who view abortion as murder.

But the same groups who so forcefully denounce abortion have cheapened their claims to morality by actively opposing policies that might help poor, single mothers support their children. As much as they proclaim themselves "pro-family," those groups have shown little enthusiasm for welfare, Head Start, the earned income tax credit or other programs designed to help struggling families. They love children fiercely right up until the time they leave the womb.

That dissonance has finally strained the evangelical movement, which is starting to splinter as some high-profile preachers seek to broaden their political agenda to include issues such as global warming, the AIDS epidemic and poverty. The Rev. Rick Warren -- pastor of a California mega-church and author of the popular book "The Purpose-Driven Life" -- continues to oppose embryonic stem cell research and abortion. But he has also criticized the use of torture on terrorism suspects.

The Rev. Joel Hunter, pastor of a mega-church near Orlando, Fla., believes that evangelicals must embrace an agenda that more closely hews to New Testament values of social justice and compassion. "My position is, unless we are caring as much for the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb, we're not carrying out the full message of Jesus," Hunter told The Washington Post.

Admittedly, not all conservative Christians are prepared to support causes that sound so suspiciously, well, liberal. In fact, Hunter resigned as the incoming president of the Christian Coalition in November, when he realized that its board was not comfortable with his views. Four state chapters -- Ohio, Alabama, Iowa and Georgia -- had already abandoned the Christian Coalition of America for fear that an agenda emphasizing compassion might carry the day.

"We decided to stick with the original mission (of the Christian Coalition)," said Sadie Fields, formerly head of the Georgia Christian Coalition, now chairman of the newly formed Georgia Christian Alliance. She views that mission as "pro-life, pro-family" -- phrases elastic enough to include not only opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion but also support for a harshly restrictive voter ID law pushed by Georgia Republicans.

"Elections are critical to the family -- who is going to represent us in the Congress and the White House," Fields said, adding, "So we need to protect the integrity of the voting process." (As it happens, harsh voter ID laws also help to protect Republican majorities, since those without driver's licenses are more likely to be poor and more likely to support Democrats.)

There have long been evangelical Christians who disagreed with the fundamentalism -- and the blatant political partisanship -- of people such as Fields. But as long as Congress was dominated by Republicans allied with the rigid fundamentalists, those less exclusionary evangelicals received little notice.

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Amen.

LINK

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'd say that based on the conversations I've been having with rather socially conservative Christians, the article is spot on. In embracing the GOP because they were the only party that seemed to give a rip about our moral and social concerns, we feel like we bought in too much to other parts of the GOP agenda that weren't congruent with biblical principles, particularly in the area of economics. As with most things, it's not as simple as saying that since the Republicans may have been wrong in aspects of those areas that the Dems are the automatic choice, but hopefully Christians overall are starting to wake up and realize that the real power lies in being true to the Gospel, not loyal to one party or another.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

All working people pay taxes.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Al, I see you NEGLECTED to give a byline to this crap. Let me fill the readers in here.

Cynthia Tucker

Universal Press Syndicate

12.26.06

As if anyone with a living brain cell doesnt consider her to be the shrillest partyline hack in the country. Al, What were you thinking here?

Sorry you obviously missed this one. The claptrap in your post was such crap I just quit reading the mindnumbing gabage. If you are such a simpleton that you have to "think" in stereotypes, please take time and read a bit and not embarass yourself anymore.

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...&hl=outgive

Who's More Generous: Liberals or Conservatives?

Findings of Philanthropy Expert Are a Surprise, Especially to Himself

Sunday, October 29, 2006

By Frank Brieaddy

Staff writer

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, to be released next month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance to two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books, $26) is due for release Nov. 24.

Arthur C. Brooks

Born: May 21, 1964, Spokane, Wash.

Early employment: French horn player with the Annapolis Brass Quintet and the Barcelona (Spain) Symphony Orchestra; professor of French horn, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Fla.

Education: B.A. in economics, Thomas Edison State College, Trenton, N.J.; M.A. in economics, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fla.; master's and doctorate, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, Calif.

Academic appointments: Director of nonprofit studies, professor of public administration, Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and research director, William E. Smith Institute for Association Research; previously, assistant professor of public administration and economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Publications: Multiple academic journal and newspaper articles; regular op-ed contributor to The Wall Street Journal; "Social Entrepreneurship: A Modern Approach to Social Value Creation," published by Prentice-Hall.

Personal: Married; three children; lives in DeWitt.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20," who filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no, if I want to," he said.

Wall Street Journal columnist

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

His describes his research as more cultural than political, but he's well aware of the political implications of his book.

"The New York Times Book Review, they're going to flatten me. I'm just dead," he said, adding that he thinks the Times pans any book perceived to be conservative. :headslap:

A representative of the Times said it has no plans to review the book.

Brooks has been showing up more and more on the radar screens of professionals and academics in the field of philanthropy since he was named director of nonprofit studies in 2003 for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and maintains a schedule of about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences across the country and around the world, including, recently, at the Thailand Ministry of Finance, the American Society of Association Executives and the Federal Bar Association.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him) and another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

He says the pieces are byproducts of his research and they serve his penchant for iconoclasm.

He explains, "My shtick, if I've got one, for The Wall Street Journal is, 'Everything you thought you knew is wrong.'"

"Arthur is a terrific op-ed writer," said Tunku Varadarajan, editorial page features editor for The Wall Street Journal. "His pieces are piquant and counterintuitive, and his arguments -- however provocative -- always have a foundation in fact and careful research. He is also capable of making a complex point in a mere 500 words, a rare skill in this verbose age in which we live."

Not counting the appendix, the book is 183 pages.

Conservatives give more

Brooks says he is a behavioral economist by training, who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact. He considers charity and philanthropy an important, fascinating and vastly under-researched field.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he expects and encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. He writes that every tax dollar a nonprofit accepts "crowds out" 50 cents in voluntary contributions.

He merely mentions the balance between government and donated dollars for nonprofits, but does not address that balance.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000, "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute's Center for Nonprofit Leadership, said he's anxious to read Brooks' book, because he can't fathom the conclusions it draws.

Government spending for safety-net needs is absolutely essential and cannot possibly be replaced by philanthropy, he said, adding that he's leery about the huge sums dedicated to foundations by people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

He said the distribution of that money raises big issues about fairness which would be even greater if it was perceived as a replacement for government spending. He cited an article he did for the Chronicle of Philanthropy about 2,500 donors of $1 million or more which found that most of the money went to universities, medical institutions and museums.

"Only a handful gave any money to anti-poverty organizations, local community groups and social service organizations," he said.

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said Brooks is emerging as what academics call a public intellectual, an academic expert who becomes recognized and respected by the general public.

Lenkowsky, who has served in the administrations of the last three presidents, most recently as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, is a colleague of Brooks who has not read his book, but is familiar with his research and findings.

"It's going to be one of the big books in philanthropy," he said.

He says its impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Now, assuming you are at least approaching coming up to speed, I totally agree with Titan that American Christianity is definitely heading back to a much more hands on and workable "practicing what we preach" time. BUT, to say that secular liberals in reality give a rats hind quarters about anything or anyone is just laughable. I will grant them 'good intentions' at some subatomic level. They just so totally inhale at big picture needs of a society that it is just laughable.

[DKW 86 7,440]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

All working people pay taxes.

With EITC? How can this be? Or do you simply mean they pay the regressive sales taxes?

[TexasTiger 13,021]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

All working people pay taxes.

With EITC? How can this be? Or do you simply mean they pay the regressive sales taxes?

Payroll taxes. Self-employed pay even more.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Al, I see you NEGLECTED to give a byline to this crap. Let me fill the readers in here.

Cynthia Tucker

Universal Press Syndicate

12.26.06

Hey, she's an Auburn grad:

http://www.aualum.org/magazine/advisory-board.html

[DKW 86 7,440]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

All working people pay taxes.

With EITC? How can this be? Or do you simply mean they pay the regressive sales taxes?

Payroll taxes. Self-employed pay even more.

But the lower income folks get all that back plus with EITC.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

You have no idea what the EITC is, do you?

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, I see you NEGLECTED to give a byline to this crap. Let me fill the readers in here.

Cynthia Tucker

Universal Press Syndicate

12.26.06

As if anyone with a living brain cell doesnt consider her to be the shrillest partyline hack in the country. Al, What were you thinking here?

Sorry you obviously missed this one. The claptrap in your post was such crap I just quit reading the mindnumbing gabage. If you are such a simpleton that you have to "think" in stereotypes, please take time and read a bit and not embarass yourself anymore.

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...&hl=outgive

Who's More Generous: Liberals or Conservatives?

Findings of Philanthropy Expert Are a Surprise, Especially to Himself

Sunday, October 29, 2006

By Frank Brieaddy

Staff writer

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, to be released next month, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance to two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, (Basic Books, $26) is due for release Nov. 24.

Arthur C. Brooks

Born: May 21, 1964, Spokane, Wash.

Early employment: French horn player with the Annapolis Brass Quintet and the Barcelona (Spain) Symphony Orchestra; professor of French horn, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Fla.

Education: B.A. in economics, Thomas Edison State College, Trenton, N.J.; M.A. in economics, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fla.; master's and doctorate, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, Calif.

Academic appointments: Director of nonprofit studies, professor of public administration, Syracuse University Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and research director, William E. Smith Institute for Association Research; previously, assistant professor of public administration and economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta.

Publications: Multiple academic journal and newspaper articles; regular op-ed contributor to The Wall Street Journal; "Social Entrepreneurship: A Modern Approach to Social Value Creation," published by Prentice-Hall.

Personal: Married; three children; lives in DeWitt.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

Months before those words came off the press, news of his research reached the producers of ABC's "20/20," who filmed extensive interviews with Brooks to be aired next month in a one-hour special dealing with charity and philanthropy.

The fact that ABC will focus on the political, rather than cultural, aspects of his book frightens him less than the potential for a call from Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' hard-hitting conservative commentator.

"I can say no, if I want to," he said.

Wall Street Journal columnist

The truth, Brooks says, is that if an interview with O'Reilly means furthering his message that America needs more charity -- especially from those who call themselves liberal -- he'd probably do it.

For the record, Brooks has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

His describes his research as more cultural than political, but he's well aware of the political implications of his book.

"The New York Times Book Review, they're going to flatten me. I'm just dead," he said, adding that he thinks the Times pans any book perceived to be conservative. :headslap:

A representative of the Times said it has no plans to review the book.

Brooks has been showing up more and more on the radar screens of professionals and academics in the field of philanthropy since he was named director of nonprofit studies in 2003 for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

He has lectured in Spain and Russia and maintains a schedule of about 50 appearances a year at professional conferences across the country and around the world, including, recently, at the Thailand Ministry of Finance, the American Society of Association Executives and the Federal Bar Association.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him) and another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

He says the pieces are byproducts of his research and they serve his penchant for iconoclasm.

He explains, "My shtick, if I've got one, for The Wall Street Journal is, 'Everything you thought you knew is wrong.'"

"Arthur is a terrific op-ed writer," said Tunku Varadarajan, editorial page features editor for The Wall Street Journal. "His pieces are piquant and counterintuitive, and his arguments -- however provocative -- always have a foundation in fact and careful research. He is also capable of making a complex point in a mere 500 words, a rare skill in this verbose age in which we live."

Not counting the appendix, the book is 183 pages.

Conservatives give more

Brooks says he is a behavioral economist by training, who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact. He considers charity and philanthropy an important, fascinating and vastly under-researched field.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he expects and encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks says he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. He writes that every tax dollar a nonprofit accepts "crowds out" 50 cents in voluntary contributions.

He merely mentions the balance between government and donated dollars for nonprofits, but does not address that balance.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000, "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute's Center for Nonprofit Leadership, said he's anxious to read Brooks' book, because he can't fathom the conclusions it draws.

Government spending for safety-net needs is absolutely essential and cannot possibly be replaced by philanthropy, he said, adding that he's leery about the huge sums dedicated to foundations by people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

He said the distribution of that money raises big issues about fairness which would be even greater if it was perceived as a replacement for government spending. He cited an article he did for the Chronicle of Philanthropy about 2,500 donors of $1 million or more which found that most of the money went to universities, medical institutions and museums.

"Only a handful gave any money to anti-poverty organizations, local community groups and social service organizations," he said.

Leslie Lenkowsky, professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, said Brooks is emerging as what academics call a public intellectual, an academic expert who becomes recognized and respected by the general public.

Lenkowsky, who has served in the administrations of the last three presidents, most recently as chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, is a colleague of Brooks who has not read his book, but is familiar with his research and findings.

"It's going to be one of the big books in philanthropy," he said.

He says its impact could be as great as that of Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam, who wrote the 2000 best-seller "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community," setting off a national discussion about the decline of participation in group activities and its effect on society.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

Now, assuming you are at least approaching coming up to speed, I totally agree with Titan that American Christianity is definitely heading back to a much more hands on and workable "practicing what we preach" time. BUT, to say that secular liberals in reality give a rats hind quarters about anything or anyone is just laughable. I will grant them 'good intentions' at some subatomic level. They just so totally inhale at big picture needs of a society that it is just laughable.

Sorry...I didn't realize that you were a fan of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson brand of compassion. Feel free to ignore this thread.

[AURaptor 1,126]

All working people pay taxes.

Not all working people pay INCOME taxes.

[AURaptor 1,126]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

You have no idea what the EITC is, do you?

Earned Income Tax Credit which is a cute name given for 'free money give away' to those who don't make enough to be taxed in the 1st place.

[Tiger Al 0]

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Tax credits on those who don't pay taxes ? Wow. Why not just call them what they really are, instead of tax credits. Call them 'free $$ give aways ', and stop this pretending they paid taxes in the 1st place. What is morally offensive in letting those who carry the largest part of the tax burden ' the RICH ' , to only pay their fair share ? How is not handing those who don't earn the $$ in any way punishing anyone ? Morally offenseive ? He has to be kidding ! The money belongs to those who EARN it . It is not meant to be redistributed through out all society, by delusional do - gooders who pretend to speak for Jesus.

You have no idea what the EITC is, do you?

Earned Income Tax Credit which is a cute name given for 'free money give away' to those who don't make enough to be taxed in the 1st place.

That's what I thought. You just reflexively react.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Sorry...I didn't realize that you were a fan of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson brand of compassion. Feel free to ignore this thread.

I am not and wasnt even refering to it at all. I was refering to the lame ideas that Liberals are charitable, Conservatives are cold hearted SOBs.

Nothing could be further from the truth at all as was cited in the article I linked.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

...

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

Conservatives do actually care more than Liberals. We care and give in larger numbers and larger amounts in every way imagineable. It is the simpleton mind that clings to old, woreout, stale, stereotypes and continues to do so. Liberals as a rule want to be magnanimous with other people's money, not their own. They want a brain dead govt bureaucrat to do the compassion instead of a real live heart beating human beaing. They want a hugely inefficient body that has never controlled its runaway spending to be the arbiter of compassion. THAT is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives in the 21st Century.

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry...I didn't realize that you were a fan of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson brand of compassion. Feel free to ignore this thread.

I am not and wasnt even refering to it at all. I was refering to the lame ideas that Liberals are charitable, Conservatives are cold hearted SOBs.

Nothing could be further from the truth at all as was cited in the article I linked.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

...

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

Conservatives do actually care more than Liberals. We care and give in larger numbers and larger amounts in every way imagineable. It is the simpleton mind that clings to old, woreout, stale, stereotypes and continues to do so. Liberals as a rule want to be magnanimous with other people's money, not their own. They want a brain dead govt bureaucrat to do the compassion instead of a real live heart beating human beaing. They want a hugely inefficient body that has never controlled its runaway spending to be the arbiter of compassion. THAT is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives in the 21st Century.

The article isn't about liberals being charitable and/or conservatives being cold-hearted SOB's. The article also isn't about who gives more or less to charity. Perhaps when you pull your foot out of your mouth you could actually read it before posting again.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

Sorry...I didn't realize that you were a fan of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson brand of compassion. Feel free to ignore this thread.

I am not and wasnt even refering to it at all. I was refering to the lame ideas that Liberals are charitable, Conservatives are cold hearted SOBs.

Nothing could be further from the truth at all as was cited in the article I linked.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

...

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

Conservatives do actually care more than Liberals. We care and give in larger numbers and larger amounts in every way imagineable. It is the simpleton mind that clings to old, woreout, stale, stereotypes and continues to do so. Liberals as a rule want to be magnanimous with other people's money, not their own. They want a brain dead govt bureaucrat to do the compassion instead of a real live heart beating human beaing. They want a hugely inefficient body that has never controlled its runaway spending to be the arbiter of compassion. THAT is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives in the 21st Century.

The article isn't about liberals being charitable and/or conservatives being cold-hearted SOB's. The article also isn't about who gives more or less to charity. Perhaps when you pull your foot out of your mouth you could actually read it before posting again.

Titan's the only one to actually respond to the post. Quickly downhill after that. No surprise.

[Tigermike 3,053]

Sorry...I didn't realize that you were a fan of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson brand of compassion. Feel free to ignore this thread.

I am not and wasnt even refering to it at all. I was refering to the lame ideas that Liberals are charitable, Conservatives are cold hearted SOBs.

Nothing could be further from the truth at all as was cited in the article I linked.

Some of Brooks' findings:

Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

Charity is good for your health.

Religious people are more charitable -- including with secular donations -- than secularists.

People who drink alcohol moderately are more charitable than those who don't drink.

When it comes to helping the needy, he writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

...

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

Conservatives do actually care more than Liberals. We care and give in larger numbers and larger amounts in every way imagineable. It is the simpleton mind that clings to old, woreout, stale, stereotypes and continues to do so. Liberals as a rule want to be magnanimous with other people's money, not their own. They want a brain dead govt bureaucrat to do the compassion instead of a real live heart beating human beaing. They want a hugely inefficient body that has never controlled its runaway spending to be the arbiter of compassion. THAT is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives in the 21st Century.

The article isn't about liberals being charitable and/or conservatives being cold-hearted SOB's. The article also isn't about who gives more or less to charity. Perhaps when you pull your foot out of your mouth you could actually read it before posting again.

You are right Al it isn't. When do you plan on admitting what it is, where it comes from and what it's really about?

For years Libs have had at best a derisive, contemptuous attitude toward Christians. Tnen Christians moved toward the right and away from the DNC in elections. For the past six years, the strategy of the DNC has been to drive a wedge into the Christian coalition so you guys trotted out several liberal Christians to talk it up and divide and conquer. At the moment it seems to have worked for you. You did win the last elections didn't you. Do you think conservative Christians will be comfortable in the DNC? Do you think they will be welcome?

Like David said earlier, "As if anyone with a living brain cell doesn't consider her to be the shrillest party line hack in the country." Cynthia Tucker is the Michelle Malkin of the left, that is why you left her name out of the original post isn't it?

Let's take a look at her little hit piece.

Two slaps and two lies in the title is pretty good, she should get a merit badge for that. "Is compassion returning to conservatism?, Theocrats losing their rigid hold on evangelical Christians"

"Is compassion returning to conservatism?," As David pointed out, when it comes to giving, compassion never left conservatives. For the left compassion is merely another avenue to make themselves feel better.

"Theocrats losing their rigid hold on evangelical Christians." First of all I don't know of any evangelical Christians who espouse theocracy or who even remotely want theocracy rule. This piece is just another example of leftist lib dems name calling and attaching a lable to conservative Christians. But you guys are the party of inclusion aren't you? In reality the left is afraid of Christians and their voting power. They actually kept the dems out of power for the past six to ten years haven't they?

Name one evangelical Christian who wants a theocracy. Just one.

Labels and name calling from the left is to be expected.

I said it six years ago on these forums that the agenda of the leftist Democrats was to do all they could to destroy the will of the American people to fight the war on terrorism. Your leaders have worked hard and diligently, with great effect to that end and they are not through yet are they?

The Rev. Jim Wallis, editor in chief of Sojourners magazine, has spent much of his career fighting to ameliorate poverty and broaden social justice. His latest book, "God's Politics," published last year (2005), provides a harsh critique of conservative policies that comfort the comfortable while punishing the poor. "Let's tell it as the prophets might have: The decision to drop tax credits for America's poorest families in favor of further tax cuts for the rich is morally offensive," he wrote.

Amen.

She inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical. Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. I read the articles and forums at Sojourners on a regular basis. Some are good and some are not, but don't trot them out as conservatives because they are not. And it was not just a lie but a damned lie on her part to come across that way.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

She inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical. Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. I read the articles and forums at Sojourners on a regular basis. Some are good and some are not, but don't trot them out as conservatives because they are not. And it was not just a lie but a damned lie on her part to come across that way.

I don't see evidence of that "intent." Just the opposite. Read the preceding paragraph.

But to the larger point, I think Titan is right. It is not a question of evangelicals aligning with the Dems as they've aligned with Republicans in the past. It is more about not merging faith with a political agenda that may not necessarily square with that faith. I remember Falwell and Robertson in their positions as religious leaders taking pro-positions on the B-1 bomber in the 80s.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, while Republicans have exploited the faith of evangelicals for political purposes. Personallly, I find the latter more offensive. I think more evangelicals are waking up to that reality.

[DKW 86 7,440]

"Is compassion returning to conservatism?, Theocrats losing their rigid hold on evangelical Christians"

Let just say, Compassion never left the Conservatives. It left the Liberals a long time ago and has never come close to returning.

The entire position of the article's title was a sham. Like Mike said, the "Idea" of theocracy is completely foreign to EVERY Conservative Christian I know.

[Tigermike 3,053]

She inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical. Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. I read the articles and forums at Sojourners on a regular basis. Some are good and some are not, but don't trot them out as conservatives because they are not. And it was not just a lie but a damned lie on her part to come across that way.

I don't see evidence of that "intent." Just the opposite. Read the preceding paragraph.

But to the larger point, I think Titan is right. It is not a question of evangelicals aligning with the Dems as they've aligned with Republicans in the past. It is more about not merging faith with a political agenda that may not necessarily square with that faith. I remember Falwell and Robertson in their positions as religious leaders taking pro-positions on the B-1 bomber in the 80s.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, while Republicans have exploited the faith of evangelicals for political purposes. Personallly, I find the latter more offensive. I think more evangelicals are waking up to that reality.

There have long been evangelical Christians who disagreed with the fundamentalism -- and the blatant political partisanship -- of people such as Fields. But as long as Congress was dominated by Republicans allied with the rigid fundamentalists, those less exclusionary evangelicals received little notice.

Tex, here is the preceding paragraph you referred to.

I did read it to start with and even went back and reread after your post. Why else would she have put it in?

You don't think she inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical? Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. Conservative he is not.

I remember John Kerry and Howard Dean quoting scripture to try and make points with "those of faith". The only problem was they quoted wrong, out of context and said the verses were in the OT rather than the NT.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, because their base is for the most part to the far left and they have for years made fun and openly ridiculed those of faith. I find it hypocritical and highly repugnant for the left to be "embracing" those of faith. But they would never do it solely for political purposes would they?

She inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical. Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. I read the articles and forums at Sojourners on a regular basis. Some are good and some are not, but don't trot them out as conservatives because they are not. And it was not just a lie but a damned lie on her part to come across that way.

I don't see evidence of that "intent." Just the opposite. Read the preceding paragraph.

But to the larger point, I think Titan is right. It is not a question of evangelicals aligning with the Dems as they've aligned with Republicans in the past. It is more about not merging faith with a political agenda that may not necessarily square with that faith. I remember Falwell and Robertson in their positions as religious leaders taking pro-positions on the B-1 bomber in the 80s.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, while Republicans have exploited the faith of evangelicals for political purposes. Personallly, I find the latter more offensive. I think more evangelicals are waking up to that reality.

There have long been evangelical Christians who disagreed with the fundamentalism -- and the blatant political partisanship -- of people such as Fields. But as long as Congress was dominated by Republicans allied with the rigid fundamentalists, those less exclusionary evangelicals received little notice.

Tex, here is the preceding paragraph you referred to.

I did read it to start with and even went back and reread after your post. Why else would she have put it in?

You don't think she inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical? Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. Conservative he is not.

I remember John Kerry and Howard Dean quoting scripture to try and make points with "those of faith". The only problem was they quoted wrong, out of context and said the verses were in the OT rather than the NT.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, because their base is for the most part to the far left and they have for years made fun and openly ridiculed those of faith. I find it hypocritical and highly repugnant for the left to be "embracing" those of faith. But they would never do it solely for political purposes would they?

So you think conservative Christians will be comfortable with abortion on demand, gay marriage, a weak national security, distain for the military, high tax rates, more do nothing on illegal immigration and running scared of international terrorists?

[TexasTiger 13,021]

She inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical. Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. I read the articles and forums at Sojourners on a regular basis. Some are good and some are not, but don't trot them out as conservatives because they are not. And it was not just a lie but a damned lie on her part to come across that way.

I don't see evidence of that "intent." Just the opposite. Read the preceding paragraph.

But to the larger point, I think Titan is right. It is not a question of evangelicals aligning with the Dems as they've aligned with Republicans in the past. It is more about not merging faith with a political agenda that may not necessarily square with that faith. I remember Falwell and Robertson in their positions as religious leaders taking pro-positions on the B-1 bomber in the 80s.

Dems have been more hesitant to talk about their faith, while Republicans have exploited the faith of evangelicals for political purposes. Personallly, I find the latter more offensive. I think more evangelicals are waking up to that reality.

There have long been evangelical Christians who disagreed with the fundamentalism -- and the blatant political partisanship -- of people such as Fields. But as long as Congress was dominated by Republicans allied with the rigid fundamentalists, those less exclusionary evangelicals received little notice.

Tex, here is the preceding paragraph you referred to.

I did read it to start with and even went back and reread after your post. Why else would she have put it in?

You don't think she inserted this about The Rev. Jim Wallis, with the intent to make him appear as a conservative evangelical? Sojourners is a progressive Christian commentary on faith, politics and culture. Conservative he is not.

You're equating evangelical with conservative. Wallis is an evangelical, whom she rightly states is not a fundaementalist. Fundamentalist tend to be conservative.

[Tigermike 3,053]

There have long been evangelical Christians who disagreed with the fundamentalism -- and the blatant political partisanship -- of people such as Fields. But as long as Congress was dominated by Republicans allied with the rigid fundamentalists, those less exclusionary evangelicals received little notice

.

It seems that you like Ms. Tucker are equating fundamentalist with conservative Christian and at the least wanting to paint the two as close to if not the same. It doesn't work. Well I shouldn't say it doesn't work, because your guys won the past election not on what you believe and what would be good for the country, but on the "anti" vote. And a dem complaining about blatant political partisanship is the height of hypo racy.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Ok...NOW its my turn. Titan, Im gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you again.

Since WHEN did taking MORE money away from people who earn it and giving it over to mishandled social welfare programs...equate COMPASSION?

I am sick and tired of libs throwing this guilt trip at conservatives. "oh you dont want this poor sick mother to be able to care for her child?...youd rather give another dollar to a rich fat cat who wants to buy another Ferrari?"

That is not the point. Bottom line...its not YOUR place to tell me that I have "too much money" and that i should GIVE some more of it away. I dont care if i have platinum plated window blinds, or own 19 Aston Martin DB7s. Its just not your place. Im not materialistic, and Im all for helping people out. But at what point does helping them out become ENABLING them?

When my parents first had me, they were on government social programs like WIC to help them with food and things that you ABSOLUTELY needed to support a family. But they got past using that stuff and built a better life for themselves.

But now we have SO MANY social welfare programs, that there is no need for them to push harder to make something of themselves.

I am self employed and have to pay taxes out the ass. Its really REALLY sad. The government takes so much of what I make already. It almost makes you not want to work at all. I work my ASS off just so they can take my money and give it to someone who DOESNT want a job.

And now to top it all off...they want the food stamps to look like a NORMAL credit card so people arent "embarassed" when they go to buy a buggy full of filet mignon and sodas...and pile it their caddy outside. You know what...you are taking MY money and not working. You SHOULD be embarassed!

You say i have no compassion? Why? There isnt a child in this country that would go uncared for as it stands. There are food stamp, welfare, and WIC programs EVERYWHERE for a mother to use to take care of her child. And if she STILL cant take care of it, then i dont want to give her ANY MORE OF MY MONEY to be obviously mishandled. That child would be in better hands if it were turned over to the state/foster family.

Does that make me cold? No. You cant make a better life for yourself if you can live off of others. I give to charities. But i do so at my own discretion. I dont want the government taking ANY MORE OF MY MONEY.

And those tax breaks for the "rich"? I dont know where id be if I didnt have those tax breaks. They help me out in a GREAT way. And Im far from rich. But you want to GIVE more money to people who ALREADY dont pay income taxes?

Which is less compassionante? An enabler who keeps someone down? Or someone who would rather limit your free money buffet to a point where you are motivated to work for a better life?

The government already says "youve got 5 he's got none...give him 2". Now you're telling me that it should be "youve got 5 he's got none...give him 3"?

No way.

[Tiger Al 0]

Like Mike said, the "Idea" of theocracy is completely foreign to EVERY Conservative Christian I know.

Name one evangelical Christian who wants a theocracy. Just one.

Roy Moore, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson for starters.