Makers and Takers

[LUVMBDiesels]

Makers and Takers
By: Peter Schweizer
The American left prides itself on being superior to conservatives: more generous, less materialistic, more tolerant, more intellectual, and more selfless. For years scholars have constructed—and the media has pushed—elaborate theories designed to demonstrate that conservatives suffer from a host of personality defects and character flaws. According to these supposedly unbiased studies, conservatives are mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies. Far from the belief of a few cranks, prominent liberals from John Kenneth Galbraith to Hillary Clinton have succumbed to these prejudices. But what do the facts show?
Peter Schweizer has dug deep—through tax documents, scholarly data, primary opinion research surveys, and private records—and has discovered that these claims are a myth. Indeed, he shows that many of these claims actually apply more to liberals than conservatives. Much as he did in his bestseller Do as I Say (Not as I Do), he brings to light never-before-revealed facts that will upset conventional wisdom.
Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork have long argued that liberal policies promote social decay. Schweizer, using the latest data and research, exposes how, in general:
* Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.
* Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
* Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
* Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
* Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
* Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
* Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.
Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires.
Continue reading "Makers and Takers"

[Idolotor]

I totally agree and have ALWAYS know these things to be true!

Thanks for posting!

Libs, read it and weep>

* Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.
* Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
* Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
* Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
* Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
* Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
* Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.
Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires.

[kip Foss]

All the above flies in the face of the fact that conservatives elected both Reagan and the Bushes.

[tankdriver]

That's just

[Matt L]

The conservative version is, "If it makes me money, justify it via ideology," right?

[MS Fowler]

You can snipe all you want, but the fact is that Conservatives ( not necessarily republicans) are more charitable with their own money.
Liberals are charitable with other people's money.

Conservatives probably did NOT vote for Bush.

[Hatterasguy]

Yep, thats what I have seen.

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by kip Foss

All the above flies in the face of the fact that conservatives elected both Reagan and the Bushes.

What do you mean by that with respect to Reagan?

He stood for all the points above.

[Hatterasguy]

I liked Reagan and Bush 1. Bush 2 ain't so great, but I do like his hard line on terrorists.

[kip Foss]

Carter left office with relatively little national debt. About $500 bil. I believe. By the time Reagan and Bush sr. left the debt was over %4 trillion. Remember Reagan's '600 ship armada'? He took the money for that from the Social Security pot and replaced it with worthless US IOUs which not only forced the taxpayer to pay back the principle on money which should have never been spent but also an ungodly amount of interest.

Clinton not only paid off that $4 trillion but left Shrub Bush with a $500 billion surplus. That surplus is now gone and we and out kids and there kids are looking at a $10 trillion debt.

Tell me again about how the conservative Republicans are supposed to be good managers of money. The reason the Republicans donate more to charity is because they have lined their pockets at the public trough and are donating in an effort to placate their guilty consciences.

For every dollar spent by a Democratic welfare mother you have a thousand dollars being stolen by white, so called upper class Republican doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. I see it down here in S. Texas. The place is alive with welfare people. Many who could and should work. But there isn't a month go by that there isn't a story in the paper about some doctor or health care provider screwing welfare out of $100ks.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by kip Foss

The place is alive with welfare people. Many who could and should work. But there isn't a month go by that there isn't a story in the paper about some doctor or health care provider screwing welfare out of $100ks.

Get rid of welfare and you eliminate both problems.

[MS Fowler]

Dare I remind you that Clinton was saddled with an opposition Congress which limited his spending His fiscal restraint was not of his own doing. . Also he was the benefit of an economic boom that was the result of his predecessor's policies.

[GTStinger]

The national debt increased every year under Clinton. The annual budget deficit was reduced significantly for several years, but never achieved a surplus in any year. The misdirection was that public debt (T-Bills, bonds, etc) produced a surplus because the government was paying them off faster than issuing securities. At the same time there was a ton of borrowing between agencies (Social Security).

Plus there was a lot of media hype that "In two years there is a projected budget surplus of $XX billion", but those projections never developed.

From the US Treasury for the budget years approved by Clinton.

FiscalYear Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


That said, the country's debt standing was a lot better in the roaring 90's than it is currently.