I recently listened to a podcast (sort of in the background so I didn't catch everything) where Erza Klein was interviewing a guy from something associated with the Heritage Foundation. What I found kind of interesting was how... naive he seemed. He mentioned a way to make college more affordable was to lower standards of accreditation to increase supply, therefore driving down costs. Umm... we already have problems with for-profit colleges not delivering what they promise. He stated that being socially conservative was vital to the conservative cause because we need a high level or morality in order for private charities to take over for government assistance. Umm... has there been anyplace, ever where a large country has adequately assisted the needy though private contributions alone?
Getting away from the interview, look at Kansas where it was assumed that economic growth from lowering taxes would offset the loss of revenue. Turns out that the economy of even a smaller state is too complex for tax cuts to turbocharge it at will.
I mean, people sometimes characterize Bernie as being really out there and idealistic, but he's proposing things are just kinda taken for granted in most of the developed world. I can't think of any country that really operates the way conservatives want to take things. The closest thing I can think of is maybe the U.S. at the beginning of the 20th century where it was pretty good it you were wealthy and sucked pretty hard if you were poor or an immigrant or had the misfortune of being both. You didn't see amazing economic growth lifting everyone up or private organizations helping lift people out of poverty en-mass. You got pretty much what you'd expect given human nature. Kinda the same reason communism has never really worked out on a large scale.
For me the choice of living in Norway or living in a Upton Sinclair novel seems pretty clear.
I don't know. I think there is a lot of fear out there because of globalization, technology, and fear-mongering in the media. Fear makes people make less than optimal decisions.
Well, I'm contemptuous of people whose fear leads them to hateful actions.
The ideals behind charitable giving seem rooted in "See how benevolent I am!" I dislike being noticed when I donate things. And how many rich people donate without a tax break? It's all tied up with "white man's burden" and all those horrific, late 19th-century tropes. "We have a duty," people smugly sighed.
And now the façade is coming down, and people whose last claim to superiority was "At least I'm an American!" are losing that, and terror is a powerful, frightening force. For generations, certain groups of people have held to a particular belief about the world and never conceived they might need alternate ways of living. I feel sorry for them at the same time I keep a very suspicious eye on them.
Yeah, I've seen the Putin (and Bibi) worship among the Trump supporters, too. They're way hung up on the perception of strength and don't care about anything else. They also conveniently ignore that W was the one that destroyed the appearance of US strength by getting us mired in two unwinnable wars. In their mind it's all Obama's fault for "going on an apology tour" and refusing to invade Syria.
The latter item is one of the things that concerns me about a potential Hillary presidency, that she'll feel compelled to get us more involved in Syria because she sees Obama's reluctance to get caught up in yet another war in the Middle East as a failure.
The charity instead of welfare thing is such a crock of shit. Not only is a lot of charitable giving inspired by the tax break rather than altruism (or at least it has a significant impact. I've heard owner of my company say she'd rather give the money away than let the government get their greedy mitts on it) but it's just another way for them to enforce their world view by making sure they give money to the causes that help the people they feel are "worthy" of help. Because welfare only assists lazy drug attics popping out kids, in their mind.
ETA: I should amend that the owners do tend to be very passionate about some of their charity projects and would likely engage in them anyway, but the degree does seem to be influenced by Uncle Sam.
And, often, the charitable giving lets them put their names on things, such as a department of a hospital, a collection in a museum, etc.
I would just note that I do think those things also have value....
It's sad that many a wonderful institution is only there for the tax break.
Wouldn't say "only"
I guess I am in denial about people admiring Putin. At least I can be pretty sure my conservative relatives (who are actually monarchists, the oldest ones, don't get much more conservative than that) won't go that particular route. The degree to which they deified Reagan was bad enough.
