Party Member Characteristics

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Party Member Characteristics
38
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 1:42pm

I wonder how many of the republicans started off as democrats in their younger days and then grew up, matured and realized what it takes to be successful in life and thus became republicans?


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 1:55pm
I found it surprising that Republicans tend to donate to charity more-I had always thought that Democrats are the biggest donors.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 2:12pm

More people of faith are republican.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 2:19pm

A saw has teeth. A cat has teeth. Thus, the saw must be a cat.

Any proof supporting the "logic" behind your claim?

KJ

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 2:33pm

There is a lot of it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 3:02pm

This *one* article held some interesting research on charity of the religious vs. charity of the secular. Unfortunately, the author mixed in a far amount of subjective conclusions with the fairly objective study.

what isn't there is how many of the "giving religious" were Republican. I'd be interested to see that, from an objective source, and if it backs up you're logic, then good.

What I noticed is not mentioned in these pushes for the "Faith Based Initiatives" is issue of proselytizing being part of the charity. There are safeguards against this for a reason and religious organizations can still get federal funding with them in place.

The issue of Fait Based Initiatives is not quite so simple as is frequently suggested.

KJ

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 4:27pm

I don't have an issue with the comment that people of faith give more to charity. I do have an issue with saying that "More people of faith are Republicans." Correct me if I'm wrong, but most people in this country subscribe to a religious faith. Therefore, I would think that 'people of faith' are pretty much evenly divided between the parties. I admit that's just a logical conclusion for me, I don't have the research to back it up.

I just get tired of people saying one party has a lock on being more pious or more patriotic than the other. That's a load of malerkey.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-01-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 4:40pm

<>

Are you inferring that in order to be succesful in life you have to be a republican?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-27-2001
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 4:52pm

Don't get carried away. That's not what she's saying.
But...WITH AGE COMES WISDOM. :-)

I voted for Clinton when I was young and naive. Then I grew up and I find myself doing a complete 180. And I see it with my friends, too. The more they see, they more Republican they become. (My friends words, not mine). It's true.



Morrow1.png Sig picture by beansand

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 10-21-2004 - 11:24pm

Ah, that's not wisdom, that's called becoming jaded.

JUST KIDDING! I swear I don't mean that seriously. I just couldn't resist it.

Shan
33 and still no signs of Republicanism setting in.

anonymous
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2003
Fri, 10-22-2004 - 1:36am
I still think that, fundamentally, when all the rhetoric and party slashing is put away, the major differences between average Dems and average Republicans have to do with personal responsibility. A lot of liberal stances and Democratic programs come from the belief that 'with privilege comes responsibility' - thus, the wealthier have a moral obligation to help the poorer - to help raise the community as a whole - and the Government plays a role in enacting these policies. The Republican policies are often rooted in the idea that success is a reward for personal responsibility and personal accomplishment - in other words, the Government should do the minimal it needs to to maintain the country's infrastructure and defense, but all other rewards/incentives should be earned, and earned at the private level.Both these stances are valid and to be respected - they are grounded in the idea that someone who has a chance, an opportunity, and privileges is obligated to do something with them, and that charity begins at home. But the more you swing in one direction or another, the more it affects how you see the same situation. Let's take a woman, single, with 2 small children - she was the child of a single mother, who was the child of a single mother. She dropped out in 11th grade to care for her kids and has tried to work, but all the minimum wage jobs pay less than welfare, and if she makes too much, she will eliminate her eligibility for health care for her kids, one of whom has asthma.So what do we see --- the liberal stance says, we see a recurring cycle of poverty that will NEVER change if we don't intervene - this woman's 2 kids will be in the same boat 15-20 years from now if we don't change something. We need to fund a program where she can complete her education while still making enough to pay her subsidized rent and helping out with childcare. Once she is educated enough to compete for jobs in the private sector that give health benefits, we might have broken the cycle and those kids will never be on public assistance.The conservative stance says, hey, that girl's next door neighbor *didn't* get pregnant and *didn't* drop out of high school. What's more, *I* didn't get pregnant and drop out Why are we throwing *my* tax dollars to reward bad or stupid behavior. Where's the reward for the personal responsibility that her next door neighbor and I showed? Instead of taking my money to help her, I would prefer to hold onto that money - I can spend it on my own kid's education (who will *also* not be on public assistance), and I can give it to my church to use for charitable measures with which I agree.So --- both perspectives are right and both are valid. And I don't know how to make us all come closer together if we keep saying the other point of view makes someone heartless (Republican) or bleeding heart (Democrat). The fact is, the Government --- when it functions as some sort of major 'social program', can reach more people with more resources than any private charity can ever hope to --- and we all know that. So it's hard for us liberals - when we're thinking, these people need HELP (be it poor kids in our schools or poor countries ravaged by civil wars) - to not want to help. At the same time, it is hard for the conservatives not to say, wait a minute, if we help them, we have to NOT do something else - what do we stop - education elsewhere (what about the hard working kids), tax cuts to the wealthy - what about small business owners who employ all these people, don't they deserve a break???Anyway ---- this was a LONG WINDED plea in response to a straightforward post. Why might younger people tend to have more liberal stance to the same situation and change as they get older? Well, when you're younger, it's 'everybody's' money and 'everyone's' children you're sending to fight the good fight --- as you age, it's *your* money and *your* children.




Edited 10/22/2004 1:42 am ET ET by wen1001

Pages