Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 22, 2021 - Epoch Times

10:44

Larry Elder Debunks the Myth About Selfish and Greedy Conservatives | Larry Elder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So I'm reading an article about a woman who can't stand Donald Trump.
	She lives next door to Trumpers.
	It snows.
	And the Trumpers plow her driveway.
	And she's shocked.
	Because she considers Trump to be a really bad guy.
	And all Trump voters must therefore be bad people.
	And yet these Trump people plow her driveway.
	And she doesn't know what to do.
	Doesn't know how to respond.
	Please.
	Are you aware that conservatives are far more generous with their money and their time than liberals?
	You didn't know that?
	I'm in a barber shop slash beauty parlor one day.
	Getting my hair cut.
	And next to me is a woman in a chair getting her hair done.
	And I hear her complaining about how selfish she thinks conservatives are.
	And I couldn't take it anymore.
	And I said to her, excuse me, I hear you talking about how selfish conservatives are.
	Who do you think is more generous with their time and money, conservatives or liberals?
	She said liberals.
	I said, well actually it's been studied and conservatives are more generous with their time and with their money.
	She said, more generous with their money?
	I said, yes.
	She said, oh, that's probably because they have more money.
	I said, actually the average liberal household is wealthier than the average conservative household.
	And then she changed the subject.
	Another woman walks in and says, excuse me, this lady and I are having a conversation and I want to ask you something.
	As between conservatives and liberals, who do you think is more generous with their money for charity, conservatives or liberals?
	She said liberals.
	I said actually it's been studied and conservatives are more generous with their time and with their money.
	She said, oh, that's probably because conservatives have more money than liberals.
	She said the same thing as the other woman did.
	It's been studied.
	There's a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks.
	We as human beings don't have a responsibility, but I hope we have a compassion and interest in the bottom 20%.
	And I only want to say to you that the capitalist system, the private enterprise system in the 19th century did a far better job of expressing that sense of compassion than the governmental welfare programs are today.
	The 19th century, the period which people denigrate as a high tide of capitalism, was the period of the greatest outpouring of elemosinary and charitable activity that the world has ever known.
	And one of the things I hold against the welfare system, most seriously, is that it has destroyed private charitable arrangements which are far more effective, far more compassionate, far more person to person in helping people who are really, for no fault of their own, in disadvantaged situations.
	Let's talk a little bit about the review of that book.
	Here's a review of Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks.
	Despite their reputation as caring, political liberals give less of their income to charitable causes than conservatives.
	People who mistrust big government give more of their money and time as volunteers to take care of the poor themselves.
	Government spending displaces private dollars to charities, weakening their ability to garner private support.
	People who are religious give more across the board, not only to religious causes, but to non-religious charities as well.
	End of quote.
	Religious people give far more money than do non-religious people, and there are far more religious conservatives than there are religious liberals.
	If you want to predict giving patterns, first look at a person's religious convictions.
	People who worship nearly every week give away three and a half times more money each year than people who only go once or twice a year.
	For two otherwise identical families earning $49,000 in 2000, the religious one gave $2,210 versus 642.
	But religious people don't just give to their churches and synagogues.
	They are more likely to give to non-religious causes as well, whether it's the PTA or the symphony, and they are twice as likely to volunteer." Often today we hear about stereotypes of religious people really not caring, being hypocrites.
	Well, a study last year showed quite the opposite.
	In fact, it held that religious people, people with a religious affiliation, were more than twice as generous given to charities than people without a religious affiliation.
	More than twice as generous.
	This is very significant because we hear a lot of rhetoric, but at the end of the day, it's actions that really matter.
	And in this case, it shows that people of faith really do have transformation of the heart and of the pocketbook.
	Overall, conservatives versus liberal?
	Conservative households donate 30% more money to charity than liberal households, and they are more likely to volunteer as well.
	Why the difference?
	Interesting question on the why.
	Here's what Brooks found.
	Liberals view government redistribution as a form of charity, which they believe exonerates them from further giving.
	But it is clearly not the same thing.
	Charity is voluntary and taxation is not.
	Liberals can be shamed into giving, however.
	Presidential candidate Al Gore was embarrassed by the release of his tax return that indicated he had given a meager 0.2% of his income to charity.
	His giving jumped to 6.8% the following year." So I'm at a party.
	A buddy of mine is having his birthday.
	He's a Vietnam vet.
	And so I'm assuming everybody at the party pretty much philosophically thinks the same way.
	So I was surprised to hear a woman at the party named Eileen begin to complain about how she feels rich people don't pay any taxes.
	And finally, I said to her, excuse me, I heard you say rich people don't pay taxes.
	Do you believe that?
	She said, yes.
	I said, how much in taxes do you think the top 1% pay?
	She said, what do you mean?
	I said, well, of all the federal income taxes, what percentage of the federal income taxes is paid by the top 1%?
	She said, oh, I see what you mean.
	She said, I think the top 1% probably pay about 1% or 2% of all federal income taxes.
	I said, you think the top 1%, these are people making about $300,000 or more, pay only 1% of all federal income taxes?
	She said, maybe 2%.
	And I just looked at her, and I kept waiting for her to say, what's the answer?
	She never said.
	You know why?
	Because she knew she was wrong, but she didn't want to be embarrassed.
	Either that, or she didn't want to be corrected.
	So I never did tell her.
	She never asked.
	The top 1% pay almost 39% of all federal income taxes, while making between 15 and 20% of the nation's income.
	If anything, the rich are overtaxed You write about various times and places people have advocated this, and you note several in particular.
	Republican Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon argued for lower tax rates in the 20s.
	Democratic President John Kennedy argues for cuts in the tax rates in the 1960s.
	Republican President Ronald Reagan lower tax rates in the 80s.
	And then George W. Bush lowers tax rates once again in the 2000s.
	Four experiments, as it were, won by a Democrat.
	In each of those four cases, what was the effect on the economy?
	The effect on the economy was to increase the rate of growth, increase the revenue received by the government.
	The rich not only paid more taxes after the tax cuts for the rich, as they call it, they paid a higher percentage of all taxes.
	Lastly, and I think this is really important, government charity displaces private charity.
	My dad used to go to a VA hospital.
	And one day I noticed that the doctor who was attending him had the last name of Olasky.
	And I said, excuse me, do you know Marvin Olasky?
	And she went, why are you asking me that?
	And I was taken aback by that.
	And I said, no offense meant, but there's a gentleman named Marvin Olasky who wrote a book called The Tragedy of American Compassion, where he argued that during the Great Depression, those families who were eligible for benefits but didn't take them ended up doing better than the family that was eligible and took them.
	And she said, he's my cousin.
	And she said, are you critical of his book?
	I said, no, I think it was a very well-researched book.
	And she relaxed and she said, oh, he's conservative and a lot of people don't like him.
	I just wanted to make sure that you weren't going to cast aspersions against me.
	Really?
	Here's what Brooke said.
	Numerous studies have demonstrated that a dollar in government spending on non-profit activities displaces up to 50% in private giving.
	And the highest level of crowding out occurs in assistance to the poor and other kinds of social welfare services.
	Now, this review of Who Really Cares by Arthur Brooks notes that the theory that government charity displaces private charity is indeed a theory, but it's a theory that has been checked and tested many times in history.
	Take three snapshots at different times in America's recent history.
	FDR's New Deal put a 30% dent in church-based charitable giving to the poor in the 1930s.
	A 1985 study found that cash transfers from state governments to the poor led to less charity in general in those states.
	And a review of welfare payments from 1997 to 2002 revealed that higher temporary assistance for needy families' payments crowded out charitable giving to the poor and to the states Brooks examined.
	The flip side of the argument is that decreases in government spending stimulates charity.
	Adversity is the mother of donation, as one philanthropic expert put it.
	Based on these findings, one can make the case that government spending can hurt charities, especially faith-based groups serving the poor in unintended ways.
	End of quote.
	And one of the things I hold against the welfare system, most seriously, is that it has destroyed private charitable arrangements which are far more effective, far more compassionate, far more person to person in helping people who are really, for no fault of their own, in disadvantaged situations.
	So despite the Republican reputation for being selfish and greedy, it turns out that these dastardly Republicans are far more charitable with their money and their time than our liberals.
	Now, as you know, we have been demonetized by YouTube.
	Why am I smiling?
	Because it means we must be doing something right.
	So to continue to get me on demand and uncensored, just go to LarryTube.com.
	That's all, LarryTube.com, because we've got a country to save.

▲