Republicans are happier than Dems
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020701904.html

I've been meaning to post this for a week or so now, but have been busy. It's funny, when you think about it's so spot on and I think both sides of the aisle would admit it. Of course it'd be harder to do so as an Democrat, but I think a of the statements are undeniable, especially the stuff about higher degrees...

(Oh, and this is by no means an attack on the Democratic Party, just me saying that I agree with the statistics and the article's reasoning.)

I'm an Independent and I hope that people who are married to either party can read such studies and not get emotional. :)

What's interesting is that they controlled for income and still found that Repubs are happier (the direction of the correlation and whether it's correlation or causation is undetermined).

The church attendance and power factors are interesting as part of an explanation. I would always rather read this study in its entirety than read a journalist account on Washington Post.

The definition of liberal
 

Do you know what the definition of "liberal" is?

According to Dictionary.com, it's someone that's "favorable to progress or reform." Oh, and it also means generous, but that's beside my point. If so many democrats are "liberal," by definition they are not happy with the way things are - they want change. If one believes that there's always room for progress and that we shouldn't be happy with just what's "good enough," it doesn't surprise me that liberal democrats would be described as less happy than republicans.

I've never really understood how/why liberal came to be associated with BAD. In my mind, being liberal is a pretty good thing. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

In any case, "happy" is a very non-descript word that can lead to all kinds of theories in this case.

That's an interesting way of looking at it based on definition. It makes sense and the article touched on that with the "ignorance is bliss" perception and how Dems may pay closer attention to politics and social conditions than Repubs.

This is all with the dichotomized version of Dem/Repub and lib/conserv. Of course it doesn't always work so simplistically.

Liberal has been associated with BAD because of some of the agendas that liberals have allowed to be at the forefront. Also, extreme liberals have kind of been like tree hugging hippies who feel like anything goes because certain standards and values are based solely on "elite class snobbery."

This obviously hinges on the belief that what "liberals" in this country are pursuing is "progress." Millions see it as efforts to degrade traditional values and capitalistic economic policy.

But if you break it down to the idea that liberals are simply always chasing after something, seeking some sort of reform, that could be a factor. I thought the article mentioned something along those lines, actually.

Indeed. That's why these categories are more complex than liberal and conservative. There are different extremes.

It did and explained it as Dems paying more attention to politics and society, in general.

THIS JUST IN: RICH PEOPLE HAPPIER THAN POOR PEOPLE

Not necessarily and this study controlled for income. ;)

Liberalism is idealism and conservatism is realism. We need a mixture of the two if we are going to remain the best country in the world.

I know, right? Psshht. Selfish bastards, when, oh when, will they stop wasting time crying about kids going hungry at night?

I know, let's mail out a pair of rose-colored-glasses along with everyone's "economic stimulus check", then everyone will be able to see that things are just hunky-dory and join the "fat and happy" herd. (of elephants)

There is certainly nothing wrong unattainable goals. The difference, at least in from my political vantage point, is the approach.

Very few conservatives are fundamentally against helping people, we just don't want to do it in a way that creates irresponsibility or establishes an expectation of entitlement. It goes both ways, as too much government interference takes the responsibility off of Americans to care for other people.

Many will dispute this, but I think many conservatives place an emphasis on self-direction and personal responsibility, which enables happiness, at least in my experience. Knowledge or belief that you're in control of your own existence encourages both effort and continual hope.

I hope you don't think you're agreeing with me here. :confused:

Here here! I've been preaching this for years.

I don't agree with the "idealism" and "realism" categorization, though. Conservativism is a great deal of "idealism" because you have to have your head at least a little up your own ass, and think the world revolves around you and yours, to support a lot of the conservative agenda. But the reality of the matter is that the world doesn't revolve around you and yours and that it is stinky to have your head up your own ass.

Yep. There's a difference between productivity and trendy rhetoric. That's why I look at a lot of things critically because some people are genuinely and consistently productive and others are just jumping on one bandwagon after another. Darfur is a trendy bandwagon for some people and for others it isn't.

Democrats and liberals actually aren't trying to please everyone. Extremists are. Democrats and liberals are trying to lessen the social and class divide (that a lot of people unfortunately celebrate as if it's a sign of objective wealth) and higher taxes is one way that that is feasible.

It's great that your chapter does that. I know that Conservatives and Repubs don't ignore the less fortunate--whatever that means at any given time, as long as the haves and have nots don't get too blurred. However, your chapter's fund raising doesn't compare to the millions needed for national and local programs. Fundraisers don't cut it but higher taxes are frowned upon.

There is great irony here because for every person who comes from wealth and earns their keep, there are those who did not actually earn anything, are irresponsible, and have a sense of entitlement. But it's okay because they are wealthy so they can't really harm society through immorality or anything else, right? :) There have always been government breaks for the wealthy (also known as Wealthfare) but when it comes to creating equilibrium in the form of social welfare programs, people are suddenly critical of "lazy people" and want the government not to intervene.

Coming from money is only as cool as the people who don't abuse it. :)

You took it somewhere else, though. :)

Love this statement. I'm a card carrying Republican with the best of them, but I think given our current political AND global climate, this is our only solution if we want to keep America at the top, and have life as we know it continue on...

A) I don't see much irony in what I said.

B) People have the right to be lazy and/or make lots of money and/or not act charitably.

C) Please describe your opinion of these breaks the wealthy get. Are you referring to specific provisions (in the IRC for example) or the general advantages the wealthy have in a capitalist society? Also, what is the basis for these breaks? Are we giving them the same starting point as impoverished people, or are we talking about "breaks" based on a starting point of where society/gov't has determined their liability to society should be?

A) The irony isn't about you. It's about a mindset and an approach.

B) ????

C) Look up "wealthfare."

A) Still don't see the irony about the approach.

B) Ok.

C) I asked for your opinion, I think. If you don't want to give it, that's fine too. "Wealthfare" is a broad topic which is obviously subjective. I view entitlement programs a lot differently than I do tax breaks for people paying at 38%. Perhaps they're more comparable to government contracts, but I think that is a tenuous argument at best, which again, is extremely subjective.

A) Cool. I'll touch on that at the end of "C."

B) :)

C) "Wealthfare" actually isn't a subjective and broad topic. And it isn't opinion-based, as far as I'm concerned. This is a capitalist nation and the government is very active in keeping it that way, as well as keeping the haves and have nots distributed a certain way (regardless of who is in Presidential office and regardless of whether there is money allocated for social welfare programs). That's what many Conservatives are in favor of regardless of anything else.
I only mentioned this because you mentioned Conservatives not wanting to help those who may be irresponsibile and have a sense of entitlement. I find that ironic (not because of you but because a lot of Conservatives share this sentiment) because it ignores the fact that government assistance given to maintain the class distribution of society also results in irresponsibility and a sense of entitlement for some of the upper class. Being wealthy isn't the issue. Celebrating the social class divide and acting like only the recipients of welfare assistance can become irresponsible and feel unjustly entitled is the issue. :)

I think it is extremely subjective. What defines "waste" in contracts? What tax credits/deductions are earned and which aren't? If you argue that our country benefits the wealthy, then I think you're right. However, is government involvement really what is keeping the distribution of wealth disparate? I think a strong argument can be made that the wealthy inherently benefit from our economic system, but I think this is the default in America. Is it the actions of the government which keep our economic hierarchy in place? Or is it the inaction of the government which keeps the wealth gap from closing? I don't propose that the latter is the responsibility of our government.

Sure, you can make the argument that certain actions of the government reinforce wealth disparity (I think these individualized examples are where you get into subjectivity). However, I think if you concede capitalism as the default position for American economics, that gap would remain even without governmental reinforcement.

So basically, I think that the wealthy systemically or even inherently benefit in America, but I don't think they depend on the actions of the government for sustained viability. I think some would argue that the inaction of the government sustains hierarchy, but I think this should be the default position of our government.

Are tax breaks when the taxpayer is paying at 38% comparable to welfare programs? I personally believe they are not.

Re: irony...I suppose it would be ironic, depending on who harbored the view.

:)

This is all I get? Psh.

I think many would argue that our country encourages ingenuity, efficiency and work ethic, and that the resulting benefit is rightfully earned (as opposed to many situations of government sustenance).