I find it ironic that a majority of the Koch Brothers charitable givings go to the medical field since their industrial empire caused numerous cases of cancer and various respiratory diseases.

almost every single charity is just full of greedy bloodsuckers...why in the world would i want to see them get even more money? we all know whats in their pocketses...everyones money... and almost nothing to their alleged cause.

What you just stated sounds like what he said, in description of conservatives.  Appealing to communal duty is an appeal to guilt.  It is focused on the individual to do what is right and personal responsibility to do this.  The liberal view would be on the person being helped and trying to help them any way they can, even if it involves raising taxes.  And this would make a lot of sense explaining how political talk is structured and what is said in it.  The conservative view is, "Who really cares?" and a focus on what the giver does, because it is about what people do on a personal level.  This individualistic view will also cause things not to be viewed systemically, and asking, what can be done to address systemic issues.  Today, viewing poverty as a systemic issue, and not one of personal responsibility, is a liberal approach.

This being said, who said there it is wrong to appeal to guilt if it gets people to do the right thing?  Moral conduct has guilt as part of it.  Guilt is a factor to drive people to think differently on things.

This pretty much proofs that Glenn Beck isn't about charity his main agenda has and always will be self promotion.

care to elaborate on how this "proofs" that glenn beck doesnt care about helping but but wants only to promote himself.

how is striving to improve our nation, being kind to neighbors, returning to the constitution just a way to self promote.

if his main goal is to only self promote himself, he is terribly inefficient at it. why would he bother to in such a round about way promote himself through giving, if he didnt care about the poor.

i dont get it, in the face of facts, you throw them off to the side and just insert your own biased beliefs (which our based off of nothing). why would glenn beck and his listeners give millions to charity, if they didnt care about the needy.

why do you completely ignore the facts that are in front of you. you already been proven wrong several times in this thread, yet you keep coming back with nonsubstatiated claims.

Glenn Beck is a major asshole and their is nothing you can say that will make me think otherwise.  This whole kindness game he is playing is part of his conversion to mormonism and another reason is because he wants to look good to his sponsors and make up for the BS he says most of the time but the fact is that he is a arrogant asshole that is all about self promotion.  Also I have been proven right numerous times also in this thread but you just want to ignore that like the facts about Glenn Beck.

The work he is in, is completely and totally about self-promotion.  If you don't do this, you go hungry and starve.  It is your job to generate interest in what you do, so that you can generate money off it.  What matters in this though, is to what end is the self-promotion for.  If it results in society being better, then more power to him promoting himself.

Heck, increasingly everything is about self-promotion.  I, for example, if I am going to get anywhere am going to have to promote myself, network, get exposure and end up getting places because I am know.  Anyone in the job market has to do the same.

In short, he makes his living from self-promotion.  What follows after that is what really matters.

As opposed to everyone individually being greedy bloodsuckers?  Is it you say this, because you believe everyone is full of greedy bloodsuckers, so you yourself, who you realize is also a greedy bloodsucker, feel you want to hold onto your own money.  If that is the case, they why care about what others want to do or don't do with their own money.  Care to explain that Ayn?

Won't work, ironically (because I associate Glenn Beck and the tea party movement with libertarianism) because I believe for the most part and in aggregate, people are rational and self interested.

The problem we have with charity and other public sharing of wealth is the free rider problem. You could make a difference by donating a dollar, but it's not like it's going to hurt that much if I don't donate since other people will.

Sure, in the short term, if you have some kind of spark (a disaster, media coverage, the holidays) donations will boost, and there will be some individuals who donate. But will it be to the extent we need to have a proper social safety net? No.

And to be honest, if voluntary charity grows enough to be enough, what's the change? Our government is fucking democratically elected, taxation is voluntary. And if people are going to stop forgetting that we are a nation bound by a common identity and sense of decency, and that stability is needed in order to have democracy and the free market, to start voting radicals into our government, I am not confident that those same people are going to fucking donate to charity.

This is an interesting viewpoint, as it could suggest that Conservatives operate on motive-based morality and Liberals operate on ends-based morality.