Heh. It'll be the first time I agree with Akuma, but he is correct.

Every economy is mixed. The question is 'how much mixing is enough?' and also what kind of mixing is needed: Does the government that mandate something also need to be the one to run it? Very esoteric questions to answer on an individual level for everyone.

Humanity shares a socialistic value. As a Christian, I value private socialism to a very high degree. The Bible teaches socialism as a very valuable attribute of the Jews (the 30% tax for the poor every 3 years, as per Leviticus) and goes into the NT with the food allotments for the Jewish widows, and the councils that were established. All of which would be deemed 'socialist'. The debate must be focused on what part should be government, and what part should be private. We must also look into if a ideal would be a good idea to integrate for society as a whole...No one in their right mind would argue that primary education for every student, free of charge, is a bad thing. But who runs it?

And I agree again that every party, every person, has their own idea and value set for what their idea of socialism is, despite the fact that everyone is socialist to some degree. Of course, in my paleoconservative opinion, the burden should be on the public to demonstrate socialistic values, and for the government merely to regulate said socialistic programs to ensure they aren't corrupt.

That discribes it very well, I think its part of your culture, and thats ok, its just different in my country, you dont see many homeless because the goverment and private organizations give them home and try to give them things so they can work.

Dont get me wrong, my countryhas even more things to do than yours, but we see the model in the Europe nations like switzerland and such.

Here the rich get richer too, the gap widenens, but poor have their food and home secured. But there are many things more to do for the poor and stop the gap for getting bigger, things they should do because we have a "socialist goverment" at least in the name.

I cant talk much more about your country since i dont live there, and all te info I have is from the trips Ive done and news and the internet.

lol, thats one of the reasons a friend of mine hates U2 xD.(but they make great music)

capitalism/no government intervention FTW!!

I say fuck you to the bailouts, let the failing businesses die already, quit giving them handouts so they can keep making more shitty products.

You mean like with insurance?

Yeah.  I agree on both fronts.  They make some good music but i can't stand bono.  Or any celebrity who talks about charity work needing to be done.

I mean... when you see some of the amazing work private charites do it can get you mad that a lot of people are "waiting" for the government to take their money for them.  You should see some of the amazing stuff foodbanks can do with some money. 

Which by the way.  If there are any Americans here feeling they need to donate some more.  Foodbanks could use some serious funding.  Money actually works better then bringing food because they get some really awesome bulk deals.

Not really... because you can opt out of insurance.

If I live in Omaha I sure as heck don't need typhoon insurance for example.

There are tons of programs that people pay for that will never effect them... some of which they are excluded from using anyway.

Some people feel it's inappropriate for the government to put into place programs that only some can ever qualify for when all put money in the pot so to speak.

Two questions/comments

1. Do you have a source for the whole time spent conservative vs liberal info?

2. Local Non-profits are a good way to go for meeting certain things within local areas. At least in my experience in researching NGOs combatting HIV, Hunger, Child Welfare etc. In some respects these non-profits (As they are called in the US) spawn their own sort of industry and have a hierarchal/bureaucratic structure themselves.

Example: Global Fund gives to, Glazer pediatric foundation, gives to a local NGO on the ground who gives the resources to the people who need them (this is usually the only solution in countries without central governments who can reach their people)

I also just wanted to mention that the government typically has a consistent cash flow whereas donor reliant ngos have to make sure that they are going after the disease/issue de jour.

Although, a lot of these NGOs get government funding.

Nevermind I agree with you about the libertarian part. If anything it would be a fun experiment to see the behavioral shift society would have to make to deal with a changing state. I actually like this idea.  

Sure.  There's all sorts of links all over the place.  In google you can find them all over from studies.

This is the first one i found off hand though

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

Thank you.