Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

[L.K.Eder]

selling of indulgences

 

[Annie]

selling of indulgences

Yes, that is what he was trying to get to, but his roommate either was a bad Catholic or bad Protestant, couldn't determine which.

 

[shintao]

Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

Sure. Republicans give to churches.

Democrats give to universities and create funds for scholarships. They will will help the disadvantaged to learn skills and get "real" jobs. None of those things are counted as "charity".

Republicans will dig out some old can of creamed corn 5 years old out of the pantry, give it to the church and feel good they "gave" so much. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he will feed his family.

It's a difference in philosophy. You can see it in the way Republicans feel helping your fellow American is nasty socialism, but giving him that old, shitty can of creamed corn is "gawdly".

And they won't donate at all, unless they can write if off!!

 

[shintao]

No sir, you don't see most conservatives saying what you claim. What is being said is that the government is not the most efficient way of getting help where it's needed.

Blowing smoke up my ass won't set me on fire. How many homeless people in your city need medical treatment? What kind of treatment? How many need shelter? How many need blankets? Coats? Shoes? I know you can't answer any of these important questions, but your government can. You are incapable, you are not skilled to even consider such questions or where to find answers.

 

[chanel]

- 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.

-- 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.

Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

 

[Wingsofwind]

Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

Sure. Republicans give to churches.

Democrats give to universities and create funds for scholarships. They will will help the disadvantaged to learn skills and get "real" jobs. None of those things are counted as "charity".

Republicans will dig out some old can of creamed corn 5 years old out of the pantry, give it to the church and feel good they "gave" so much. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he will feed his family.

It's a difference in philosophy. You can see it in the way Republicans feel helping your fellow American is nasty socialism, but giving him that old, shitty can of creamed corn is "gawdly".

Did you know that a large percentage of Black Americans go to church rdean? Did you know they give generously of their time and money to the church?

Got any names to call them? Got anything disparaging to say about Blacks who attend Church?

I don't, but Republicans do. Look at what they say about President Obama. And he's a Christian.

Just because someone claims to be Christian don't mean they really are.

 

[Annie]

No sir, you don't see most conservatives saying what you claim. What is being said is that the government is not the most efficient way of getting help where it's needed.

Blowing smoke up my ass won't set me on fire. How many homeless people in your city need medical treatment? What kind of treatment? How many need shelter? How many need blankets? Coats? Shoes? I know you can't answer any of these important questions, but your government can. You are incapable, you are not skilled to even consider such questions or where to find answers.

Actually, I was trained to do just that. One of my first degrees was in sociology, focused on demographics. So yes, if that is what I was doing presently, I'd be skilled at it.

Now that we've addressed that, it's really more important to deal with the immediate needs and long term solutions of the individual, not a 'class' of people. The government used to be good at counting and categorizing, but not since the 1980's. The census is now a joke. What isn't a joke is the use of those off the grid vis a vis integration into society. They live on the edges and government programs do not address those behaviors or mores that keep them there.

 

[Wingsofwind]

For those of you who think Republicans only donate to get a deduction...

I have a Republican friend who donates to an 'organization' that helps people 'teach' those who have little to no help in finding a job. He does get a deduction from the donations, however, what he gets back from the deduction he donates to that organization along with a bit more.

So you see, getting a deduction for a donation is not always about getting $$$ for yourself.

 

[chanel]

We pay tuition for an African girl to go to a private school. It never occurred to me take a tax deduction. We may have to look into that.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can someone explain why Republicans give much more to charity when liberals are....

Sure. Republicans give to churches.

Democrats give to universities and create funds for scholarships. They will will help the disadvantaged to learn skills and get "real" jobs. None of those things are counted as "charity".

Republicans will dig out some old can of creamed corn 5 years old out of the pantry, give it to the church and feel good they "gave" so much. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, TEACH a man to fish and he will feed his family.

It's a difference in philosophy. You can see it in the way Republicans feel helping your fellow American is nasty socialism, but giving him that old, shitty can of creamed corn is "gawdly".

Do you have anything to back that up, or is it your typical partisan bullshit?

That would be option B

 

[gautama]

Liberals prefer to give YOUR money to the poor.

Liberals talk the talk.

Anti-Liberals walk the walk.

 

[Avatar4321]

I was always of the mind that charity begins at home.

Not many of us have our own houses in order and that IMHO should be everyone's first priority.

Charity does begin at home. Which is a shame that we are robbed of so many opportnities to serve.

 

[Avatar4321]

The irony here?

Conservatives tell us over and over again that giving 'handouts' to the poor/less wealthy/needy etc. is a BAD thing because it discourages them from getting off their asses and taking care of themselves, etc., etc.,

then they turn around - like in this thread - and want to claim credit for doing more of just that than liberals do.

What?!

Still dont understand the difference between creating a government entitlement and real charity?

 

[signelect]

who cares just give but I do resent the 5 year old can of corn crap. Meet me tonight at Congress and the bridge on 59 in Houston, TX. It is going to rain, I can show you some people who really need the help and they don't care what party you are with.

 

[Avatar4321]

I do around here. We'll see how many conservatives here step up and say that poverty programs are a good thing and do not discourage anyone in the way I described.

You really need to get out of this mindset that government programs are the only way to be charitable. Giving of someone elses time and money isnt charitable. It's laziness and robbery.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Couple of points, one goes against each side (republican and democrat). I try not to use the words liberal and conservative because I would define those words MUCH different than everyone else.

1.) Republicans probably donate more because they donate more to churches and I don't think those should be considered charities. Take churches out of the equation and it's probably about equal.

2.) The last thing democrats want is to "teach the man how to fish" that's why they're always cheering about increases in welfare and unemployment funding. Don't have someone get a job and learn on the spot, have gov't just give them a check while they learn from Jerry Springer and Maury.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

first, it was NOT "MUCH MORE". you are stretching the truth (which is a lie)

it was a mere 30% more

and, I contend it was flawed;

Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News


================
Who Gives and Who Doesn't?
Putting the Stereotypes to the Test


-------------------

the first flaw is in the comparison of states; red v blue

there is no such thing as a completely red or blue state. in fact, even the REDDEST states (ala, 49%) can only claim about 50% of the population being "conservative" (look it up)

which means that MUCH of the population in those states is either MODERATE/NOT-conservative or liberal

in fact. MOST of the population of these red states specifically says it is NOT conservative

so....
there is no way of knowing WHO donated at those super markets. And it is logically and factually flawed to automatically assume that the money MUST have been donated by ONLY conservatives.

for all we know the lions share of the money donated in RED states might have come from the MAJORITY who do NOT consider themselves conservative.


second;
i've been involved in various charities for over 10 years. the last charity I was involved with was at a music hall in maine that was being renovated. There were a number of other volunteers....who donated TIME and EFFORT (as opposed to money?)...and they were ALL liberals and democrats.

the ONLY conservative involved was the guy who use to run the sound board...and he charged $400 a night to wokr at these charity events

prior to that I was involved (for 5 years) in a major charity rummage sale (massive!) we collected peoples donations all year long and got them packed and stacked and ready for the big sale. during the year there were about 10 of us collecting, cleaning and stacking. most of us put in 3-5 days a week for 4 -6 hours a day. ALL of us were democrats and liberal except for 1 guy; who was a lazy slob who spent more time yaking about politics than he did working; did a very poor job working, did NOT do the tasks I asked him to do, and he always going to the higher ups and complaining/causing trouble...


during the big sale event (really massive) there were 600-700 volunteers who helped out during the 8 day event. I was in a position of authority and got to know many of the volunteers over the years. it was obvious that MOST of them were NOT conservatives. it's easy to spot the conservative; he is either loudly arguing about politics or causing a problem in one of the departments. Since we only had about 10 people like that we can assume (the way this article assumes that only conservatives donate in red states) that those were the only conservatives

liberals gave MUCH MORE of their time to charities

The bolded part of what you wrote completely shatters all of your credibility on this subject. All you've done is show us what an ignorant boob you are, which most of us already knew anyway, so basically all that time you spent writing that up was a big waste.

 

[Brutus]

Dr Drock: Couple of points, one goes against each side (republican and democrat ). I try not to use the words liberal and conservative because I would define those words MUCH different than everyone else.

Brutus: what?? Using a language is very very difficult when you make up your own definitions and every one else is using the dictionary or common usage.


Dr Drock: 1.) Republicans probably donate more because they donate more to churches and I don't think those should be considered charities. Take churches out of the equation and it's probably about equal.


Brutus: wrong wrong wrong!! If you've read any of the books "Who Really Cares" and the others you learn this is not so. In fact it is the thing they made sure is not true before they concluded that conservatives are more charitable.

Dr Drock: 2.) The last thing democrats want is to "teach the man how to fish" that's why they're always cheering about increases in welfare and unemployment funding. Don't have someone get a job and learn on the spot, have gov't just give them a check while they learn from Jerry Springer and Maury.

Brutus: you got the important one right!! If they can collect from the Democrats they'll keep voting for the Democrats. It is pure subversion but the Founders forgot to make it illegal!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I do around here. We'll see how many conservatives here step up and say that poverty programs are a good thing and do not discourage anyone in the way I described.

You really need to get out of this mindset that government programs are the only way to be charitable. Giving of someone elses time and money isnt charitable. It's laziness and robbery.

We can draft Americans to go fight and die; we can certainly require Americans to donate a bit to the less fortunate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because, in general, liberals believe in outsourcing "charity" to the government. Conservatives, in general, believe that have a duty to God and our fellow man to do charity as individuals.

Voluntary 'charity' is nothing more than a tax on the generous that the greedy get to dodge.