Democrats are Tightwads

[Lumpy 1]

It's an old article but the tread for Democrats to force re-distribution/theft of wealth via the government but be cheap personally can only be getting worse...just sayin

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


This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

 

[LeftofLeft]

Liberals are elitists.

 

[candycorn]

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night | masslive.com

 

[Political Junky]

Cons use our highways, sanitary services, fire depts, police, but don't want to pay taxes to cover them.

 

[daveman]

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night | masslive.com

Were they going to make charitable donations with those card?

No?

Then you don't really have an analogy, do you?

 

[Scorpion]

Cons use our highways, sanitary services, fire depts, police, but don't want to pay taxes to cover them.

Cons don't generally take issue with paying taxes for services that promote the general welfare, they take issue with paying taxes to provide for the general welfare.

 

[daveman]

Cons use our highways, sanitary services, fire depts, police, but don't want to pay taxes to cover them.

Cons don't generally take issue with paying taxes for services that promote the general welfare, they take issue with paying taxes to provide for the general welfare.

A distinction utterly lost on the people who think the word "welfare" in the Preamble is a commandment that money be given to people who can't or won't work in exchange for their voting Democrat.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damned right we are.

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney | Drudge Retort

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, has tallied up the amount of money spent by outside groups in notable races. Those candidates helped by the most PAC money, whether Republican or Democrat, were often defeated. Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel (R) had $8.31 in PAC money spent per vote he received, losing to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Virginia Senate candidate George Allen (R) had $9.85 spent per vote in the loss to Tim Kaine (D).

Although outspent nearly 3 to 1, we won this election. Seems we know how to spend money much more wisely than the GOP.

 

[daveman]

Damned right we are.

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney | Drudge Retort

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, has tallied up the amount of money spent by outside groups in notable races. Those candidates helped by the most PAC money, whether Republican or Democrat, were often defeated. Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel (R) had $8.31 in PAC money spent per vote he received, losing to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Virginia Senate candidate George Allen (R) had $9.85 spent per vote in the loss to Tim Kaine (D).

Although outspent nearly 3 to 1, we won this election. Seems we know how to spend money much more wisely than the GOP.

Not really. You had Obama spending tax dollars to buy votes, and he had untold millions in free campaign advertising poorly disguised as news reports.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cons use our highways, sanitary services, fire depts, police, but don't want to pay taxes to cover them.

Cons don't generally take issue with paying taxes for services that promote the general welfare, they take issue with paying taxes to provide for the general welfare.

A distinction utterly lost on the people who think the word "welfare" in the Preamble is a commandment that money be given to people who can't or won't work in exchange for their voting Democrat.

Well, if people in states like Kentucky would get off their dead asses and go to work, may we in states like Oregon would not have to support them.

Kentucky gets $1.51 from the federal government for every dollar it takes in. Oregon gets 93 cents for every dollar we send in. And, as an update, look at Colorado, Nevada, and Florida. All became blue states this election cycle, and all send in more than they recieve.

Also, look at New Jersey. They send in one dollar and only get 61 cents back. Better get those people up and running again. You people in Kentucky need their money. Look at New York and California. Your favorite whipping boys are supporting your lazy asses down there.

So, clear the beer cans from in front of the door, get off the couch in the single wide, and get a job. We are getting tired of supporting your whiney asses.

 

[Old Rocks]

Damned right we are.

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney | Drudge Retort

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, has tallied up the amount of money spent by outside groups in notable races. Those candidates helped by the most PAC money, whether Republican or Democrat, were often defeated. Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel (R) had $8.31 in PAC money spent per vote he received, losing to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Virginia Senate candidate George Allen (R) had $9.85 spent per vote in the loss to Tim Kaine (D).

Although outspent nearly 3 to 1, we won this election. Seems we know how to spend money much more wisely than the GOP.

Not really. You had Obama spending tax dollars to buy votes, and he had untold millions in free campaign advertising poorly disguised as news reports.

Oh yeah. And Drudge is such a left wing bunch. You boys spent all kinds of money, and got your asses justly and well kicked. But give us an even more conservative candidate in 2016, and we will turn Texas blue.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Damned right we are.

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney | Drudge Retort

Money Per Vote: $1.83 Obama, $6.35 Romney

ProPublica, a nonprofit investigative journalism group, has tallied up the amount of money spent by outside groups in notable races. Those candidates helped by the most PAC money, whether Republican or Democrat, were often defeated. Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel (R) had $8.31 in PAC money spent per vote he received, losing to Sen. Sherrod Brown (D). Virginia Senate candidate George Allen (R) had $9.85 spent per vote in the loss to Tim Kaine (D).

Although outspent nearly 3 to 1, we won this election. Seems we know how to spend money much more wisely than the GOP.

I don't believe your including the Obama stimulus funds that were stolen from the American taxpayer and used to pay-off unions and democrat special interests.. Of course, that would require your long lost honesty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hmmm..........Your proof of which is? That a good many union members are grateful that the President saved the industry?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Hmmm..........Your proof of which is? That a good many union members are grateful that the President saved the industry?

Do a little research on your own for a change, quit being a typical lazy ass liberal.

 

[jasonnfree]

It's an old article but the tread for Democrats to force re-distribution/theft of wealth via the government but be cheap personally can only be getting worse...just sayin

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


This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

Op-Ed Columnist - Bleeding Heart Tightwads - NYTimes.com

Many of us give anonymously. If you donate and this Arthur Brooks has you on record, that means you want to write it off as a deduction like that cheapskate Mitt Romney. Also you want everyone to know how generous your are. You've had your reward. Don't expect your heavenly father or anyone else to admire you. It's like praying in the temple out loud so everyone can see and hear you.

 

[jasonnfree]

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night | masslive.com

Were they going to make charitable donations with those card?

No?

Then you don't really have an analogy, do you?

Mitt could've went out with a little class. He could've given his people a little bonus, maybe had a $500 limit on the cards so they couldn't abuse it. He can certainly afford it but no. This poor godless wretch loves money before all other things. Money is his god. Much like his donors and some of his supporters.

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's an old article but the tread for Democrats to force re-distribution/theft of wealth via the government but be cheap personally can only be getting worse...just sayin

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


This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

Op-Ed Columnist - Bleeding Heart Tightwads - NYTimes.com

Many of us give anonymously. If you donate and this Arthur Brooks has you on record, that means you want to write it off as a deduction like that cheapskate Mitt Romney. Also you want everyone to know how generous your are. You've had your reward. Don't expect your heavenly father or anyone else to admire you. It's like praying in the temple out loud so everyone can see and hear you.

weak....

 

[candycorn]

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night | masslive.com

Were they going to make charitable donations with those card?

No?

Then you don't really have an analogy, do you?

Mitt could've went out with a little class. He could've given his people a little bonus, maybe had a $500 limit on the cards so they couldn't abuse it. He can certainly afford it but no. This poor godless wretch loves money before all other things. Money is his god. Much like his donors and some of his supporters.

Why would it be any different.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night

Mitt Romney's campaign cancels staff credit cards on election night | masslive.com

Were they going to make charitable donations with those card?

No?

Then you don't really have an analogy, do you?

Mitt could've went out with a little class. He could've given his people a little bonus, maybe had a $500 limit on the cards so they couldn't abuse it. He can certainly afford it but no. This poor godless wretch loves money before all other things. Money is his god. Much like his donors and some of his supporters.

You don't see the humor or hypocrisy in a Democrat using religious faith as a tool of judgement.

Besides, it wouldn't come out of Romney's personal funds anyway. Perhaps, he intends to return funds to his contributors, something Obama or any Democrat would ever do, I suspect.