Who Gives More to Charity? Liberals or Conservatives

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's a great example:

Here is a chart of the Bidens’ giving for the years covered by the tax returns:
Adjusted
Gross Income Charity

1998 $215,432 $195

1999 $210,797 $120

2000 $219,953 $360

2001 $220,712 $360

2002 $227,811 $260

2003 $231,375 $260

2004 $234,271 $380

2005 $321,379 $380

2006 $248,459 $380

2007 $319,853 $995

Total $2,450,042 $3,690

Joe Biden and American Charity by Byron York on National Review Online

ROFLMNAO... BEAUTIFUL!

'... damn facts.'

 

[Care4all]

Liberals, this is why conservatives don't want to be forced into giving more money away... because they voluntarily give much more to charity than liberals..... and liberals claim to be for the less fortunate...

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

well, the gvt then gives these taxes to the Faith based iniciative charties...

pretend your taxes are going towards the war and military industrial complex or homeland security or our roads and wall street if it makes you feel better, and i'll pretend mine are going towards education, medical care for the elderly, and a hands up to the WORKING poor with the EIC!!!!

care

 

[Annie]

well, the gvt then gives these taxes to the Faith based iniciative charties...

pretend your taxes are going towards the war and military industrial complex or homeland security or our roads and wall street if it makes you feel better, and i'll pretend mine are going towards education, medical care for the elderly, and a hands up to the WORKING poor with the EIC!!!!

care

Seriously Care, I know you are concerned about those in need. Why should the government, known for its inefficiency be a middle man in any case, faith based or not? The local governments are in much better position to know which ones most help the local needs, if government intervention should be 'required.'

I don't see it, get the government doing what they should be doing: protecting our interests abroad; protecting the homeland/borders; rebuilding/building infrastructure.

 

[Care4all]

Seriously Care, I know you are concerned about those in need. Why should the government, known for its inefficiency be a middle man in any case, faith based or not? The local governments are in much better position to know which ones most help the local needs, if government intervention should be 'required.'

I don't see it, get the government doing what they should be doing: protecting our interests abroad; protecting the homeland/borders; rebuilding/building infrastructure.

yes i agree the local/state gvts know better...and from my understanding kathianne, this is who disperses most of this help, the state/local gvts....fed monies supplement their programs is the way i believe it is....?

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

well, the gvt then gives these taxes to the Faith based iniciative charties...

pretend your taxes are going towards the war and military industrial complex or homeland security or our roads... if it makes you feel better, and i'll pretend mine are going towards [/color="RED"]education, medical care for the elderly, and a hands up to the WORKING poor with the EIC!!!!

care[/QUOTE]


ROFLMNAO... Isn't that WILD?

That highlighted in blue is Constitutional and morally valid, in that it provides for the general welfare and the common defense and seeks to establish domestic tranquility... While that common to the Reds is an immoral usurpation of the product of one individual's labor for the invalid subsidy of another...

Taxation for the purposes of general infrastructure which serves the general and common welfare of every citizen is a perfectly valid use of pooled revenue... but the subsidizing of one segment of the culture at the expense of another serves the common and general only in that it generally describes common theft.

Charity is where individuals FREELY GIVE the product of their labor for the purposes of subsidizing a given segment of the culture; taxation is NOT... Taxation is the forcible removal of one's labor product and as such, it is the sacred duty of those entrusted with it, to be responsible stewards of those funds. There is no potential end to the perceived needs of humanity, thus there is no potential end to the NEED for tax money which seeks to service those needs...

Any questions?

 

[Annie]

yes i agree the local/state gvts know better...and from my understanding kathianne, this is who disperses most of this help, the state/local gvts....fed monies supplement their programs is the way i believe it is....?

care

With each changing of hands, more $$$ are lost. Remember the Dawes plan for Germany in the 20's?

 

[Care4all]

care

ROFLMNAO... Isn't that WILD?

That highlighted in blue is Constitutional and morally valid, in that it provides for the general welfare and the common defense and seeks to establish domestic tranquility... While that common to the Reds is an immoral usurpation of the product of one individual's labor for the invalid subsidy of another...

Taxation for the purposes of general infrastructure which serves the general and common welfare of every citizen is a perfectly valid use of pooled revenue... but the subsidizing of one segment of the culture at the expense of another serves the common and general only in that it generally describes common theft.

Charity is where individuals FREELY GIVE the product of their labor for the purposes of subsidizing a given segment of the culture; taxation is NOT... Taxation is the forcible removal of one's labor product and as such, it is the sacred duty of those entrusted with it, to be responsible stewards of those funds. There is no potential end to the perceived needs of humanity, thus there is no potential end to the NEED for tax money which seeks to service those needs...

Any questions?

not much i can do about that, it is the way congress has done over the last century....with no objections of our judicial branch....thus, somehow, constitutional perhaps?

i don't necessarily disagree with you, that this is certainly still debatable, but it is how it is, and i am talking about the here and now, of taxes.

AND NO the military is NOT constitutional either...only funding the Navy permanently is constitutional, not the standing Army or Air Force being funded permanently....according to the constitution...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

we got army and air force program spending for 10 to 20 years out....
care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

not much i can do about that, it is the way congress has done over the last century....with no objections of our judicial branch....thus, somehow, constitutional perhaps?

i don't necessarily disagree with you, that this is certainly still debatable, but it is how it is, and i am talking about the here and now, of taxes.

AND NO the military is NOT constitutional either...only funding the Navy permanently is constitutional, not the standing Army or Air Force being funded permanently....according to the constitution...



we got army and air force program spending for 10 to 20 years out....
care

LOL... Hmm... do the AF and Army 'provide for the common defense?' Last time I checked, they did. We MUST avoid the tendency to set reason aside... at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, the Ocean represented a wonderful insulation across which potential armies were forced to sail in order to make war against the US... US interests were minimal anywhere but on the CONUS and as such, a standing Navy was critical... fast forward 250 years and the US has considerable global interests and Armies can be sitting on CONUS or the land of our allies, in a matter of hours not months and they use the AIR to get there... what's more 'he who owns the AIR, owns the battle' all simply meaning that the Constitution provides for the mandate for the Congress to provide for the common defense and standing up a professional Army and AF are critical and indispenisble to such...

 

[Care4all]

LOL... Hmm... do the AF and Army 'provide for the common defense?' Last time I checked, they did. We MUST avoid the tendency to set reason aside... at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, the Ocean represented a wonderful insulation across which potential armies were forced to sail in order to make war against the US... US interests were minimal anywhere but on the CONUS and as such, a standing Navy was critical... fast forward 250 years and the US has considerable global interests and Armies can be sitting on CONUS or the land of our allies, in a matter of hours not months and they use the AIR to get there... what's more 'he who owns the AIR, owns the battle' all simply meaning that the Constitution provides for the mandate for the Congress to provide for the common defense and standing up a professional Army and AF are critical and indispenisble to such...

It was to keep our over reaching federal government from having too much power and to prevent them from getting too embodied with the foreign affairs elsewhere, throughout the world...imho.

and it did allow for a standing army when we needed to defend ourselves from attacks on our homeland or at war...but this standing army was the militias within the states, today, i guess that would be our National guard.

Care

 

[Navy1960]

It was to keep our over reaching federal government from having too much power and to prevent them from getting too embodied with the foreign affairs elsewhere, throughout the world...imho.

and it did allow for a standing army when we needed to defend ourselves from attacks on our homeland or at war...but this standing army was the militias within the states, today, i guess that would be our National guard.

Care

Article 1 Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Land and Naval Forces. a Land Force is an Army Care

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Care4all]

Article 1 Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Land and Naval Forces. a Land Force is an Army Care

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

why skip the bold print on this Navy?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

what does that mean to YOU and why was it put in the constitution?

NOTE! IT says armies, not army!

each state had their armies, their militia, and the federal gvt, if they needed an army, was to ''call up'' the State's armies....they made the rules and regs for this and to oversea the full time navy...

unless the constitution has been amended since then on this topic, our gvt is not following it and this is why we spend 20 times more than the next largest militaried country...what the founders did not want, has happened, we police and fight throughout the world....surely not constitutional....especially since we do not declare wars with 2/3's of congress voting yea....

As far as the military spending, what makes you say that obama would keep the old 30 and 40 year old programs that Bush has kept and not continue with newer technologies?

you KNOW the billions that is wasted in our Military, you posted quite a few threads on the waste...WE CAN BE SMART and fruegal and cut the military spending at least by 25% and still be the most powerful, armed country in the world by 20 fold IMO.

hahahahaha, i think we have another one that we will have to agree to disagree! lol

Oh, and good afternoon!

Care

 

[Annie]

...
hahahahaha, i think we have another one that we will have to agree to disagree! lol

Oh, and good afternoon!

Care

Care, regardless of your concerns regarding military/spending on such, it's OT. It was about the best way to address the issues of the 'have nots' in our society, something that for all appearances will be swelling in the future. I made reference to the sticky fingers of governments and why it's not the most efficient way to get help to those that need it. Want to address that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

no shit.. I guess we count tithes in this data, eh? I wonder how much of an impact an Indulgence payment would have made on these results..

Typical libby. Yes a contribution to a church that may go to feeding, housing or clothing the poor is somehow worth less because it wasn't done for the "right" reason.

I am a conservative libertarian who doesn't belong to a church yet I give to St Jude's hospital. I suppose because that hospital is named after a catholic saint means it is not on your list of worthy charities right? After all they must be giving all that free care to kids with cancer for the sole purpose of obtaining an "get out of hell" free card. How dare they.

 

[Care4all]

Care, regardless of your concerns regarding military/spending on such, it's OT. It was about the best way to address the issues of the 'have nots' in our society, something that for all appearances will be swelling in the future. I made reference to the sticky fingers of governments and why it's not the most efficient way to get help to those that need it. Want to address that?

I don't disagree with you, but there is not enough charities to help everyone that needs help...shoot the charities can not even afford to take care of the needy as is, without getting the government's help....let alone all the people on the state's welfare programs that are not seeking out private charity.

I agree with you Kathianne, that it may not be the most efficient, though i believe there have been GREAT STRIDES in the reforms that have been made, during Gingrich's term when welfare reform was passed.

I also believe in some of our programs that help the poor and the elderly, like medicare/medicaid and food stamps....

I also believe that the EIC is one of the best welfare type programs that we have....the people that get this are the WORKING poor with children, primarily and as said previously on other threads, it is good to have these people working and developing their own self esteem verses sitting on their rears collecting welfare and stamps for doing nothing.

I am open for any kind of reforms and wasteful cuts that can be made, but i do not see how we could ignore these needy groups of people all together and hand them over to the private sector because the private sector is NOT equipped to handle it, again, imo.


Care

 

[Annie]

I don't disagree with you, but there is not enough charities to help everyone that needs help...shoot the charities can not even afford to take care of the needy as is, without getting the government's help....let alone all the people on the state's welfare programs that are not seeking out private charity.

I agree with you Kathianne, that it may not be the most efficient, though i believe there have been GREAT STRIDES in the reforms that have been made, during Gingrich's term when welfare reform was passed.

I also believe in some of our programs that help the poor and the elderly, like medicare/medicaid and food stamps....

I also believe that the EIC is one of the best welfare type programs that we have....the people that get this are the WORKING poor with children, primarily and as said previously on other threads, it is good to have these people working and developing their own self esteem verses sitting on their rears collecting welfare and stamps for doing nothing.

I am open for any kind of reforms and wasteful cuts that can be made, but i do not see how we could ignore these needy groups of people all together and hand them over to the private sector because the private sector is NOT equipped to handle it, again, imo.


Care

So you believe that without the government the poor wouldn't be cared for? You believe that taxes are a more efficient way to get the money to do so?

I'm reminded of the restaurants that include a 10 or 12% tip, with a note that you can 'give more if you wish.' I don't. On my own I'd have tipped 20% for good service, but if the restaurant wants to ding me, fine by me.

 

[CharlestonChad]

How many times since March has the self conscience conservative poster made a topic about this "study"? It has got to be getting close to a baker's dozen. I'd be willing to bet that KMAN has given the smallest amount of money, time, and/or blood of any poster in this thread. God knows he isn't working the soup kitchen between the 50 posts per day he's throwing up on this forum alone.

 

[Navy1960]

why skip the bold print on this Navy?

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

what does that mean to YOU and why was it put in the constitution?

NOTE! IT says armies, not army!

each state had their armies, their militia, and the federal gvt, if they needed an army, was to ''call up'' the State's armies....they made the rules and regs for this and to oversea the full time navy...

unless the constitution has been amended since then on this topic, our gvt is not following it and this is why we spend 20 times more than the next largest militaried country...what the founders did not want, has happened, we police and fight throughout the world....surely not constitutional....especially since we do not declare wars with 2/3's of congress voting yea....

As far as the military spending, what makes you say that obama would keep the old 30 and 40 year old programs that Bush has kept and not continue with newer technologies?

you KNOW the billions that is wasted in our Military, you posted quite a few threads on the waste...WE CAN BE SMART and fruegal and cut the military spending at least by 25% and still be the most powerful, armed country in the world by 20 fold IMO.

hahahahaha, i think we have another one that we will have to agree to disagree! lol

Oh, and good afternoon!

Care

Well Care, I thought some would read that provision as I did in that it gives congress the authority to fund an Army for a period of two years, but that the power to fund an Army is in the hands of congress. It does however authorize an Army and the clause your refer to is a funding issue, thus the reason why congress reauthorizes the budget for the DoD each year.

And good afternoon to you too

 

[AllieBaba]

Yes they may give more and they will be the first ones to tell you about it! Aren't you suppose to give for the reward of giving not by the looking better.

Actually that's not true. Telling when you're asked isn't the same as blabbing it for others to be impressed by.

You're the one who asked. Then to turn around and be snotty and claim that conservatives might give more, but only because they get recognized for it is petty and insulting.

Additionally, since you brought it up...I tithe anonymously. I don't even get the tax write-off for doing so, and although probably they do know in the church (because it's a small church) about how much I give, they can't keep track of it or acknowledge it.

It's the same with the missionary and the other things I do in the community. I do it as anonymously as possible, as humbly as possible, and as matter-of-factly as possible. I know how hard it is for people to receive charity, and I never want anyone to think I feel smug about it. The scarves for the kids...that's just fun stuff, our Head Start class really isn't one that is particularly needy.

But on the reservation..that was a whole different story. I was in the class 2-3 days a week volunteering and providing help in any way I could. And it was never about recognition, and I don't know any conservative Christians who do such work for recognition. They do it because it's Biblically proper, and because it brings them joy to help others.

 

[AllieBaba]

He he..in my first version of the above post I wrote "petting and insulting" instead of petty and insulting.

Kinda funny.

 

[Luissa]

Actually that's not true. Telling when you're asked isn't the same as blabbing it for others to be impressed by.

You're the one who asked. Then to turn around and be snotty and claim that conservatives might give more, but only because they get recognized for it is petty and insulting.

Additionally, since you brought it up...I tithe anonymously. I don't even get the tax write-off for doing so, and although probably they do know in the church (because it's a small church) about how much I give, they can't keep track of it or acknowledge it.

It's the same with the missionary and the other things I do in the community. I do it as anonymously as possible, as humbly as possible, and as matter-of-factly as possible. I know how hard it is for people to receive charity, and I never want anyone to think I feel smug about it. The scarves for the kids...that's just fun stuff, our Head Start class really isn't one that is particularly needy.

But on the reservation..that was a whole different story. I was in the class 2-3 days a week volunteering and providing help in any way I could. And it was never about recognition, and I don't know any conservative Christians who do such work for recognition. They do it because it's Biblically proper, and because it brings them joy to help others.

I was refering to basis the thread was started on along with other posters acting like what they do is more important. I should have been more direct. They posted it to look better! And I think it is great you have done so much! I have done volunteer work in the past, right now I am to busy but I do donate to the Ronald McDonald house and gave blood a few weeks ago if that counts. But maybe I should start making time to do more, it is just hard when you have so many balls in the air.