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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Just because someone claims to donate x amount of money, doesn't mean they do.

 

[Brutus]

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

Brutus: absurd and liberal. The issue is whether we should require that America become a work culture or a welfare culture.

Democrats want a welfare culture because it is a great way to buy voters and political power - that it creates more and more dependency does not bother them because they lack the IQ to understand the work/welfare dichotomy.

 

[Trajan]

supposed to be so sensitive.

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

a mere 30% ...

 

[Trajan]

here ya go, broken down and footnoted to death...

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
Arthur C. Brooks (Author)
available at amazon.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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".

Congrats... you just got added to my ignore list. You're in the company of other USMB shitheads like Shaman and topspin.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And the greedy are obviously the left and the conservatives are the generous.

wow.. that was easy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

That's an oxymoron. If it's not voluntary then it isn't charity.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Charity has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with a voluntary desire to help others.

See, when it's forced through violence, such as any government action, it's not charity. You can't force charity. Charity is the process by which we care for our fellow man. A process through which both the giver and the reciever a blessed and edified. It produces feelings of love and gratitude by both parties.

It's obvious why the tax and entittlement mentality is not charity. It doesnt chance who we are. there is no voluntariness around.

But you dont really care about allowing people the freedom to be charitable and to recieve the blessings of charity. You just want certain political groups to be compensated for supporting certain politicians. Which is the problem.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Just because someone claims to donate x amount of money, doesn't mean they do.

And it's none of your business who donates to what. You don't have the right to take their mone whether they are greedy SOBs or not. You can't take their freedom to deny themselves blessings. Nor does stealing their money and giving it others make them or you charitable.

 

[del]

supposed to be so sensitive.

can someone explain to me why other people's choice about charitable giving is any of our ******* business?

conservative, my ass.

 

[The T]

supposed to be so sensitive.

can someone explain to me why other people's choice about charitable giving is any of our ******* business?

conservative, my ass.

Exactly.

 

[Agit8r]

- 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

I still have yet to see a statistic that itemizes what constitutes a "charity." I am very skeptical til someone does

 

[del]

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.

riiiiiight.

 

[The T]

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.

riiiiiight.

You shouldn't show Carbonated the err and consequences of his ways. Let him break a few bones and teeth and find out on his own...you know...trial and error...that's the only way he and his brothers and sisters will wake up when they lose their liberty totally, and wonder what happened by them trusting Government in the first place.

 

[del]

supposed to be so sensitive.

You must first support your claim before an opposing view is claim of explanation.

Brutus: do you doubt the claim that Republicans give more to charity?? You should first admit to your liberal ignorance.

del: brutus seems to be unaware that his name appears on all his posts so brutus doesn't have to preface everything with brutus:

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

Obama is a Christian? What Church does he attend?

 

[The T]

You must first support your claim before an opposing view is claim of explanation.

Brutus: do you doubt the claim that Republicans give more to charity?? You should first admit to your liberal ignorance.

del: brutus seems to be unaware that his name appears on all his posts so brutus doesn't have to preface everything with brutus:

The T: Brutus shouldn't be doing this...It really looks stupid as Hell...after all the board does afford a mechanism to where all can see whom originated a post...confusing I suppose?

 

[Avatar4321]

Brutus: do you doubt the claim that Republicans give more to charity?? You should first admit to your liberal ignorance.

del: brutus seems to be unaware that his name appears on all his posts so brutus doesn't have to preface everything with brutus:

The T: Brutus shouldn't be doing this...It really looks stupid as Hell...after all the board does afford a mechanism to where all can see whom originated a post...confusing I suppose?

Avatar4321: Fact is alot of people write in ways that look dumb to us regulars. Shaman, for example, still makes his posts look dumb, though he hasnt been using as much color lately.

Id say give Brutus a little bit and he will start talking like everyone else.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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!!

Anyone who was alive from 2001-2007 with working eyes and/or ears knows there's nothing conservative about the republican party. That was the most liberal government in US history at the time.

1.) I stand by this. According to the figures in this thread's line, conservatives donate 30% more than liberals, conservatives are more the church type, seems like common sense tells you that's what would cause the difference.

Brutus you need to do yourself a favor and work on how partisan you are, I can see why you're disgusted by the democrat party. I am too. But to think your party doesn't have it's own major problems shows you're wearing some pretty thick blinders.

 

[editec]

If the premise of this thread "That conservtives are more charitable than liberals" has yet to be proven on this thread I must have missed it.

Show us the money folks.

Where are these statistics coming from and who compiled them?

Don't point me to a book that I cannot read, show me the numbers from a credible source, please.

Incidetly, I do not doubt that this is possibly true.

What I doubt is that anybody has proof to support the claim.