Freewill
Platinum Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 31,158
- 5,078
- 1,130
Technically Roberts was not the deciding vote. He could have voted against and it still would have passed.
Hope & change vs. sour grapes
- Thread starter hangover
- Start date
Technically Roberts was not the deciding vote. He could have voted against and it still would have passed.
nuhuh
Gold Member
Demonstrating perfectly how out of touch he was with almost half the American people.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
- Thread starter
- #63
Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?
Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.
First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)
The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.
The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.
What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)
The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.
An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.
The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.
The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."
Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes
Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.
PredFan
Diamond Member
Name a decision where any one of those liberal judges, any of them, went over to the conservative side. The conservatives supposedly have a 5-4 majority in the court, but John Roberts sided with gay marriage, the correct decision IMO, obama was not responsible for Roberts. Obama had nothing at all to do with the decision.
- Banned
- #65
That is an invention created in the media. Nobody is more cold-hearted than an angry liberal looking to get even. You can't be friends with them if you don't fall in line with their ideology.
Christians are taught to be good to people...all people. It carries over with the media. A liberal is considered a friend on Fox News...even when they disagree with them. Juan Williams was fired by NPR because he was a commentator on Fox. The left doesn't allow opposing viewpoints or even associating with conservatives.
- Banned
- #66
And most of Democrats charities go to their private jets.
Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?
Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.
First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)
The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.
The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.
What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)
The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.
An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.
The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.
The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."
Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes
Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.
nuhuh
Gold Member
Let's face it, when Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and Republican politicians were the figures in the story, Newt Gingrich would have picked up a big old rock and heaved it at the adulteress's head and the rest of the amoral pack of Republican sociopathic politicians would have quickly followed suit.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
- Thread starter
- #69
You deflect. Most dems couldn't buy a jet if they have every penny they made their whole lives. And the few rich dems that can buy one, give more charity to those that need it, than the cons that contribute to preachers private jets. And it's NEVER the dems that complain about the poor, it's always the cons.And most of Democrats charities go to their private jets.
Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals?
government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?
Skipping to the last page of the story first, the answer is neither: As two MIT political scientists determined in a 2013 paper, the inclination to give appears to have virtually no relationship to one's partisan or ideological views. There are distinctions, however, in the kind of giving between the two poles.
First, some context. The received wisdom, at least in the media, is that conservatives are more giving. The prevalence of this view may result from its irresistibly counterintuitive flavor -- you know, how curious that conservatives are against spending on social programs and liberals say they care about the poor, but conservatives are generous in their private lives and liberals are skinflints. Conservative pundits like George F. Will ran with this ball because, as he put it, the mismatch "subverts a stereotype." (One that makes his conservative readers look bad, it might be added.)
The source of the notion that conservatives are more generous is the 2006 book "Who Really Cares," by Arthur C. Brooks, who later became president of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute.
The book was a brief for "compassionate conservatism," but its claim raised a lot of skepticism, and not only among liberals. One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.
What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)
The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.
An extreme case may have been that of Mitt Romney, whose tax disclosures during his 2012 presidential campaign indicated that he gave a higher percentage of his income away than his Democratic opponent, President Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. Of course he was richer, so he gave away a lot more dollars. But fully 80% of Romney's donations went to the Mormon church; and a large further chunk went to a family foundation that also funneled much of it to the church.
The Obamas' contribution mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund. In 2011 there weren't any general church donations, though $5,000 was listed to the Sidwell Friends School, which educates the Obama daughters.
The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that "liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."
Who s more charitable -- conservatives or liberals - latimes
Most of your charity goes to preachers private jets.
- Banned
- #70
John Roberts was in the minority on same-sex marriage. He was in the majority on Obamacare.
Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court s Huge Gay-Marriage Decision - NationalJournal.com
- Banned
- #71
I don't think so. That's just your opinion. The right believes in mercy and grace. That is why the right worships Jesus Christ and why the left doesn't.....wanted to have God totally removed from their platform during the DNC in 2012.
PredFan
Diamond Member
I stand corrected. My point though that a conservative Justice sided with the liberal ones, whomever that was, still stands. Obama had nothing at all to do with it.
PredFan
Diamond Member
Whatever moron, I'm still waiting for you to tell us how obama had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision. Your lame attempt so far failed.
- Banned
- #76
Obama started the ball rolling......like he always does.
He's basically the guy that farts in the elevator and leaves ....leaving everyone else to go the rest of the way dealing with the smell.
nuhuh
Gold Member
I remember George Bush, his breath was so foul we farted to make it smell better.
hangover
Gold Member
- Oct 8, 2013
- 5,734
- 642
- 190
- Thread starter
- #78
Sheesh! Thick as a brick, cons are. I wish I could draw you a picture, as you can't comprehend what you read. Obama Obama Obama appointed appointed appointed two two two of the judges judges judges to the Supreme Court Supreme Court
Supreme Court that made made made the decision decision decision that gave gave gave equal equal equal rights rights rights to gays gays gays to marry marry marry. The failure failure failure is your your your inability inability inability (inability means not able) to get logical explanations through your thick skull. A skull is a head. Logical and explanations are probably too big a words for you too. Oh well.
PredFan
Diamond Member
Yeah I understood it the first time and I debunked that stupidity. Got anything else? Something not stupid hopefully?
Similar threads
