Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conservatives give more to charity than Libs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Conservatives give more to charity than Libs

    http://digg.com/politics/Conservativ...als_as_a_whole

    The title of compassionate conservative may fall into disuse after this fallout of this book. The idea that Liberals are more sensitive takes a bath here. Interestingly, the 30% figure is for non church donations, PTL, environmental causes, & boy scouts.



    Conservatives charitably donate 30% more than liberals as a whole?
    ABC reports on charitable donations: "It turns out that this idea that liberals give more …is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election... Turns out conservatives give about 30 percent more, [despite] making less money."
    Last edited by Purple fang; 13 Jul 07, 01:56.

  • #2
    Nothing surprising about this at all.

    On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

    ACG History Today

    BoRG

    Comment


    • #3
      I thought this part of the article was more interesting and telling than the political affiliation angle:

      Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

      But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

      "No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."
      Love. Where does it come from?
      from The Thin Red Line

      Comment


      • #4
        No surprise here...

        Liberal are only 'charitable' when they are confiscating other people's money through the force/coercion of government, then giving it to someone else.
        Islam... it's a blast - literally.

        Comment


        • #5
          Even tho that smacks a bit libertarian to me I can concur Brother Reiryc...the typical Libleftist enjoys the taxology method to their advantage; which is to say garnering support thru failed social welfare...while increasing the burden on ethical and morally responsible citizens; who earn a tough living; and are still capable and have the compassion to give.

          best
          CV

          Comment


          • #6
            The lengths some will go to to feel superior.
            When giving to charity, does it really matter what your political affiliation is?
            I guess it does.
            "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

            Comment


            • #7
              Perhaps someone would care to opine on the following realization:

              An odd contradiction I have noticed in the left is this set of beliefs:

              1. You shouldn't take more than you need.
              2. You should be charitable.

              A lot of far left loons don't seem to realize that in order to be charitable you must first have more than you need. A person who struggles to feed their family can't afford to drop money in the till. A person who has everything they need and something left over is going to be the one giving money.
              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Slug View Post
                The lengths some will go to to feel superior.
                When giving to charity, does it really matter what your political affiliation is?
                I guess it does.
                I wouldn't say this is a p--ing contest as much as it is leveling the playing field. For so long liberals have stereotyped conservatives and greedy, miserly, miserable people. Now a big helping of humble pie is served up as it becomes apparent that not only are conservatives NOT greedy and miserly, they are actually giving proportionately more.

                I never rub my donations in someone's face, but when someone dares to suggest that because I am a Republican I am automatically a money grubbing heartless slimeball I will put them in their place and demonstrate otherwise with the facts and figures of my contributions to prove it.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
                  Perhaps someone would care to opine on the following realization:

                  An odd contradiction I have noticed in the left is this set of beliefs:

                  1. You shouldn't take more than you need.
                  2. You should be charitable.

                  A lot of far left loons don't seem to realize that in order to be charitable you must first have more than you need. A person who struggles to feed their family can't afford to drop money in the till. A person who has everything they need and something left over is going to be the one giving money.
                  But even if you struggle to make ends meet, aren't you supposed to tithe(if you are religious) at least 10% of your income to the church you attend? Isn't this giving to charity as the Church uses this money for it's needs and charities? And how many religious people do this? 10% of any income is good chunk of change. Giving $20 to the collection plate is not 10%. So did that question get asked in that poll? And do any church members on this forum give their 10%? I know that we go to church regularly and we don't give anywhere near 10% to our church. Just can't afford it. But you're supposed to and I'm pretty sure that tithing is mentioned in the Bible.
                  Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Slug View Post
                    The lengths some will go to to feel superior.
                    When giving to charity, does it really matter what your political affiliation is?
                    I guess it does.

                    ah but there lies the dilema Slug ole compadre.....charity is in and of itself, not a natural human tendency, but historicaly has had to be prompted, by a theological belief system imo....

                    and with the secularization and deliberate, attempted, theological eradication, of all things, the same; the fundo Liblefty... destroys the nessecity of it; and attempts to replaces it with an obsfucatory, utopian, universal, secular concept, of welfare as a means to placate the needy...

                    co-incedenetly garnering votes for his political agenda....which also, is in and of itself, as much self-serving as service to the poor. And while the same can be applied to the right insofar as the political agenda might be concerned, in many cases, the basis for their compassion at heart, remains theological and traditonal.

                    best on ya brother.
                    CV

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by revans View Post
                      But even if you struggle to make ends meet, aren't you supposed to tithe(if you are religious) at least 10% of your income to the church you attend? Isn't this giving to charity as the Church uses this money for it's needs and charities? And how many religious people do this? 10% of any income is good chunk of change. Giving $20 to the collection plate is not 10%. So did that question get asked in that poll? And do any church members on this forum give their 10%? I know that we go to church regularly and we don't give anywhere near 10% to our church. Just can't afford it. But you're supposed to and I'm pretty sure that tithing is mentioned in the Bible.
                      I'm not sure where you're going with this as it relates to my post. I was simply noting that wealthy people can give more yet liberals want to knock out wealth while at the same time preserving charitable giving which is impossible since one requires the other.
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Slugmeister
                        The lengths some will go to to feel superior.
                        Indeed!

                        But such a deflective aspersion is in itself such a length.

                        Originally posted by Slugmeister
                        When giving to charity, does it really matter what your political affiliation is?
                        Naw, it shouldn't, when it comes to actually giving.

                        All that should matter is that one helps another... be it your neighbor, or by any other means of consciously extending your hand & heart to others in need of it.

                        Originally posted by Slugmeister
                        I guess it does.
                        However... for the purpose of this discussion, it would seem so...

                        In that political philos has its own dogmas & ideals, I reckon that maybe it is not surprising that liberals & conservatives differ in their giving. Regardless... those truly in need do not likely distinguish the political persuasion of those that help them unless said help is made or offered with politics written all over it - which is often the case.

                        As often as not, I see quite a few 'progressive' entities casting similar aspersions as your 1st comment, Slug. Often when faulty elements of social welfare are disputed & the idea that individuals can do as much or more for others than some sort of mandated or trendy enactment or bureaucracy requiring as much or more dinero to administer & distribute as the need they purport to fill is expressed. I sometimes get the distinct impression they do it because they wish to dominate the political issue & think they, themselves, have some sort of monopoly on the better interests of our fellow man... that subscription to some mythical sort of imposed ways & means to acheive a universal lack of material suffering & need is somehow the only way to save the world & feel good about ones sense of general compassion. Not to mention the pandering for votes their semantics might yield in the process of painting any engaged in discussion to the contrary as somehow devious or ominously wrong.

                        Considering how impersonally removed from the result that progressively enacted 'charity' leaves one, & more often, than not, the wasteful expense of it all... I'm frankly surprised that anybody would be enamoured with the idea that an individual should be forced to be generically 'generous' & 'compassionate'. Instead, I choose to put every penny I am ably inclined, spiritually inspired, & humanely desirous of giving, into the hands of those I perceive in most need of it. And by whatever means I choose. This, in addition to that which is already taken from me to be given willy nilly to as many that don't need it, as do.

                        I don't need somebody else to tell me how or when to do it. Nor do I need somebody else to tell me that my faith & belief in truly compassionate giving & generosity, as a human trait, is more powerful an indication of the human condition & real hope for humankind... than any unrealistic expression that our only hope of achieving a world in which no need or suffering occurs will somehow result from an unfeeling collective or mandated 'compassion' imposed on any group of individuals.

                        In my opinion... this issue might be more about the fact that a million people acting personally to alleviate suffering is far more likely to accomplish more... than the progressive idea that requires taking it from some, to give to others, ever will.

                        Nah, Slug... I don't need somebody tellin me, or even implying I think I'm "superior" because I have & choose to express an opinion on it that runs contrary to yours, or others. Those usually making such a judgment are quite often as guilty in the doing of it, as the charge they make of it.
                        Last edited by Admiral; 15 Jul 07, 08:04. Reason: Spellin
                        On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

                        ACG History Today

                        BoRG

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Admiral View Post
                          Nah, Slug... I don't need somebody tellin me, or even implying I think I'm "superior" because I have & choose to express an opinion on it that runs contrary to yours, or others. Those usually making such a judgment are quite often as guilty in the doing of it, as the charge they make of it.
                          Giving to charity, should not be seen as some sort of contest between political groups.
                          As I travel through life, I don't see the need to judge so much of it through political lenses.
                          Last edited by Slug; 14 Jul 07, 23:48.
                          "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The Liberals are only interested in eating babies, buying Cadillacs for black people and turning Christian men into homosexuals.
                            "I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend."

                            Jack Handy

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Deathrider6 View Post
                              The Liberals are only interested in eating babies, buying Cadillacs for black people and turning Christian men into homosexuals.
                              Hello Deathrider,
                              I'm not doing very well.
                              I'm a liberal, and I'm batting one for four here.
                              I'm competitive though.
                              • I have had sugar babies.
                              • I know a guy who drives a Cadillac.
                              • I teach Black People.
                              • I'm not sure, but I think I have been around some homosexuals.
                              Can I get a base on balls?

                              "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X