If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

[daniel49]

cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

 

[sandorski]

meh

 

[Craig234]

A lot of good people are duped by the right-wing republicans in to voting republican. They donate to charity.

It's my view that private charity can't begin to touch the good our society can do acting through government, and while we have these radicals controlling the republican party, we need to shift our money from charity to electing democrats, which will do much more good. When the government is safely democratic, donations to charities can resume.

It's too bad the modern republicans force that shift of money away from charities by being such a menace.

By the way, one of the effects of repealing the estate tax would be to devastate charitable donations.

 

[trenchfoot]

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

bolded segment is where this study is comparing green apples with ripe oranges.

in all fairness, the conclusion should have been derived from comparing religious conservatives with religious liberals instead of secular liberals as noted.

or, at the least, a complementary comparison mirroring the original study whereby religious liberals and secular republicans are compared should have been compiled within the study.

therefore, the OP's topic title is somewhat misleading.

edit - syntax

 

[Red Dawn]

Tax write offs.

 

[Isla]

If conservatives put more money into religious charities and liberals are more concerned with conserving the earth's resources and being good stewards of the planet, I think the word 'conservative' doesn't mean what it used to mean. "Pharisee" is a better word for what conservative means today.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just because they claimed more on their tax returns doesn't mean they actually gave more...

And "Charity" is a pretty loosely defined term. Bob Jones University was built by so-called "charity", as were fundie mega-church campuses... various fundie-whack thinktanks are financed the same way.

What sort of "charitable" function do they actually serve?

If my money goes to Elmer Gantry rather than to actually feed hungry people, what kind of "Charity" is that?

 

[1EZduzit]

What else could make a conservative give away his money, his GUILTY CONSCIENCE of course.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood."

Interesting...and I've always thought that liberals were the light of the world to the poor and needy. I guess they are as long as they personally aren't paying for it. There's a word for that...

It looks like Libs need to take a good honest look at both themselves and conservatives. Maybe, conservatives aren't the demon spawn that they're so often depicted to be. Maybe, just maybe, they do actually care about the poor and needy. Or maybe, you think otherwise and chalk it up as just another neocon propaganda ploy...letting the hatred and anger continue to cloud the heart and ability to think rationally.

 

[cwjerome]

"If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?"

Because most libs don't care about the little guy nearly as much as they proclaim. They just hate the "big guy."

 

[Trevelyan]

Not surprising... we're also happier!

 

[shadow9d9]

I don't think "liberals" consider politicians to be their heroes... They care about what they do in office and don't care if Cheney gave 1 billion to charity... His actions have kept the U.S. hooked on oil, which enrichens the ME, has pushed us to an ill conceived war killing 10s of thousands and has pushed legislation that limits our rights.... If you think this is offset by charity, you need to learn priorities!

 

[Capitalizt]

Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Lefties are conservative with their money....liberal with yours.

Haha, I think you just won the thread.

 

[Steeplerot]

A study recently conducted by a graduate student at Southern Connecticut University showed that mentally ill patients were more likely to have voted for George Bush in the last presidential race. Graduate student Christopher Lohse, SCSU psychology professor Jaak Rakfelt and statistical analyst Misty Ginacola studied a group of psychiatric outpatients and found that the more severe the delusional thinking, the more likely that person was to declare his or her support for Bush.

Interviewed recently by the New Haven Advocate newspaper, Lohse said that the research they were doing was unrelated to these findings, but he theorizes that the more psychotic the patient, the more likely he or she is to unquestionably embrace an authoritarian leader telling them what?s what in the world.

Incidentally, or perhaps predictably, Bush supporters in the study exhibited more ignorance about what?s what in the world. ?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.

The researchers said the results are supported by a study in 1977 that found mentally ill patients were more likely to have supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern.

:laugh:

BTW sleazy tax writeoffs and giving money to some christo-taliban mega church is not charity.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
A study recently conducted by a graduate student at Southern Connecticut University showed that mentally ill patients were more likely to have voted for George Bush in the last presidential race. Graduate student Christopher Lohse, SCSU psychology professor Jaak Rakfelt and statistical analyst Misty Ginacola studied a group of psychiatric outpatients and found that the more severe the delusional thinking, the more likely that person was to declare his or her support for Bush.

Interviewed recently by the New Haven Advocate newspaper, Lohse said that the research they were doing was unrelated to these findings, but he theorizes that the more psychotic the patient, the more likely he or she is to unquestionably embrace an authoritarian leader telling them what?s what in the world.

Incidentally, or perhaps predictably, Bush supporters in the study exhibited more ignorance about what?s what in the world. ?Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,? the study says.

The researchers said the results are supported by a study in 1977 that found mentally ill patients were more likely to have supported Richard Nixon over George McGovern.

:laugh:

BTW sleazy tax writeoffs and giving money to some christo-taliban mega church is not charity.

I didn't know that you supported Bush.



This is great, all I see is excuses from the Libs, haha.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234
A lot of good people are duped by the right-wing republicans in to voting republican. They donate to charity.

It's my view that private charity can't begin to touch the good our society can do acting through government, and while we have these radicals controlling the republican party, we need to shift our money from charity to electing democrats, which will do much more good. When the government is safely democratic, donations to charities can resume.

It's too bad the modern republicans force that shift of money away from charities by being such a menace.

By the way, one of the effects of repealing the estate tax would be to devastate charitable donations.

Your bolded is a big fat lmao at you sir!
Charity through govt is nothing more than forced slavery for your set of morals. At least private charities are voluntary.

btw our country gives the most out of any country in the world. The US govt taxes and gives away ~10-15 billion while private charities give away ~34 billion.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Charity through govt is nothing more than forced slavery for your set of morals. At least private charities are voluntary.

Damn the MAN fer makin me payup! git the shotgun ma!

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
"The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood."

Interesting...and I've always thought that liberals were the light of the world to the poor and needy. I guess they are as long as they personally aren't paying for it. There's a word for that...

It looks like Libs need to take a good honest look at both themselves and conservatives. Maybe, conservatives aren't the demon spawn that they're so often depicted to be. Maybe, just maybe, they do actually care about the poor and needy. Or maybe, you think otherwise and chalk it up as just another neocon propaganda ploy...letting the hatred and anger continue to cloud the heart and ability to think rationally.

little funny you think in between all the quail hunting trips and Haliburton stories the NY Times couldn't find a headline for almost 7 million in charitable giving?

 

[fskimospy]

little funny you think in between all the quail hunting trips and Haliburton stories the NY Times couldn't find a headline for almost 7 million in charitable giving?

No, actually its not funny at all? Most CEOs and powerful people (except for the Waltons) give lots of money to charity. It's not news. Shooting a 60-odd year old man in the face... now that's news! Newspapers exist to make money, and nobody wants to read the charitiable giving section of Cheney's tax return. They DO want to hear about corruption, favoritism, and scandal though. Just how the business works.

While I have no doubt that you're right that conservatives give away more money to charity then secularists, there are a few points that are pretty obvious that everyone should probably recognize. First, the religious right is exactly that... religious. The bible emphasizes charity and so it's not particularly surprising that when you base your life off a book that tells you to give to charity, that you give more then the average nonbeliever. Second, seems like charity in all its forms in the US is adding up to about $50 billion a year. The programs, progressive taxation, etc that leftists support in all their myriad forms add up to way way more then $50 billion a year.

You can say that conservatives give more to charity then liberals do on an individual level, but I don't think that it accurately protrays both sides' positions.

Oh, and Cheney still shot some old man in the face. hahahahaha.

 

[bobdelt]

It makes perfect sense. Republicans beleive the gov't should be smaller and charities should have a more important role, so they are probably more willing to donate. They are also more religious.

Dems on the other hand, are very stuck up and pretentious and use feel good politics to make them feel better about themselves. So sure they are nicier on the surface but they are all hypocrits.


Did anyone catch that thing on abc the other night, talked about how americans donate much more money for foreign aid than our actuall gov't does and way more than any other nation? I thought that was pretty interesting.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
cheney $6.87 million dollars to charity in 2005
Gore when he was VP in 1997? $367.00
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623660/posts

null

"Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable"

So you compare two people and then extrapolate out to cover all 300,000,000 Americans? Dude, your a statistical genius! :laugh:

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Outlawing Abortion through govt is nothing more than forced slavery (through involuntary childbirth/parenthood) for your set of morals.

Fixed for you.

 

[BoomerD]

Do away with the tax write-offs for charitable deductions, and see whether that conservative well dries up or not...Allowing tax deductions for charitable contributions is just another means of government support for all these charities...Why pay taxes on your money, when you can give some of it away to your "favorite charity", and deduct that from your taxes?

Let's do away with ALL deductions to taxes...charity, religious, mortgage, etc...we'll see HOW charitable people are, when they can't write it off theor 1040 at the end of the year...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Genx87
Outlawing Abortion through govt is nothing more than forced slavery (through involuntary childbirth/parenthood) for your set of morals.

Fixed for you.

Try again brainiac, and way to bring in a completly different topic.
Ill give you a hint, nobody forced those two people to engage in sex.